Datasets:

cjziems

/

Article-Bias-Prediction

like 1

JKH9hpAskN31J0KY

lgbt_rights

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/october/these-are-very-dark-times-jury-rules-against-tx-dad-as-ex-wife-tries-to-turn-their-son-into-a-girl

'These Are Very Dark Times': Jury Rules Against TX Dad as Ex-Wife Tries to Turn Their Son into a Girl

2019-10-22

A Texas father has lost his legal attempt to stop his ex-wife from turning their 7-year-old son into a girl . Jeff Younger has been locked in a dispute with his ex-wife Dr. Anne Georgulas who has accused him of child abuse for not treating their son James like a girl . He says she 's the one abusing their son by trying to change his biological gender . Now LifeSite News reports a jury and judge have collectively ruled against Younger , which appears to give Georgulas the go-ahead to turn James into `` Luna '' . Conservative commentator Matt Walsh tweeted , `` I ca n't get over this case in Texas . A mother decided that her 7-year-old boy is really a girl because he liked the movie Frozen . The husband insisted that he 's a boy . Courts got involved . Jury just ruled that , yes , the boy is a girl and he will now be 'transitioned ' into one . '' I ca n't get over this case in Texas . A mother decided that her 7 year old boy is really a girl because he liked the movie Frozen . The husband insisted that he 's a boy . Courts got involved . Jury just ruled that , yes , the boy is a girl and he will now be `` transitioned '' into one . — Matt Walsh ( @ MattWalshBlog ) October 22 , 2019 `` I do n't think people realize just how monumental this case is . We 've just crossed a threshold as a society . There 's no going back . These are very dark times , '' Walsh writes . Younger said he 's simply looking out for the best interests of his James who identifies as a boy when he 's with his dad and only expresses interest in femininity when he is near his mother . James ' father writes on his website SaveJames.com , `` When James is with me , he shows no signs of wanting to be a girl when given the choice . Even when in female company , away from me , James rejects a female gender expression . '' The SaveJames site contends , `` This suggests that the diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria should be reviewed by an independent psychologist . James has never had an independent second opinion . Medical and social intervention should be suspended until James ' father can get a good second opinion . '' Younger told the Luke Macias podcast , `` I believe this is not just emotional abuse but is the very most fundamental form of sexual abuse , tampering with the sexual identity of a vulnerable boy . '' Macias says this is about the LGBT activist agenda reaching the next level in America . `` The most radical in our society have not found themselves content with expanding their own horizons and throwing off truth in regards to their own lives . They are actively experimenting on the children of Texas , '' he says . ███ News contacted Dr. Georgulas ' attorney but did not receive a reply .

A Texas father has lost his legal attempt to stop his ex-wife from turning their 7-year-old son into a girl. Jeff Younger has been locked in a dispute with his ex-wife Dr. Anne Georgulas who has accused him of child abuse for not treating their son James like a girl. He says she's the one abusing their son by trying to change his biological gender. Now LifeSite News reports a jury and judge have collectively ruled against Younger, which appears to give Georgulas the go-ahead to turn James into "Luna". Conservative commentator Matt Walsh tweeted, "I can't get over this case in Texas. A mother decided that her 7-year-old boy is really a girl because he liked the movie Frozen. The husband insisted that he's a boy. Courts got involved. Jury just ruled that, yes, the boy is a girl and he will now be 'transitioned' into one." I can't get over this case in Texas. A mother decided that her 7 year old boy is really a girl because he liked the movie Frozen. The husband insisted that he's a boy. Courts got involved. Jury just ruled that, yes, the boy is a girl and he will now be "transitioned" into one. — Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) October 22, 2019 "I don't think people realize just how monumental this case is. We've just crossed a threshold as a society. There's no going back. These are very dark times," Walsh writes. Younger said he's simply looking out for the best interests of his James who identifies as a boy when he's with his dad and only expresses interest in femininity when he is near his mother. James' father writes on his website SaveJames.com, "When James is with me, he shows no signs of wanting to be a girl when given the choice. Even when in female company, away from me, James rejects a female gender expression." The SaveJames site contends, "This suggests that the diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria should be reviewed by an independent psychologist. James has never had an independent second opinion. Medical and social intervention should be suspended until James' father can get a good second opinion." Younger told the Luke Macias podcast, "I believe this is not just emotional abuse but is the very most fundamental form of sexual abuse, tampering with the sexual identity of a vulnerable boy." Macias says this is about the LGBT activist agenda reaching the next level in America. "The most radical in our society have not found themselves content with expanding their own horizons and throwing off truth in regards to their own lives. They are actively experimenting on the children of Texas," he says. CBN News contacted Dr. Georgulas' attorney but did not receive a reply.

www1.cbn.com

right

JKH9hpAskN31J0KY

test

vtcsrTtSRJ8KuPGQ

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Judge-Trump-University-Litigants-Settle/2016/11/12/id/758522/

Judge Tells Trump University Litigants They Would be Wise to Settle

2016-11-12

The U.S. judge overseeing a lawsuit against President-elect Donald Trump and his Trump University told both sides they would be wise to settle the case `` given all else that 's involved . '' Lawyers for the president-elect are squaring off against students who claim they were they were lured by false promises to pay up to $ 35,000 to learn Trump 's real estate investing `` secrets '' from his `` hand-picked '' instructors . Earlier on Thursday , U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel tentatively rejected a bid by Trump to keep a wide range of statements from the presidential campaign out of the fraud trial . Trump owned 92 percent of Trump University and had control over all major decisions , the students ' court papers say . The president-elect denies the allegations and has argued that he relied on others to manage the business . Trial is scheduled to begin Nov. 28 , and Curiel told lawyers he was not inclined to delay the six-year-old case further . Trump lawyer Daniel Petrocelli said he would ask to put the trial on hold until early next year , in light of the many tasks the magnate has before his inauguration . Curiel said he would allow both sides to file briefs on whether to delay the case . He also indicated they should consider making a deal . `` It would be wise for the plaintiffs , for the defendants , to look closely at trying to resolve this case given all else that 's involved , '' Curiel said . Petrocelli told reporters after the hearing that Trump might have to be a `` little more flexible '' about settling the case now that he is president-elect , although the lawyer was n't sure his client would was willing . Curiel said that he would allow Trump to testify via video given his presidential obligations . In the tentative ruling Curiel , based in San Diego , said Trump 's lawyers can renew objections to specific campaign statements and evidence during trial . Trump 's attorneys had argued that jurors should not hear about statements Trump made during the campaign , including about Curiel himself . Trump attacked the judge as biased against him . He claimed Curiel , who was born in Indiana but is of Mexican descent , could not be impartial because of Trump 's pledge to build a wall between the United States and Mexico . Trump 's lawyers argued that Curiel should bar from the trial accusations about Trump 's personal conduct including alleged sexual misconduct , his taxes and corporate bankruptcies , along with speeches and tweets . They argued the information is irrelevant to the jury and prejudicial to the case . In court papers , lawyers for the students claimed that Trump 's statements would help jurors as they weigh the Republican 's credibility . `` Defendants have not identified specific evidence that they wish to exclude , '' Curiel wrote on Thursday . `` Accordingly , the court declines to issue a blanket ruling at this time . '' The judge also barred Trump lawyers from telling jurors that the university had a 98 percent approval rate on student evaluations . That rating is irrelevant as to whether Trump University misrepresented itself , Curiel wrote . Curiel is presiding over two cases against Trump and the university . A separate lawsuit by New York 's attorney general is pending .

The U.S. judge overseeing a lawsuit against President-elect Donald Trump and his Trump University told both sides they would be wise to settle the case "given all else that's involved." Lawyers for the president-elect are squaring off against students who claim they were they were lured by false promises to pay up to $35,000 to learn Trump's real estate investing "secrets" from his "hand-picked" instructors. Earlier on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel tentatively rejected a bid by Trump to keep a wide range of statements from the presidential campaign out of the fraud trial. Trump owned 92 percent of Trump University and had control over all major decisions, the students' court papers say. The president-elect denies the allegations and has argued that he relied on others to manage the business. Trial is scheduled to begin Nov. 28, and Curiel told lawyers he was not inclined to delay the six-year-old case further. Trump lawyer Daniel Petrocelli said he would ask to put the trial on hold until early next year, in light of the many tasks the magnate has before his inauguration. Curiel said he would allow both sides to file briefs on whether to delay the case. He also indicated they should consider making a deal. "It would be wise for the plaintiffs, for the defendants, to look closely at trying to resolve this case given all else that's involved," Curiel said. Petrocelli told reporters after the hearing that Trump might have to be a "little more flexible" about settling the case now that he is president-elect, although the lawyer wasn't sure his client would was willing. Curiel said that he would allow Trump to testify via video given his presidential obligations. In the tentative ruling Curiel, based in San Diego, said Trump's lawyers can renew objections to specific campaign statements and evidence during trial. Trump's attorneys had argued that jurors should not hear about statements Trump made during the campaign, including about Curiel himself. Trump attacked the judge as biased against him. He claimed Curiel, who was born in Indiana but is of Mexican descent, could not be impartial because of Trump's pledge to build a wall between the United States and Mexico. Trump's lawyers argued that Curiel should bar from the trial accusations about Trump's personal conduct including alleged sexual misconduct, his taxes and corporate bankruptcies, along with speeches and tweets. They argued the information is irrelevant to the jury and prejudicial to the case. In court papers, lawyers for the students claimed that Trump's statements would help jurors as they weigh the Republican's credibility. "Defendants have not identified specific evidence that they wish to exclude," Curiel wrote on Thursday. "Accordingly, the court declines to issue a blanket ruling at this time." The judge also barred Trump lawyers from telling jurors that the university had a 98 percent approval rate on student evaluations. That rating is irrelevant as to whether Trump University misrepresented itself, Curiel wrote. Curiel is presiding over two cases against Trump and the university. A separate lawsuit by New York's attorney general is pending.

www.newsmax.com

right

vtcsrTtSRJ8KuPGQ

test

rSrxotv5G53l5k3R

lgbt_rights

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/august/federal-govt-agrees-to-investigate-connecticut-policy-abolishing-girls-only-sports-due-to-transgender-opponents

Federal Gov't Agrees to Investigate Connecticut Policy Abolishing Girls-Only Sports Due to Transgender Opponents

2019-08-08

The federal government announced Wednesday it will investigate allegations of discrimination filed by three Connecticut teenage girl athletes against Connecticut 's policy regarding transgender athletes . The US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights confirmed they have granted the girls ' request for an investigation . Ever since the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference adopted a policy that allows biological males who claim a female identity to compete in girls ' athletic events , boys have consistently deprived Selina Soule and two other female athletes of honors and opportunities to compete at elite levels . As ███ News reported last June , the girls claim they were racing at a disadvantage against their transgender opponent , a male who identifies as a female , affecting the final results of the race . Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing the athletes formally requested the investigation . The CIAC policy regularly results in biological boys out-performing and displacing girls in competitive high school track events across Connecticut . Throughout the 2018-19 track season , males consistently deprived the female athletes who are part of the complaint of multiple medals , opportunities to compete at a higher level , and the public recognition critical to college recruiting and scholarship opportunities . The complaint notes that CIAC 's policy and its results directly violated the requirements of Title IX , a federal law designed to protect equal athletic opportunities for women and girls . `` Female athletes deserve to compete on a level playing field . Forcing them to compete against boys makes them spectators in their own sports , which is grossly unfair and destroys their athletic opportunities , '' ADF Legal Counsel Christiana Holcomb said in a press release . `` For that reason , we are pleased that OCR has agreed to investigate . Title IX is a federal law that was designed to eliminate discrimination against women in education and athletics , and women fought long and hard to earn the equal athletic opportunities that Title IX provides . Allowing boys to compete in girls ' sports reverses nearly 50 years of advances for women . '' The ADF complaint demonstrates that CIAC 's new policy and others like it pose a concrete threat to Title IX gains : `` Because of the basic physiological differences and resulting strongly statistically significant differences in athletic capability and performance between boys and girls after puberty , no one could credibly claim that a school satisfies its obligation to provide equal opportunities for girls for participation in athletics by providing , e.g. , only coed track or wrestling teams and competitions , with sex-blind try-outs and qualification based strictly upon performance . '' The complaint also describes how one mid-level male sophomore athlete failed to advance in boys ' indoor track events during the Winter 2018 season and then abruptly began competing in the girls ' events in the Spring 2018 outdoor track season . The student then `` deprived girls of opportunities to advance and participate in the state-level competition '' in every statewide elimination track event that the student completed . That student now holds more than 10 records within the state of Connecticut that once belonged to 10 different girls . `` Selina and her fellow female athletes train countless hours in hope of the personal satisfaction of victory , an opportunity to participate in state and regional meets , or a chance at a college scholarship , '' Holcomb continued . `` But girls competing against boys know the outcome before the race even starts . Boys will always have physical advantages over girls ; that 's the reason we have women 's sports and the reason we look forward to OCR 's investigation . ''

The federal government announced Wednesday it will investigate allegations of discrimination filed by three Connecticut teenage girl athletes against Connecticut's policy regarding transgender athletes. The US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights confirmed they have granted the girls' request for an investigation. Ever since the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference adopted a policy that allows biological males who claim a female identity to compete in girls' athletic events, boys have consistently deprived Selina Soule and two other female athletes of honors and opportunities to compete at elite levels. As CBN News reported last June, the girls claim they were racing at a disadvantage against their transgender opponent, a male who identifies as a female, affecting the final results of the race. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing the athletes formally requested the investigation. The CIAC policy regularly results in biological boys out-performing and displacing girls in competitive high school track events across Connecticut. Throughout the 2018-19 track season, males consistently deprived the female athletes who are part of the complaint of multiple medals, opportunities to compete at a higher level, and the public recognition critical to college recruiting and scholarship opportunities. The complaint notes that CIAC's policy and its results directly violated the requirements of Title IX, a federal law designed to protect equal athletic opportunities for women and girls. "Female athletes deserve to compete on a level playing field. Forcing them to compete against boys makes them spectators in their own sports, which is grossly unfair and destroys their athletic opportunities," ADF Legal Counsel Christiana Holcomb said in a press release. "For that reason, we are pleased that OCR has agreed to investigate. Title IX is a federal law that was designed to eliminate discrimination against women in education and athletics, and women fought long and hard to earn the equal athletic opportunities that Title IX provides. Allowing boys to compete in girls' sports reverses nearly 50 years of advances for women." The ADF complaint demonstrates that CIAC's new policy and others like it pose a concrete threat to Title IX gains: "Because of the basic physiological differences and resulting strongly statistically significant differences in athletic capability and performance between boys and girls after puberty, no one could credibly claim that a school satisfies its obligation to provide equal opportunities for girls for participation in athletics by providing, e.g., only coed track or wrestling teams and competitions, with sex-blind try-outs and qualification based strictly upon performance." The complaint also describes how one mid-level male sophomore athlete failed to advance in boys' indoor track events during the Winter 2018 season and then abruptly began competing in the girls' events in the Spring 2018 outdoor track season. The student then "deprived girls of opportunities to advance and participate in the state-level competition" in every statewide elimination track event that the student completed. That student now holds more than 10 records within the state of Connecticut that once belonged to 10 different girls. "Selina and her fellow female athletes train countless hours in hope of the personal satisfaction of victory, an opportunity to participate in state and regional meets, or a chance at a college scholarship," Holcomb continued. "But girls competing against boys know the outcome before the race even starts. Boys will always have physical advantages over girls; that's the reason we have women's sports and the reason we look forward to OCR's investigation."

www1.cbn.com

right

rSrxotv5G53l5k3R

test

bP607FHWgObyOVXY

politics

Guest Writer - Right

https://reason.com/archives/2019/02/28/what-politicians-must-do-when

OPINION: What Politicians Must Do When Protesters Attack

2019-02-28

Mike Riggs, Zuri Davis, Christian Britschgi, Josh Blackman, Cosmo Wenman, Joe Setyon

In June , Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen was heckled out of MXDC , an upscale Mexican eatery in the nation 's capital . In September , Sen. Ted Cruz ( R–Texas ) and his wife were hounded from Georgetown 's Fiola . In each instance , protesters associated with the group Smash Racism D.C. entered the restaurants and harangued their targets until they left . The incidents provided further fodder for a newly heated national conversation about `` civility '' under Donald Trump 's presidency . Critics of the protesters bemoaned the radical left 's lack of good manners , while defenders argued that , with family separations at the border and the confirmation of an accused rapist to the Supreme Court , the time for politeness had passed . Both sides seemed to think the other was crossing lines that had previously been inviolable . But such a claim is historically illiterate at best . The U.S. government has done worse , both domestically and abroad , and America 's public servants have faced much harsher blowback . Consider former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara , today remembered as the overseer of America 's disastrous war in Vietnam . On November 2 , 1965 , he was in his office at the Pentagon when a young Quaker from Baltimore named Norman Morrison parked 40 feet from McNamara 's window , stepped into plain view , and doused himself in kerosene while holding his own infant daughter . As the story goes , Morrison tossed his daughter to a bystander seconds before burning himself alive to protest America 's military presence in Southeast Asia . McNamara watched him die ; even three decades later , talking about the incident with his literary collaborator Brian VanDeMark `` brought him to tears . '' While Morrison 's death was more jarring than any heckling visited on contemporary D.C. power holders , McNamara would face a still more physical and intimate protest a year later , when he traveled to Harvard to speak at the business school , which he 'd attended , and to address undergraduates in an off-the-record seminar hosted by the Harvard Kennedy School 's Institute of Politics . The American ground war had just officially begun , and the radical-left Students for a Democratic Society ( SDS ) wanted McNamara to come clean about civilian casualties in Laos and Vietnam . When the SDS was denied a chance to question him at the Kennedy School forum , they decided to confront him as he left for another speaking engagement . Some 800 protesters surrounded McNamara 's car , which contained only the secretary and a driver armed with a pistol . ( In his 1995 memoir , In Retrospect , McNamara says the car also featured a tear-gas dispenser shaped like a pen , with which he once gassed Eunice Kennedy Shriver during a backseat demonstration . ) That 's when `` all hell broke loose , '' McNamara recounted . The protesters managed to block the car from the front and the back and began to rock the vehicle with McNamara inside . He had to stop his driver from running down the students , and then concluded that the only way to resolve the impasse was to step outside . Unguarded , he emerged into a furious crowd , where he agreed to answer two questions posed by Michael Ansara , the president of the Harvard SDS chapter . What happened next depends on whose history you 're reading . McNamara writes in his memoir that in order to prevent the protesters from becoming violent , he told them that he , too , had been politically engaged during his undergraduate days at Berkeley . `` I was tougher than you then and I 'm tougher than you today . I was more courteous then and I hope I am more courteous today , '' he claims he said . Ansara remembers the moment a little differently . In a 2017 retrospective published by The Harvard Crimson , the former student activist told reporter Laszlo B. Herwitz that the toughness line was a response to Ansara asking McNamara if he would n't disclose civilian casualties because he did n't know or because he did n't care . `` He started shrieking , ' I was tougher then and I 'm tougher now , ' '' Ansara told Herwitz , claiming that McNamara put his finger on Ansara 's chest as he said it . ( Both men agree that McNamara did n't say much else before jumping off the car 's hood and rushing through Quincy House , escorted by a student named Barney Frank , who would later go on to a 30-year career in Congress . ) After McNamara returned to Washington , D.C. , he received a letter from Harvard College Dean John Munro , apologizing for the students ' behavior . McNamara would n't have it . He wrote back to Munro that `` dissent is both the prerogative and the preservative of free men everywhere . '' In fact , McNamara endured dissent pretty much everywhere he went during his tenure as defense secretary , and he typically handled it with the same magnanimity . At the Seattle airport , a fellow traveler spat on him and called him a murderer . In Aspen , Colorado , a woman approached him and his wife at a restaurant while they ate dinner and called him a `` baby burner . '' McNamara recalled these incidents as stressful and upsetting , but he never once suggested that the people who confronted him were out of line , and he certainly did n't feel they were endangering him . ( Even when he actually was in danger , as was the case in 1972 , when a young man tried to throw him over the railing on a ferry headed to Martha 's Vineyard , he refused to press charges . ) McNamara defended Americans ' right to protest and to petition the government for a redress of grievances . While he and his family likely felt that certain parts of their lives should be off-limits , he seems to have understood , in a way contemporary wielders of bureaucratic and political power seemingly do not , that public servants should not expect the people they serve to observe government office hours . To say they do n't make them like McNamara anymore would not exactly be true . The American war machine is chugging right along , and American politicians and bureaucrats will occasionally cop to their bad judgment once they 're no longer in power , as McNamara did in his memoir . Even in real time , McNamara had his doubts . He writes that he knew the Vietnam War was a bad idea before the U.S. deployed a ground force , and he knew that bombing Laos into oblivion would n't stop the flow of supplies and people from the North Vietnamese Army into South Vietnam . He did not do enough to stop President Lyndon Johnson from wading deeper into the conflict , and he accepted that the American public would make him pay for it . Perhaps that 's what is missing from today 's debate about civility . Public confrontation is a historically normal—if unpleasant—response to the immense power wielded by office holders . Our leaders have become incessantly sanctimonious , almost eager to be victimized . They seem not to understand , and certainly not to accept , the tradeoffs that come with their positions . In a 2004 interview with the Harvard Business School , McNamara , then 88 , insisted that America 's ruling class—its politicians but also its private sector leaders—lacked integrity . `` Integrity , '' he told Garry Emmons , `` is the fulfilling of one 's responsibility to all constituents . '' Likewise , integrity means suffering the protesters during dinner , at the airport , at the grocery store , because every person affected by a power holder 's decisions is his or her constituent , regardless of party ID . And if the interruptions and catcalls are too much , our rulers can do what McNamara arguably waited too long to : relinquish power and return to life as a private citizen .

In June, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen was heckled out of MXDC, an upscale Mexican eatery in the nation's capital. In September, Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) and his wife were hounded from Georgetown's Fiola. In each instance, protesters associated with the group Smash Racism D.C. entered the restaurants and harangued their targets until they left. The incidents provided further fodder for a newly heated national conversation about "civility" under Donald Trump's presidency. Critics of the protesters bemoaned the radical left's lack of good manners, while defenders argued that, with family separations at the border and the confirmation of an accused rapist to the Supreme Court, the time for politeness had passed. Both sides seemed to think the other was crossing lines that had previously been inviolable. But such a claim is historically illiterate at best. The U.S. government has done worse, both domestically and abroad, and America's public servants have faced much harsher blowback. Consider former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, today remembered as the overseer of America's disastrous war in Vietnam. On November 2, 1965, he was in his office at the Pentagon when a young Quaker from Baltimore named Norman Morrison parked 40 feet from McNamara's window, stepped into plain view, and doused himself in kerosene while holding his own infant daughter. As the story goes, Morrison tossed his daughter to a bystander seconds before burning himself alive to protest America's military presence in Southeast Asia. McNamara watched him die; even three decades later, talking about the incident with his literary collaborator Brian VanDeMark "brought him to tears." While Morrison's death was more jarring than any heckling visited on contemporary D.C. power holders, McNamara would face a still more physical and intimate protest a year later, when he traveled to Harvard to speak at the business school, which he'd attended, and to address undergraduates in an off-the-record seminar hosted by the Harvard Kennedy School's Institute of Politics. The American ground war had just officially begun, and the radical-left Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) wanted McNamara to come clean about civilian casualties in Laos and Vietnam. When the SDS was denied a chance to question him at the Kennedy School forum, they decided to confront him as he left for another speaking engagement. Some 800 protesters surrounded McNamara's car, which contained only the secretary and a driver armed with a pistol. (In his 1995 memoir, In Retrospect, McNamara says the car also featured a tear-gas dispenser shaped like a pen, with which he once gassed Eunice Kennedy Shriver during a backseat demonstration.) That's when "all hell broke loose," McNamara recounted. The protesters managed to block the car from the front and the back and began to rock the vehicle with McNamara inside. He had to stop his driver from running down the students, and then concluded that the only way to resolve the impasse was to step outside. Unguarded, he emerged into a furious crowd, where he agreed to answer two questions posed by Michael Ansara, the president of the Harvard SDS chapter. What happened next depends on whose history you're reading. McNamara writes in his memoir that in order to prevent the protesters from becoming violent, he told them that he, too, had been politically engaged during his undergraduate days at Berkeley. "I was tougher than you then and I'm tougher than you today. I was more courteous then and I hope I am more courteous today," he claims he said. Ansara remembers the moment a little differently. In a 2017 retrospective published by The Harvard Crimson, the former student activist told reporter Laszlo B. Herwitz that the toughness line was a response to Ansara asking McNamara if he wouldn't disclose civilian casualties because he didn't know or because he didn't care. "He started shrieking, 'I was tougher then and I'm tougher now,'" Ansara told Herwitz, claiming that McNamara put his finger on Ansara's chest as he said it. (Both men agree that McNamara didn't say much else before jumping off the car's hood and rushing through Quincy House, escorted by a student named Barney Frank, who would later go on to a 30-year career in Congress.) After McNamara returned to Washington, D.C., he received a letter from Harvard College Dean John Munro, apologizing for the students' behavior. McNamara wouldn't have it. He wrote back to Munro that "dissent is both the prerogative and the preservative of free men everywhere." In fact, McNamara endured dissent pretty much everywhere he went during his tenure as defense secretary, and he typically handled it with the same magnanimity. At the Seattle airport, a fellow traveler spat on him and called him a murderer. In Aspen, Colorado, a woman approached him and his wife at a restaurant while they ate dinner and called him a "baby burner." McNamara recalled these incidents as stressful and upsetting, but he never once suggested that the people who confronted him were out of line, and he certainly didn't feel they were endangering him. (Even when he actually was in danger, as was the case in 1972, when a young man tried to throw him over the railing on a ferry headed to Martha's Vineyard, he refused to press charges.) McNamara defended Americans' right to protest and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. While he and his family likely felt that certain parts of their lives should be off-limits, he seems to have understood, in a way contemporary wielders of bureaucratic and political power seemingly do not, that public servants should not expect the people they serve to observe government office hours. To say they don't make them like McNamara anymore would not exactly be true. The American war machine is chugging right along, and American politicians and bureaucrats will occasionally cop to their bad judgment once they're no longer in power, as McNamara did in his memoir. Even in real time, McNamara had his doubts. He writes that he knew the Vietnam War was a bad idea before the U.S. deployed a ground force, and he knew that bombing Laos into oblivion wouldn't stop the flow of supplies and people from the North Vietnamese Army into South Vietnam. He did not do enough to stop President Lyndon Johnson from wading deeper into the conflict, and he accepted that the American public would make him pay for it. Perhaps that's what is missing from today's debate about civility. Public confrontation is a historically normal—if unpleasant—response to the immense power wielded by office holders. Our leaders have become incessantly sanctimonious, almost eager to be victimized. They seem not to understand, and certainly not to accept, the tradeoffs that come with their positions. In a 2004 interview with the Harvard Business School, McNamara, then 88, insisted that America's ruling class—its politicians but also its private sector leaders—lacked integrity. "Integrity," he told Garry Emmons, "is the fulfilling of one's responsibility to all constituents." Likewise, integrity means suffering the protesters during dinner, at the airport, at the grocery store, because every person affected by a power holder's decisions is his or her constituent, regardless of party ID. And if the interruptions and catcalls are too much, our rulers can do what McNamara arguably waited too long to: relinquish power and return to life as a private citizen.

www.reason.com

right

bP607FHWgObyOVXY

test

oHL9CNT75GHGpxmn

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/24/trump-voters-see-his-flaws-but-stand-by-president-who-shakes-things-up

Trump voters see his flaws but stand by president who 'shakes things up'

2017-12-24

Tom Mccarthy

Northampton County , Pennsylvania flipped from reliably blue to backing Trump – and despite his disappointments , many still say there was no better alternative Trump voters see his flaws but stand by president who 'shakes things up ' Trump voters see his flaws but stand by president who 'shakes things up ' Every Christmas , Jeff and Denise Fox have the neighbors over . The door stays open all day . People come and go for food , coffee and conversation . The tradition continued after Jeff , 58 , was diagnosed with cancer in 2009 . Even with chemotherapy and the medical bills racking up , the Foxes found reasons to celebrate . This year , those reasons include their son ’ s transfer from an air force base in South Korea to one in Germany and , they hope , out of harm ’ s way . Last year , the reasons to celebrate included the election of Donald Trump . Both registered Republicans , neither Fox had started as a huge fan of the Manhattan real-estate developer . Jeff supported Carly Fiorina in the sprawling Republican primary contest , and Denise , 54 , admired Ben Carson , a fellow evangelical Christian . Their votes mattered a lot because the Foxes live in Northampton County , Pennsylvania , a bellwether county that voted twice for Barack Obama before backing Trump . The area is home to many ageing Democrats whose family politics were forged from the unionized ranks of Bethlehem Steel , once the region ’ s economic juggernaut , or in the formerly vibrant clothing mills and slate quarries around the Foxes ’ home in Pen Argyl . Almost all of that economic activity is gone , with scant signs of replacement . Some residents now make a long commute to work in one of the new warehouses along the I-78 corridor . Others have sold and moved away . There ’ s a sense of waiting for something new to happen , and then waiting some more . By his description , Fox took the Trump plunge out of a conviction that politics as usual was irreversibly broken . We have voted with our principle and our conscience for all these years , and where has it gotten us ? It ’ s time to vote to shake things up . As the anniversary of Trump ’ s inauguration approached , Fox sat in his dining room and reflected on how that decision had played out . He lamented what he said was a decline in civil discourse surrounding politics and intensifying media malpractice . He was not thrilled with tax legislation the president was preparing to sign . He said his personal economic prospects had not improved . And he said the president should “ keep his hands off the tweet button , just take the high road and govern ” . But like many bedrock Republican voters across the country , Fox ultimately stood behind Trump , pointing to economic growth , restricted immigration and what he said were other improvements in American life under the president . Fox also thought Trump was providing a service by subverting politics as usual . “ It can be fun to watch – politicians attack Trump , Trump attacks the politicians and the media , it ’ s like a circus , in a way it ’ s like ‘ Give me some popcorn , ’ you know what I mean , ” he said . “ I don ’ t necessarily see it as a bad thing . It ’ s bringing some things to light . Maybe , is that what we needed , to kind of shake things up and stir the pot a little it ? Maybe , who knows . ” ███ has been interviewing Trump supporters in Northampton County over the last year to determine whether Trump is living up to his promise , in the eyes of his supporters . Fox , who switched his registration from Republican to Independent during the election out of disgust with what he felt had become poisonous partisanship , rejected the premise of the question , explaining that his last-minute support for Trump was not motivated by pie-in-the-sky hopes of what Trump might deliver so much as it was driven by a dearth of options . Trump is not important to me . The direction or the philosophy is more important than the person . It ’ s not the hill I would want to die on , if you want to put it that way . ” If the election came around again tomorrow , Fox said , he might be lured away from Trump by the right candidate – but certainly not by the likes of Hillary Clinton . “ Given the same two candidates and the same scenario , I would vote the same way . ” Trump appears to be in political danger . Despite a surging stock market , a flood of new jobs and a humming economic growth rate , the president ’ s approval rating has been stuck in the mid- to upper-30s since May . That ’ s probably at least 10 points short of where it needs to be for Trump to be re-elected , according to postwar precedent for incumbents . That ’ s if Trump makes it to 2020 . While it ’ s a longshot that the special counsel investigation into links between Russia and the Trump presidential campaign would dislodge the president from office , the likelihood of impeachment hearings would increase were Democrats to grab control of Congress in the 2018 midterm elections . That possibility drew closer with the victory of Democrat Doug Jones in a special Senate election in Alabama , and with a weakening in support for Republican candidates nationally . On a generic ballot , Democrats appear to have opened an 11-point advantage over Republicans , according to NBC News/Wall Street Journal polling from December . The shift was palpable on a recent afternoon inside Detzi ’ s Tavern in Wind Gap , Pennsylvania , where a cup of “ housemade Italian wedding ” soup costs $ 3.50 and the draft special was $ 2 pints of Michelob Ultra . Inside at a big table were seven women , all former colleagues at Bangor Blouse Company , a mill that had closed for good in 1988 after , one explained , “ we lost all of our stuff to China ” . They were catching up and wrapping gifts for the holidays , but when the talk turned to politics , only one would speak up in favor of Trump , in an area where the Republican presidential candidate had dominated . “ They don ’ t talk to me about it because they ’ re all for Hillary , ” said the woman , who declined to give her name because “ I don ’ t want to be crucified . ” “ Most of the blouse mills were Democrats , ” she continued . “ Because I used to go to all of the Democratic rallies and everything . Because they were for the unions . And the people . They were for us . ” But only Trump would confront the threat of immigration , she said . “ All these illegals in , and they ’ re putting us out . They don ’ t care about the Americans any more . ” Another woman at the table , Carla DiBernardo , 71 , said the 2016 presidential election had represented a tragic missed opportunity – but not for Hillary Clinton . “ Did you see they had Joe Biden on The View ? ” DiBernardo asked . “ And I think he ’ s a wonderful person . He should have been president . And I was thinking how different it would be , if he had run . ” “ He speaks so professionally , ” her friend agreed . Everyone at the table thought Biden could have won – and for that matter could win next time . The big disagreement at lunch , however , was over sexual harassment allegations against the president : “ No . It ’ s about time women get the power back . I ’ m sorry but – ” “ Get their power back ? They never had it . They were always tossed under the chair . ” The imposing slopes of the Blue Mountain ridge at the top of Northampton County , which is traced by the Appalachian Trail , held snow cover after it had melted elsewhere . People wore gloves outside to smoke . Traffic from the big industrial parks and distribution centers seemed to pick up with a seasonal intensity . A local newspaper had published a letter protesting against the billboard , drawing responses that ranged from dismissive to caustic . “ Did you move here from NJ or the city ? ” asked one . “ Stop trying to impose your views on the public . ” 'Women are pissed ' : Trump protest turns to action – and surge in female candidates Read more As much as it is a national bellwether , the Lehigh Valley is also a place with a deep sense of local identity and a pride built in part on generational memories of blast furnaces that used to glow orange through the night . Fox ’ s grandfather worked at Bethlehem Steel , as an accountant . Fox ’ s last job , before he got cancer , was as a salesman at the furniture chain Raymour & Flanigan . One of his daughters has worked for a decade at Walmart . “ The only debt we have is healthcare debt , ” said Fox , who receives social security and disability payments . “ We ’ ve worked our way out of everything else . It ’ s amazing what we do with what we get . “ It would be nice for me to say , I got $ 40,000 of medical bills , so it ’ d be nice if someone paid them for me . Some would say , ‘ It ’ d be nice , the easy way. ’ But it ’ s real . “ It ’ s not the responsibility of the government to pay the bills . ”

Northampton County, Pennsylvania flipped from reliably blue to backing Trump – and despite his disappointments, many still say there was no better alternative Trump voters see his flaws but stand by president who 'shakes things up' Trump voters see his flaws but stand by president who 'shakes things up' Every Christmas, Jeff and Denise Fox have the neighbors over. The door stays open all day. People come and go for food, coffee and conversation. The tradition continued after Jeff, 58, was diagnosed with cancer in 2009. Even with chemotherapy and the medical bills racking up, the Foxes found reasons to celebrate. This year, those reasons include their son’s transfer from an air force base in South Korea to one in Germany and, they hope, out of harm’s way. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Jeff Fox, 58, a cancer survivor, and retired furniture salesman, at his residence on 13 December 2017 in Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania. Photograph: Mark Makela/The Guardian Last year, the reasons to celebrate included the election of Donald Trump. Both registered Republicans, neither Fox had started as a huge fan of the Manhattan real-estate developer. Jeff supported Carly Fiorina in the sprawling Republican primary contest, and Denise, 54, admired Ben Carson, a fellow evangelical Christian. Their votes mattered a lot because the Foxes live in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, a bellwether county that voted twice for Barack Obama before backing Trump. The area is home to many ageing Democrats whose family politics were forged from the unionized ranks of Bethlehem Steel, once the region’s economic juggernaut, or in the formerly vibrant clothing mills and slate quarries around the Foxes’ home in Pen Argyl. Almost all of that economic activity is gone, with scant signs of replacement. Some residents now make a long commute to work in one of the new warehouses along the I-78 corridor. Others have sold and moved away. There’s a sense of waiting for something new to happen, and then waiting some more. By his description, Fox took the Trump plunge out of a conviction that politics as usual was irreversibly broken. We have voted with our principle and our conscience for all these years, and where has it gotten us? It’s time to vote to shake things up. As the anniversary of Trump’s inauguration approached, Fox sat in his dining room and reflected on how that decision had played out. He lamented what he said was a decline in civil discourse surrounding politics and intensifying media malpractice. He was not thrilled with tax legislation the president was preparing to sign. He said his personal economic prospects had not improved. And he said the president should “keep his hands off the tweet button, just take the high road and govern”. But like many bedrock Republican voters across the country, Fox ultimately stood behind Trump, pointing to economic growth, restricted immigration and what he said were other improvements in American life under the president. Fox also thought Trump was providing a service by subverting politics as usual. “It can be fun to watch – politicians attack Trump, Trump attacks the politicians and the media, it’s like a circus, in a way it’s like ‘Give me some popcorn,’ you know what I mean,” he said. “I don’t necessarily see it as a bad thing. It’s bringing some things to light. Maybe, is that what we needed, to kind of shake things up and stir the pot a little it? Maybe, who knows.” The Guardian has been interviewing Trump supporters in Northampton County over the last year to determine whether Trump is living up to his promise, in the eyes of his supporters. Fox, who switched his registration from Republican to Independent during the election out of disgust with what he felt had become poisonous partisanship, rejected the premise of the question, explaining that his last-minute support for Trump was not motivated by pie-in-the-sky hopes of what Trump might deliver so much as it was driven by a dearth of options. Trump is not important to me. The direction or the philosophy is more important than the person. It’s not the hill I would want to die on, if you want to put it that way.” If the election came around again tomorrow, Fox said, he might be lured away from Trump by the right candidate – but certainly not by the likes of Hillary Clinton. “Given the same two candidates and the same scenario, I would vote the same way.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest A group of friends, all former employees at Bangor Blouse Company, exchange presents Dietz Tavern on 13 December 2017 in Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania. Photograph: Mark Makela/The Guardian ‘We lost all of our stuff to China’ Trump appears to be in political danger. Despite a surging stock market, a flood of new jobs and a humming economic growth rate, the president’s approval rating has been stuck in the mid- to upper-30s since May. That’s probably at least 10 points short of where it needs to be for Trump to be re-elected, according to postwar precedent for incumbents. That’s if Trump makes it to 2020. While it’s a longshot that the special counsel investigation into links between Russia and the Trump presidential campaign would dislodge the president from office, the likelihood of impeachment hearings would increase were Democrats to grab control of Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. That possibility drew closer with the victory of Democrat Doug Jones in a special Senate election in Alabama, and with a weakening in support for Republican candidates nationally. On a generic ballot, Democrats appear to have opened an 11-point advantage over Republicans, according to NBC News/Wall Street Journal polling from December. The shift was palpable on a recent afternoon inside Detzi’s Tavern in Wind Gap, Pennsylvania, where a cup of “housemade Italian wedding” soup costs $3.50 and the draft special was $2 pints of Michelob Ultra. Inside at a big table were seven women, all former colleagues at Bangor Blouse Company, a mill that had closed for good in 1988 after, one explained, “we lost all of our stuff to China”. They were catching up and wrapping gifts for the holidays, but when the talk turned to politics, only one would speak up in favor of Trump, in an area where the Republican presidential candidate had dominated. “They don’t talk to me about it because they’re all for Hillary,” said the woman, who declined to give her name because “I don’t want to be crucified.” “Most of the blouse mills were Democrats,” she continued. “Because I used to go to all of the Democratic rallies and everything. Because they were for the unions. And the people. They were for us.” But only Trump would confront the threat of immigration, she said. “All these illegals in, and they’re putting us out. They don’t care about the Americans any more.” Another woman at the table, Carla DiBernardo, 71, said the 2016 presidential election had represented a tragic missed opportunity – but not for Hillary Clinton. “Did you see they had Joe Biden on The View?” DiBernardo asked. “And I think he’s a wonderful person. He should have been president. And I was thinking how different it would be, if he had run.” “He speaks so professionally,” her friend agreed. Everyone at the table thought Biden could have won – and for that matter could win next time. The big disagreement at lunch, however, was over sexual harassment allegations against the president: “Isn’t this womanizer thing crazy?” “No. It’s about time women get the power back. I’m sorry but –” “Get their power back? They never had it. They were always tossed under the chair.” “Exactly!” Facebook Twitter Pinterest A digital billboard advertises a gun shop located in Easton, Pennsylvania. Photograph: Mark Makela/The Guardian ‘Santa’s firearms workshop’ The imposing slopes of the Blue Mountain ridge at the top of Northampton County, which is traced by the Appalachian Trail, held snow cover after it had melted elsewhere. People wore gloves outside to smoke. Traffic from the big industrial parks and distribution centers seemed to pick up with a seasonal intensity. There were other signs of the season. At the side of one highway, a digital billboard for a gun shop featured a picture of Santa Claus holding a semiautomatic rifle. The caption: “Santa’s firearms workshop.” A local newspaper had published a letter protesting against the billboard, drawing responses that ranged from dismissive to caustic. “Did you move here from NJ or the city?” asked one. “Stop trying to impose your views on the public.” 'Women are pissed': Trump protest turns to action – and surge in female candidates Read more As much as it is a national bellwether, the Lehigh Valley is also a place with a deep sense of local identity and a pride built in part on generational memories of blast furnaces that used to glow orange through the night. Fox’s grandfather worked at Bethlehem Steel, as an accountant. Fox’s last job, before he got cancer, was as a salesman at the furniture chain Raymour & Flanigan. One of his daughters has worked for a decade at Walmart. “The only debt we have is healthcare debt,” said Fox, who receives social security and disability payments. “We’ve worked our way out of everything else. It’s amazing what we do with what we get. “It would be nice for me to say, I got $40,000 of medical bills, so it’d be nice if someone paid them for me. Some would say, ‘It’d be nice, the easy way.’ But it’s real. “It’s not the responsibility of the government to pay the bills.”

www.theguardian.com

left

oHL9CNT75GHGpxmn

test

QJrNuqbJ15H0uCqn

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/17/mueller-report-trump-russia-investigation-redacted-document-information

Five key things to look for in the Mueller report

2019-04-17

Tom Mccarthy

Barr has said the report has two parts : one on Russian tampering efforts and one on alleged obstruction of justice by Trump Five key things to look for in the Mueller report On Thursday , the US justice department is expected to release a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s long-awaited report on Russian election tampering and the Donald Trump campaign to the public . The attorney general , William Barr , has announced a press conference at the justice department at 9.30am to discuss it . Mueller report : redacted Trump-Russia findings to be released today – live Read more Barr has previously described the Mueller report as having two parts : one part devoted to describing the Russian tampering efforts , believed to include a rundown of Russian contacts with Trump campaign officials ; and one part devoted to evidence of alleged obstruction of justice by the president . Here are five things to look out for with the release of the report , which reportedly runs to nearly 400 pages and is officially titled Report on the Investigation Into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election : Mueller report : the key takeaways from the Trump-Russia investigation Read more The Mueller report “ catalogu [ es ] the President ’ s actions ” that could amount to an obstruction of justice by Trump , according to an earlier letter issued by Barr summarizing his view of the report ’ s findings . How much of this catalogue will the public get to see on Thursday ? Mueller left the decision of whether to charge Trump to Barr , who decided not to . But it appears that Mueller gathered substantial evidence of potential obstruction of justice by the president . In his letter , Barr quoted this line from the report : “ While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime , it also does not exonerate him . ” What did Mueller , a lifelong prosecutor , see or discover that led him to believe that the president might have committed a crime ? According to Barr , the Mueller report does exonerate the Trump campaign from allegations that it conspired with Russia . In his letter , Barr quoted the report : “ [ T ] he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities . ” But there are signs that the report contains new information about contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russian operatives . One source close to Mueller ’ s team told NBC News that the report “ paint [ s ] a picture of a campaign whose members were manipulated by a sophisticated Russian intelligence operation ” . Trump ’ s political base appears to be unbothered by his campaign ’ s contacts with Russia , and by his subsequent chronic lying about those contacts . But could the report put those contacts in a new light ? Mueller delivered his report one month ago , on 22 March . Since then , Barr and colleagues in the justice department have been preparing it for release to Congress and the public . A big question is how much of the report will be redacted . Barr is seen as a Trump loyalist with a low opinion of Mueller ’ s investigation . Barr will probably be challenged to explain why certain material was deemed unfit for public view . Democrats in the House have already said they will subpoena the full report . Barr has described to Congress four categories of material he intended to redact and said the redactions would be color-coded by category : first , grand jury information , including witness interviews ; second , classified information ; third , information related to continuing investigations ; fourth , so-called derogatory information – information about people who were interviewed or scrutinized in investigations but not charged . In the report , Mueller ’ s team included multiple summary paragraphs intended for quick public release after the report was submitted to Barr , according to multiple media accounts . Some members of Mueller ’ s team were reported to have been displeased that Barr did not release the summaries . The report was prepared “ so that the front matter from each section could have been released immediately – or very quickly ” , one official not on Mueller ’ s team told the Washington Post . “ It was done in a way that minimum redactions , if any , would have been necessary , and the work would have spoken for itself . ” Will we see the summaries ? Will they be significantly redacted ? Russia investigation : who has been charged , convicted and jailed ? Read more Based on media reports and previous indictments , the public knows some of what was going on behind the scenes as the Trump campaign lurched toward victory in 2016 , Russian operatives dangling off it , leech-like , on all sides . But the Mueller report , which would draw on material not available to journalists , such as surveilled communications and seized evidence , could reveal what was really happening in some of the set pieces from the Trump campaign and early presidency . We might find out more about what happened at a June 2016 Trump Tower meeting , and whether Trump was ignorant of the meeting , as he claims . New evidence could come to light about the firing of former FBI director James Comey . We could learn more about Trump campaign contacts with WikiLeaks . The report could contain damaging new information about the conduct of Trump family members , including Donald Trump Jr and Jared Kushner , who have been accused of using the campaign to try to enrich their companies and keeping up inappropriate , if not illegal , contacts with foreign operatives . The Mueller report might weigh in on whether Trump told Michael Cohen to lie to Congress , as Cohen has alleged , or whether Trump tried at least twice to fire Mueller , only to be stopped by the former White House counsel Don McGahn , as has been reported . But key sections of the Mueller report might remain redacted for now .

Barr has said the report has two parts: one on Russian tampering efforts and one on alleged obstruction of justice by Trump Five key things to look for in the Mueller report On Thursday, the US justice department is expected to release a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s long-awaited report on Russian election tampering and the Donald Trump campaign to the public. The attorney general, William Barr, has announced a press conference at the justice department at 9.30am to discuss it. Mueller report: redacted Trump-Russia findings to be released today – live Read more Barr has previously described the Mueller report as having two parts: one part devoted to describing the Russian tampering efforts, believed to include a rundown of Russian contacts with Trump campaign officials; and one part devoted to evidence of alleged obstruction of justice by the president. Here are five things to look out for with the release of the report, which reportedly runs to nearly 400 pages and is officially titled Report on the Investigation Into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election: Mueller report: the key takeaways from the Trump-Russia investigation Read more Obstruction of justice The Mueller report “catalogu[es] the President’s actions” that could amount to an obstruction of justice by Trump, according to an earlier letter issued by Barr summarizing his view of the report’s findings. How much of this catalogue will the public get to see on Thursday? Mueller left the decision of whether to charge Trump to Barr, who decided not to. But it appears that Mueller gathered substantial evidence of potential obstruction of justice by the president. In his letter, Barr quoted this line from the report: “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” What did Mueller, a lifelong prosecutor, see or discover that led him to believe that the president might have committed a crime? Contacts with Russia According to Barr, the Mueller report does exonerate the Trump campaign from allegations that it conspired with Russia. In his letter, Barr quoted the report: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” But there are signs that the report contains new information about contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russian operatives. One source close to Mueller’s team told NBC News that the report “paint[s] a picture of a campaign whose members were manipulated by a sophisticated Russian intelligence operation”. Trump’s political base appears to be unbothered by his campaign’s contacts with Russia, and by his subsequent chronic lying about those contacts. But could the report put those contacts in a new light? Redactions Mueller delivered his report one month ago, on 22 March. Since then, Barr and colleagues in the justice department have been preparing it for release to Congress and the public. A big question is how much of the report will be redacted. Barr is seen as a Trump loyalist with a low opinion of Mueller’s investigation. Barr will probably be challenged to explain why certain material was deemed unfit for public view. Democrats in the House have already said they will subpoena the full report. Barr has described to Congress four categories of material he intended to redact and said the redactions would be color-coded by category: first, grand jury information, including witness interviews; second, classified information; third, information related to continuing investigations; fourth, so-called derogatory information – information about people who were interviewed or scrutinized in investigations but not charged. That last category could prominently include Trump. Summaries In the report, Mueller’s team included multiple summary paragraphs intended for quick public release after the report was submitted to Barr, according to multiple media accounts. Some members of Mueller’s team were reported to have been displeased that Barr did not release the summaries. The report was prepared “so that the front matter from each section could have been released immediately – or very quickly”, one official not on Mueller’s team told the Washington Post. “It was done in a way that minimum redactions, if any, would have been necessary, and the work would have spoken for itself.” Will we see the summaries? Will they be significantly redacted? Russia investigation: who has been charged, convicted and jailed? Read more Scenes Based on media reports and previous indictments, the public knows some of what was going on behind the scenes as the Trump campaign lurched toward victory in 2016, Russian operatives dangling off it, leech-like, on all sides. But the Mueller report, which would draw on material not available to journalists, such as surveilled communications and seized evidence, could reveal what was really happening in some of the set pieces from the Trump campaign and early presidency. We might find out more about what happened at a June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, and whether Trump was ignorant of the meeting, as he claims. New evidence could come to light about the firing of former FBI director James Comey. We could learn more about Trump campaign contacts with WikiLeaks. The report could contain damaging new information about the conduct of Trump family members, including Donald Trump Jr and Jared Kushner, who have been accused of using the campaign to try to enrich their companies and keeping up inappropriate, if not illegal, contacts with foreign operatives. The Mueller report might weigh in on whether Trump told Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, as Cohen has alleged, or whether Trump tried at least twice to fire Mueller, only to be stopped by the former White House counsel Don McGahn, as has been reported. But key sections of the Mueller report might remain redacted for now.

www.theguardian.com

left

QJrNuqbJ15H0uCqn

test

UrOCDFxpnUdK8K9b

fbi

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/november/robert-mueller-accuses-paul-manafort-of-lying-breaking-plea-deal

Trump Says Mueller 'Gone Rogue' as Mueller Team Makes Manafort Plea Deal Allegations

2018-11-26

WASHINGTON – Special counsel Robert Mueller is accusing former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort of failing to uphold his part of the plea deal in the Russia investigation . Under the agreement , Manafort pledged to `` cooperate fully , truthfully , completely , and forthrightly '' with the special counsel `` in any and all matters '' prosecutors deemed necessary . In addition to his activities with the Trump campaign , that would include his Ukrainian political work – something that 's still being investigated by the US attorney for the Southern District of New York . But a court filing Monday says that instead of full cooperation , Manafort `` committed federal crimes '' by lying to investigators `` on a variety of subject matters '' two months after he began working with the Mueller team . The allegation could expose the former Trump campaign chief to a lengthier prison sentence and possibly additional criminal charges – including the 10 felony counts that were dropped when he entered into the agreement . However , defense attorneys for Manafort are disputing Mueller 's claims , insisting their client had been nothing less than truthful with prosecutors . `` After signing the plea agreement , Manafort met with the government on numerous occasions and answered the government 's questions , '' they said in court documents . `` Manafort has provided information to the government in an effort to live up to his cooperation obligations . He believes he has provided truthful information and does not agree with the government 's characterization or that he has breached the agreement . '' Meanwhile , President Donald Trump himself weighed in on the matter Tuesday morning , calling the Mueller team 's allegations a `` phony witch hunt . '' `` The Phony Witch Hunt continues , but Mueller and his gang of Angry Dems are only looking at one side , not the other , '' the president tweeted . `` Wait until it comes out how horribly & viciously they are treating people , ruining lives for them refusing to lie . Mueller is a conflicted prosecutor gone rogue .... '' Trump went on to suggest Mueller was a danger to the criminal justice process . `` The Fake News Media builds Bob Mueller up as a Saint , when in actuality he is the exact opposite , '' the president wrote . `` He is doing TREMENDOUS damage to our Criminal Justice System , where he is only looking at one side and not the other . Heroes will come of this , and it wo n't be Mueller and his ... ''

WASHINGTON – Special counsel Robert Mueller is accusing former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort of failing to uphold his part of the plea deal in the Russia investigation. Under the agreement, Manafort pledged to "cooperate fully, truthfully, completely, and forthrightly" with the special counsel "in any and all matters" prosecutors deemed necessary. In addition to his activities with the Trump campaign, that would include his Ukrainian political work – something that's still being investigated by the US attorney for the Southern District of New York. But a court filing Monday says that instead of full cooperation, Manafort "committed federal crimes" by lying to investigators "on a variety of subject matters" two months after he began working with the Mueller team. The allegation could expose the former Trump campaign chief to a lengthier prison sentence and possibly additional criminal charges – including the 10 felony counts that were dropped when he entered into the agreement. However, defense attorneys for Manafort are disputing Mueller's claims, insisting their client had been nothing less than truthful with prosecutors. "After signing the plea agreement, Manafort met with the government on numerous occasions and answered the government's questions," they said in court documents. "Manafort has provided information to the government in an effort to live up to his cooperation obligations. He believes he has provided truthful information and does not agree with the government's characterization or that he has breached the agreement." Meanwhile, President Donald Trump himself weighed in on the matter Tuesday morning, calling the Mueller team's allegations a "phony witch hunt." "The Phony Witch Hunt continues, but Mueller and his gang of Angry Dems are only looking at one side, not the other," the president tweeted. "Wait until it comes out how horribly & viciously they are treating people, ruining lives for them refusing to lie. Mueller is a conflicted prosecutor gone rogue...." Trump went on to suggest Mueller was a danger to the criminal justice process. "The Fake News Media builds Bob Mueller up as a Saint, when in actuality he is the exact opposite," the president wrote. "He is doing TREMENDOUS damage to our Criminal Justice System, where he is only looking at one side and not the other. Heroes will come of this, and it won't be Mueller and his..."

www1.cbn.com

right

UrOCDFxpnUdK8K9b

test

pUcCj88wqg4B5PRY

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/14/heads-are-finally-beginning-to-roll-at-the-clinton-foundation/

Heads Are Finally Beginning To Roll At The Clinton Foundation

2017-01-14

The Clinton Foundation announced it ’ s laying off 22 staffers on the Clinton Global Initiative , keeping with a plan to deal with the negative spotlight put on the organization during former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ’ s presidential campaign . The layoffs will take effect April 15 , the Clinton Foundation said in a filing with the New York Department of Labor Thursday , citing the discontinuation of the Clinton Global Initiative . The move is part of a plan put in motion ahead of the presidential election in order to offset a storm of criticism regarding pay-to-play allegations during Clinton ’ s tenure as secretary of state . The layoffs were reportedly announced internally in September , ahead of Clinton ’ s stunning loss to President-elect Donald Trump . Many other employees had already begun looking for or accepting other jobs at that time , as it had become clear the future of the initiative was in doubt . It ’ s unclear how many of the once 200 strong staff might remain at the Clinton Foundation in some other capacity . The Clinton Foundation could not immediately be reached for comment . While the FBI concluded its investigation into Clinton ’ s use of a private email server while secretary of state , a second investigation into the Clinton Foundation regarding allegations of corruption during that same tenure is ongoing . The decision to sunset the Clinton Global Initiative reportedly set off a dispute within Clinton Foundation circles regarding the best way to handle the fallout from the allegations . Some complained the layoff process was “ insensitively ” handled , Politico reported , while others took issue with the optics of allowing anyone with the Clinton Global Initiative to stay on .

The Clinton Foundation announced it’s laying off 22 staffers on the Clinton Global Initiative, keeping with a plan to deal with the negative spotlight put on the organization during former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The layoffs will take effect April 15, the Clinton Foundation said in a filing with the New York Department of Labor Thursday, citing the discontinuation of the Clinton Global Initiative. The move is part of a plan put in motion ahead of the presidential election in order to offset a storm of criticism regarding pay-to-play allegations during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. The layoffs were reportedly announced internally in September, ahead of Clinton’s stunning loss to President-elect Donald Trump. Many other employees had already begun looking for or accepting other jobs at that time, as it had become clear the future of the initiative was in doubt. It’s unclear how many of the once 200 strong staff might remain at the Clinton Foundation in some other capacity. The Clinton Foundation could not immediately be reached for comment. While the FBI concluded its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state, a second investigation into the Clinton Foundation regarding allegations of corruption during that same tenure is ongoing. The decision to sunset the Clinton Global Initiative reportedly set off a dispute within Clinton Foundation circles regarding the best way to handle the fallout from the allegations. Some complained the layoff process was “insensitively” handled, Politico reported, while others took issue with the optics of allowing anyone with the Clinton Global Initiative to stay on. Follow Rachel on Twitter Send tips to rachel@ dailycallernewsfoundation.org. 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

pUcCj88wqg4B5PRY

test

TG3fHvHBfXQuIN1Q

national_defense

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-security-usa-military/u-s-soldiers-who-fought-alongside-kurds-blast-trumps-syria-retreat-idUSKBN1X00ZO

U.S. soldiers who fought alongside Kurds blast Trump's Syria retreat

2019-10-21

Maria Caspani

( ███ ) - In the summer of 2004 , U.S. soldier Greg Walker drove to a checkpoint just outside of Baghdad ’ s Green Zone with his Kurdish bodyguard , Azaz . When he stepped out of his SUV , three Iraqi guards turned him around at gunpoint . Mark Giaconia , who served for 20 years in the U.S. Army , of which 15 years in the U.S. Special Forces and was embedded with the Kurds in Iraq , poses for a photograph at his house in Herndon , Virginia , U.S. , October 19 , 2019 . Picture taken October 19 , 2019 . ███/Carlos Jasso As he walked back to the vehicle , he heard an AK-47 being racked and a hail of cursing in Arabic and Kurdish . He turned to see Azaz facing off with the Iraqis . “ Let us through or I ’ ll kill you all , ” Walker recalled his Kurdish bodyguard telling the Iraqi soldiers , who he described as “ terrified . ” He thought to himself : “ This is the kind of ally and friend I want . ” Now retired and living in Portland , Oregon , the 66-year-old former Army Special Forces soldier is among legions of U.S. servicemembers with a deep gratitude and respect for Kurdish fighters they served alongside through the Iraq war and , more recently , conflicts with the Islamic State . So he was “ furious ” when President Donald Trump this month abruptly decided to pull 1,000 U.S. troops from northeast Syria , clearing the way for Turkey to move in on Kurdish-controlled territory . Walker ’ s rage was echoed in ███ interviews with a half dozen other current and former U.S. soldiers who have served with Kurdish forces . Mark Giaconia , a 46-year-old former U.S. Army special forces soldier , recalled similar camaraderie with the Kurds he fought with in Iraq more than a decade ago . “ I trusted them with my life , ” said Giaconia , who now lives in Herndon , Virginia , after retiring from the Army with 20 years of service . “ I fought with these guys and watched them die for us . ” The Trump administration ’ s decision to “ leave them hanging ” stirred deep emotions , Giaconia said . Trump ’ s abrupt decision to pull back U.S. troops from along the Syria-Turkey border allowed Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan to launch an offensive into the region aimed at creating a 20 mile ( 32 km ) “ safe zone ” clear of the Kurdish YPG militia . The Kurdish fighters had been Washington ’ s main ally in the region but the Turkish government regards them as a terrorist group . In the face of criticism from both Democrats and his own Republicans , Trump defended the move , saying that it fulfilled a campaign promise to reduce foreign troop presence and asserting that the Kurds were “ not angels . ” The Kurds pivoted quickly , allying themselves with Syria to try to hold off the Turkish onslaught . Trump then sent Vice President Michael Pence to Ankara to negotiate a pause in the fighting that the United States said would allow the Kurds to pull back from the area Turkey aimed to take , and which Turkey said achieved the main goal of the assault it launched Oct. 9 . Congressional Republicans - including Senator Lindsey Graham , normally a staunch Trump ally - fretted that the move would risk allowing the Islamic State militant group to resurge . “ Congress is going to speak with a very firm , singular voice , ” Graham said at a Thursday news conference to unveil legislation to impose new sanctions on the Turkish government . He said the “ Turkish outrage ” would lead to the re-emergence of Islamic State , the destruction of an ally - the Kurds - and eventually benefit Iran at the expense of Israel . The House of Representatives voted 354 to 60 last week to condemn Trump ’ s decision to withdraw U.S. forces from northeastern Syria - a rare case of Republicans voting en masse against Trump . A Senate vote on the resolution was blocked , however , by Republican Senator Rand Paul . Paul , a senator from Kentucky , has voiced his support Trump ’ s withdrawal of troops , saying during a Senate hearing on Thursday that “ the Constitution is quite clear , no authorization has ever been given for the use of forces in Syria . ” Some of the U.S. soldiers interviewed by ███ pointed out that the United States has history of forging alliances with Kurdish forces only to later abandon them . In the 1970s , the administration of President Richard Nixon secretly agreed to funnel money to Iraqi Kurds fighting for autonomy from Iraq , only to drop that aid after Iraq and Iran reached a peace treaty to end border disputes in 1975 . Likewise after the 1991 Gulf War , a Kurdish uprising against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein eventually led to a brutal crackdown after U.S. forces left the region . Those incidents came up often among Kurds who fought alongside a U.S. Army soldier who did several tours in the Middle East . “ Even then , they were bringing up the 1991 betrayal of the Kurds . This idea of betraying the Kurds was something that was very , very front of mind , ” said the soldier , who spoke on the condition of anonymity since he is still in the military . “ There was definitely some skepticism of our support of them long term . ” Kurds have come to know betrayal , said Kardos Dargala , a 38-year-old Iraqi Kurd whose relationship with the U.S. military dates back to 2004 and the second U.S. invasion of Iraq . “ Feeling betrayed , throughout history it is a very familiar pattern , ” said Dargala , who worked as a security contractor for the U.S. military until 2008 - when he immigrated to the United States , joined the U.S. Army , and was deployed to Afghanistan . Dargala , a U.S. citizen , was injured multiple times in combat . He returned to Iraq earlier this year to spend time with family members who are unable to travel to the United States . The president ’ s withdrawal of troops from Syria left him in disbelief . Dargala said Trump ’ s decision ran counter to U.S. values and interests and sent the wrong message to its allies . “ The path the president is on , ” he said , “ is a very destructive path . ”

(Reuters) - In the summer of 2004, U.S. soldier Greg Walker drove to a checkpoint just outside of Baghdad’s Green Zone with his Kurdish bodyguard, Azaz. When he stepped out of his SUV, three Iraqi guards turned him around at gunpoint. Mark Giaconia, who served for 20 years in the U.S. Army, of which 15 years in the U.S. Special Forces and was embedded with the Kurds in Iraq, poses for a photograph at his house in Herndon, Virginia, U.S., October 19, 2019. Picture taken October 19, 2019. REUTERS/Carlos Jasso As he walked back to the vehicle, he heard an AK-47 being racked and a hail of cursing in Arabic and Kurdish. He turned to see Azaz facing off with the Iraqis. “Let us through or I’ll kill you all,” Walker recalled his Kurdish bodyguard telling the Iraqi soldiers, who he described as “terrified.” He thought to himself: “This is the kind of ally and friend I want.” Now retired and living in Portland, Oregon, the 66-year-old former Army Special Forces soldier is among legions of U.S. servicemembers with a deep gratitude and respect for Kurdish fighters they served alongside through the Iraq war and, more recently, conflicts with the Islamic State. So he was “furious” when President Donald Trump this month abruptly decided to pull 1,000 U.S. troops from northeast Syria, clearing the way for Turkey to move in on Kurdish-controlled territory. Walker’s rage was echoed in Reuters interviews with a half dozen other current and former U.S. soldiers who have served with Kurdish forces. Mark Giaconia, a 46-year-old former U.S. Army special forces soldier, recalled similar camaraderie with the Kurds he fought with in Iraq more than a decade ago. “I trusted them with my life,” said Giaconia, who now lives in Herndon, Virginia, after retiring from the Army with 20 years of service. “I fought with these guys and watched them die for us.” The Trump administration’s decision to “leave them hanging” stirred deep emotions, Giaconia said. “It’s like a violation of trust,” he said. The White House declined to comment. BIPARTISAN CRITICISM Trump’s abrupt decision to pull back U.S. troops from along the Syria-Turkey border allowed Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan to launch an offensive into the region aimed at creating a 20 mile (32 km) “safe zone” clear of the Kurdish YPG militia. The Kurdish fighters had been Washington’s main ally in the region but the Turkish government regards them as a terrorist group. In the face of criticism from both Democrats and his own Republicans, Trump defended the move, saying that it fulfilled a campaign promise to reduce foreign troop presence and asserting that the Kurds were “not angels.” The Kurds pivoted quickly, allying themselves with Syria to try to hold off the Turkish onslaught. Trump then sent Vice President Michael Pence to Ankara to negotiate a pause in the fighting that the United States said would allow the Kurds to pull back from the area Turkey aimed to take, and which Turkey said achieved the main goal of the assault it launched Oct. 9. Congressional Republicans - including Senator Lindsey Graham, normally a staunch Trump ally - fretted that the move would risk allowing the Islamic State militant group to resurge. “Congress is going to speak with a very firm, singular voice,” Graham said at a Thursday news conference to unveil legislation to impose new sanctions on the Turkish government. He said the “Turkish outrage” would lead to the re-emergence of Islamic State, the destruction of an ally - the Kurds - and eventually benefit Iran at the expense of Israel. The House of Representatives voted 354 to 60 last week to condemn Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. forces from northeastern Syria - a rare case of Republicans voting en masse against Trump. A Senate vote on the resolution was blocked, however, by Republican Senator Rand Paul. Paul, a senator from Kentucky, has voiced his support Trump’s withdrawal of troops, saying during a Senate hearing on Thursday that “the Constitution is quite clear, no authorization has ever been given for the use of forces in Syria.” HISTORY OF ‘BETRAYAL’ Some of the U.S. soldiers interviewed by Reuters pointed out that the United States has history of forging alliances with Kurdish forces only to later abandon them. In the 1970s, the administration of President Richard Nixon secretly agreed to funnel money to Iraqi Kurds fighting for autonomy from Iraq, only to drop that aid after Iraq and Iran reached a peace treaty to end border disputes in 1975. Likewise after the 1991 Gulf War, a Kurdish uprising against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein eventually led to a brutal crackdown after U.S. forces left the region. Those incidents came up often among Kurds who fought alongside a U.S. Army soldier who did several tours in the Middle East. “Even then, they were bringing up the 1991 betrayal of the Kurds. This idea of betraying the Kurds was something that was very, very front of mind,” said the soldier, who spoke on the condition of anonymity since he is still in the military. “There was definitely some skepticism of our support of them long term.” Kurds have come to know betrayal, said Kardos Dargala, a 38-year-old Iraqi Kurd whose relationship with the U.S. military dates back to 2004 and the second U.S. invasion of Iraq. “Feeling betrayed, throughout history it is a very familiar pattern,” said Dargala, who worked as a security contractor for the U.S. military until 2008 - when he immigrated to the United States, joined the U.S. Army, and was deployed to Afghanistan. Slideshow (7 Images) Dargala, a U.S. citizen, was injured multiple times in combat. He returned to Iraq earlier this year to spend time with family members who are unable to travel to the United States. The president’s withdrawal of troops from Syria left him in disbelief. Dargala said Trump’s decision ran counter to U.S. values and interests and sent the wrong message to its allies. “The path the president is on,” he said, “is a very destructive path.”

www.reuters.com

center

TG3fHvHBfXQuIN1Q

test

GvRqnd6q1sAtThWS

federal_budget

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/cokie-roberts-norquist-emperor-clothes-17861706

Cokie Roberts on Norquist: 'The Emperor Has No Clothes'

Transcript for Cokie Roberts on Norquist : 'The Emperor Has No Clothes ' Drawing the line on tax rate increases in Grover Norquist has come out hard again of course thing Democrat and Republicans have to stand by the pledge . If the Republicans . Luz in such a way that they 've got their fingerprints on the murder weapon . Then you have a probably -- bush could n't run again in 92 successfully . Because he had his fingerprints on a very bad deal which -- that on spending and that on taxes and -- -- Is he right at those politics . You know I think not actually but I think you have to remember our fingerprints are n't on this if we . Cooperate with the president and make 80 % of the bush tax cuts permanent for 98 % of the American people that 's a victory now lost . And then we 're still free to try and fight the fight over higher rates offering revenue which is speakers put on the table . Politically to me that seems to be a much superior position and a messy deal at the end where it looks like we -- I think really the opting to take the initiative and actually again move the discussion . And what do what I want and what you also avoid there 'd been something else -- I think some Republicans are worried about not 92 . But 1994 when the government -- Newt Gingrich was -- Right that 's trust me talk Republicans that is what there were -- have no matter how this shakes out if we go over the fiscal cliff we are blamed I hear that over and over . I will -- look for something to what Tom is saying which is it is amazing notion to think that the Democrat just elected democratic president . -- necessary in order to make permanent the vast majority of Bush 's tax cuts those are tax cuts . That repealing those tax cuts are demonized by the Democrats they were n't just the tax rate cuts on the operate up their -- -- cuts across the board the idea that most of them could be made permanent . But bush could have gotten that done 2004 after being -- what you think Republicans . Should take a victory lap in that regard even -- find it . -- skeptical of . Raising the time it is really politically Smart to do this -- you know but it 's also politically Smart to cut the knees out from under Grover Norquist . Mean this guy is you know who is -- he 's -- I 'm Malek does not hit a lot -- -- -- the play -- yeah man that -- greater -- somebody 's annual Edinburgh has obviously has no clothes . This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100 % accurate .

Transcript for Cokie Roberts on Norquist: 'The Emperor Has No Clothes' Drawing the line on tax rate increases in Grover Norquist has come out hard again of course thing Democrat and Republicans have to stand by the pledge. If the Republicans. Luz in such a way that they've got their fingerprints on the murder weapon. Then you have a probably -- bush couldn't run again in 92 successfully. Because he had his fingerprints on a very bad deal which -- that on spending and that on taxes and -- -- Is he right at those politics. You know I think not actually but I think you have to remember our fingerprints aren't on this if we. Cooperate with the president and make 80% of the bush tax cuts permanent for 98% of the American people that's a victory now lost. And then we're still free to try and fight the fight over higher rates offering revenue which is speakers put on the table. Politically to me that seems to be a much superior position and a messy deal at the end where it looks like we -- I think really the opting to take the initiative and actually again move the discussion. And what do what I want and what you also avoid there'd been something else -- I think some Republicans are worried about not 92. But 1994 when the government -- Newt Gingrich was -- Right that's trust me talk Republicans that is what there were -- have no matter how this shakes out if we go over the fiscal cliff we are blamed I hear that over and over. I will -- look for something to what Tom is saying which is it is amazing notion to think that the Democrat just elected democratic president. -- necessary in order to make permanent the vast majority of Bush's tax cuts those are tax cuts. That repealing those tax cuts are demonized by the Democrats they weren't just the tax rate cuts on the operate up their -- -- cuts across the board the idea that most of them could be made permanent. But bush could have gotten that done 2004 after being -- what you think Republicans. Should take a victory lap in that regard even -- find it. -- skeptical of. Raising the time it is really politically Smart to do this -- you know but it's also politically Smart to cut the knees out from under Grover Norquist. Mean this guy is you know who is -- he's -- I'm Malek does not hit a lot -- -- -- the play -- yeah man that -- greater -- somebody's annual Edinburgh has obviously has no clothes. This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

GvRqnd6q1sAtThWS

test

eMyHWYf2bOyvhkst

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/07/the_gops_mass_shooting_hypocrisy_is_fueling_its_cancerous_rage/

The GOP's mass shooting hypocrisy is fueling its cancerous rage

2015-12-07

Heather Digparton

In the wake of the horrific San Bernardino attack , it 's understandable that we would see a national outcry , with leaders and citizens alike demanding that something be done . After all , 25 people were shot , 14 of them died on the scene . It was a terrifying act of violence . But this is America . We have frequent mass killings in workplaces , clinics , movie theatres , classrooms , churches , public events and even on military bases . Some of them are perpetrated by delusional people in the grip of a mental illness , some are done out of rage , some for political and ideological and religious reasons and often are some combination of those things . When they happen , the country tends to divide along the familiar political fault lines . Since most of the carnage from these dramatic massacres is carried out with guns , the left always pushes for a restriction on the easy availability of firearms . And most of the time the right shrugs its collective shoulders and says that this sort of violence is the price we have to pay for freedom . Bill O'Reilly best expressed this sentiment in the wake of October 's Roseburg , Oregon , massacre : `` It is our freedom that allows insane individuals to kill so many people . Guns are legal in America under the Second Amendment ... There is no rational explanation for all the carnage , none . And no public policy will stop it . '' It 's like a hurricane or an earthquake , just something we must live with and then try to put the pieces back together when it 's over . Because we are free . There is an unusual twist to this tiresome dynamic , however , when the perpetrators of this violence are motivated by Islamic extremism . Last week , the left reacted the same way as it does to all such events , with calls to restrict the easy access to guns like the ones the San Bernardino killers used . The right , on the other hand , rather than their usual blase acceptance of the unfortunate necessity of massacres in a free society , are hysterical demanding that the government step in and do something about it immediately . Now , they are not in agreement with the left on the gun regulation issue , that goes without saying . Their standard response to anyone who suggests that ending the easy access to the guns that shot 35 people might be one common sense way to make such bloodletting less common is total resistance , and it makes no difference who perpetrates the killing . This was demonstrated in the last few days in living color as Democrats tried to make the case that Republicans are so rigid and doctrinaire ( and in the pocket of the NRA ) that they would not even allow the government to stop suspected terrorists on the secret `` Watch List '' from buying guns . It 's a tricky argument since the Watch List is a civil liberties nightmare to begin with , but Republicans did manage to twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain why terrorist suspects have inviolable 2nd Amendment rights . But that does not mean the right does n't have a lot of ideas about what needs to be done . The fact that this has been designated a radical Islamic extremist terrorist attack ( as opposed to the radical Christian extremist attack that happened the week before ) has galvanized them into action . Led by their presidential frontrunner , Donald Trump , they have a lot of ideas about what needs to be done . Trump has a colorful history of animus toward Muslims , having made quite a spectacle of himself four years ago as King of the Birthers , hiring detectives to prove that President Obama was n't born in the U.S. and insinuating that he is a secret Muslim . In this campaign , Trump first turned his nativist aggression against undocumented workers from Mexico but his hostility toward Muslims -- and the previously barely suppressed hostility of his followers -- has recently been on more prominent display . Ever since September , long before the recent brouhaha , he 's been saying that he would not only deny Syrian refugees entry , he would deport all the refugees who are already here . After the Paris attacks , he blathered the usual rightwing bromide , that all this would have been prevented if the victims had been armed . He added that he would bomb the oil fields in Iraq . And he suggested that much more draconian measures were going to be necessary : “ We ’ re going to have to do things that we never did before . And some people are going to be upset about it , but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule… And so we ’ re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago… ” When asked if among those `` things , '' he would consider having American Muslims register with the government , he said he thought it might be necessary . “ This morning they asked me a question . ‘ Would you approve waterboarding ” Would I approve waterboarding ? Yeah . And let me ask you a question ? I said , on the other side , they chop off our young people ’ s heads and they put ’ em on a stick . On the other side they build these iron cages and they ’ ll put 20 people in them and they drop ’ em in the ocean for 15 minutes and pull ’ em up 15 minutes later . Would I approve waterboarding ? You bet your ass I ’ d approve it , you bet your ass — in a heartbeat . `` And I would approve more than that . Don ’ t kid yourself , folks . It works , okay ? It works . Only a stupid person would say it doesn ’ t work.They ’ ll say , ‘ oh it has no value ’ , well I know people , very , very important people and they want to be politically correct and I see some people taking on television , ‘ well I don ’ t know if it works ’ and they tell me later on , ‘ it works , it works , believe me , it works ’ . `` And you know what ? If it doesn ’ t work , they deserve it anyway for what they ’ re doing to us . ” It was hard to imagine how he could top that for shocking pathological malevolence . But San Bernardino has changed the campaign and Trump is the field marshall leading the charge . He went on Fox News last Friday and said , `` We 're fighting a very politically correct war . And the other thing is with the terrorists , you have to take out their families. ” He went on `` The O'Reilly Factor '' later that night and spelled out what he was talking about : `` Do you think the wives and the families knew exactly what was going to happen with September 11th ? Well I do , and I think they did . “ We have to be much more vigilant , and we have to be much tougher . We can ’ t allow this to happen : They take the wives , they put ‘ em on planes , they send ‘ em home . ‘ Let ’ s go home and let ’ s watch Daddy tonight on television knock down the World Trade Center ’ — there has to be retribution . And if there ’ s not going to be retribution , you ’ re never going to stop terrorism . '' O'Reilly asked what he meant by `` take out '' and Trump replied , “ you have to wipe out their homes where they came from . You have to absolutely wipe ‘ em out . It ’ s the only way you ’ re going to stop terrorism . You have all these cells all over the place. ” He added : “ I want to tell you they would suffer . They know what was going on . If you look at what happened with these terrorists , they put their wives on the planes — those wives knew exactly what was happening , the children , everybody knew . ” Asked how he knows that Trump replied , “ Because I know . Because that ’ s the way life is . Because I ’ m a realist . That ’ s the way life works . The wives knew what the husbands were going to do . ” ( This claim that all the hijackers sent their families home before the attacks is just wild nonsense . ) That was Friday . On Saturday , at a rally in Iowa , he went further : `` They 've got all sorts of bombs , pipe bombs all sorts of crap all over the apartment , the mother did n't know anything ... [ rolls eyes ] `` I watched the sister of the guy last night on television and I 'm pretty good at this stuff and I watched her , she had the veil , the whole thing . And she 's talkin ' about the brother . First of all the brother was killed a couple of days ago , she 's not at all , she 's talking like , ( looks at his watch ) in fact `` I think I have to go now my time 's up '' , so matter of fact ... `` I thought she was lying so much . I 'm good at this . I thought she was a total liar . ( crowd cheers , some shouting `` yeah ! '' ) She lied about him . Oh `` she did n't know , oh she did n't know he felt this way ... `` She knew . And a lot of other people knew too . A lot of other people . '' Yesterday morning he repeated it to Sunday morning hosts who did n't seem to find what he said to be terribly unusual : `` I probably do n't believe the sister , '' Trump declared in an interview with `` Face the Nation . '' `` So you would go after her ? '' host John Dickerson asked Trump . `` I would go after a lot of people and find out whether or not they knew . I 'd be able to find out . Cause I do n't believe the sister ... we have to stop terrorists , '' Trump explained . `` And the only way we 're going to stop them , in my opinion , is that way . You know , they say they do n't mind dying . I think they do mind dying . But I can tell you this . They want their families left alone . We have to stop terrorism . '' I would go after a lot of people and find out whether or not they knew . I 'd be able to find out . Cause I do n't believe the sister , When he said , `` I 'd be able to find out , '' it does n't take much to imagine what he plans to do . After all , he had just said a week ago that he would bring back waterboarding , adding `` I would approve more than that . '' Ok , fine . So it 's Trump and `` in your guts your know he 's nuts '' . But he is not alone . His crowds lustily cheer these comments and the rest of the GOP field is following in his footsteps . Ted Cruz , now looking as though he 's about to overtake Ben Carson in second place and possibly Trump himself in Iowa , has n't been talking about `` taking out '' family members of terrorist suspects . But he is talking about using nuclear weapons : `` We will carpet bomb them into oblivion . I don ’ t know if sand can glow in the dark , but we ’ re going to find out . '' Apparently concerned that Trump is going to unman him , Cruz issued this cri de coeur : “ We see Loretta Lynch , the attorney general , promising in the wake of this terrorist attack — does she come out and say , ‘ We ’ re going to track down the terrorists and kill them ’ ? `` No , she says prosecute anyone that has the temerity to stand up and speak against radical Islamic terrorism . `` Well , let me tell you right now , radical Islamic terrorism is evil . `` Mr. President , there is not a moral equivalence between radical Islamic terrorists and Christians and Jews . `` One has a philosophy from day one of murdering those who they consider infidels ; the other preach love and forgiveness and standing together as one humanity . `` And let me say beyond that in the United States , we will not enforce Sharia Law . `` And madam attorney general , if you wan na come prosecute me for executing my First Amendment rights , come and get me , I ’ m right here ! ” The crowd roared with excitement at this bold show of incoherent rage and manly aggression . According to Trump and Cruz , making it a little bit more difficult for killers to get their hands on deadly weapons is impossible . But registration of Muslims , closing mosques , torture , `` taking out '' wives and children , carpet bombing civilians into oblivion and even possible nuclear war are now on the menu . Unfortunately , it 's almost certain that we will have more mass killing before the election next year , motivated by a variety of homicidal and suicidal urges and enabled by a culture awash in firearms . But unless it 's perpetrated by a Muslim extremist the Trump party will be too busy beating their chests and issuing bellicose threats to even notice . They have lots of lurid suggestions about how to exact retribution on our enemies but they have absolutely nothing to say about how to lower the body count in this country .

In the wake of the horrific San Bernardino attack, it's understandable that we would see a national outcry, with leaders and citizens alike demanding that something be done. After all, 25 people were shot, 14 of them died on the scene. It was a terrifying act of violence. But this is America. We have frequent mass killings in workplaces, clinics, movie theatres, classrooms, churches, public events and even on military bases. Some of them are perpetrated by delusional people in the grip of a mental illness, some are done out of rage, some for political and ideological and religious reasons and often are some combination of those things. When they happen, the country tends to divide along the familiar political fault lines. Since most of the carnage from these dramatic massacres is carried out with guns, the left always pushes for a restriction on the easy availability of firearms. And most of the time the right shrugs its collective shoulders and says that this sort of violence is the price we have to pay for freedom. Advertisement: Bill O'Reilly best expressed this sentiment in the wake of October's Roseburg, Oregon, massacre: "It is our freedom that allows insane individuals to kill so many people. Guns are legal in America under the Second Amendment...There is no rational explanation for all the carnage, none. And no public policy will stop it." It's like a hurricane or an earthquake, just something we must live with and then try to put the pieces back together when it's over. Because we are free. There is an unusual twist to this tiresome dynamic, however, when the perpetrators of this violence are motivated by Islamic extremism. Last week, the left reacted the same way as it does to all such events, with calls to restrict the easy access to guns like the ones the San Bernardino killers used. The right, on the other hand, rather than their usual blase acceptance of the unfortunate necessity of massacres in a free society, are hysterical demanding that the government step in and do something about it immediately. Advertisement: Now, they are not in agreement with the left on the gun regulation issue, that goes without saying. Their standard response to anyone who suggests that ending the easy access to the guns that shot 35 people might be one common sense way to make such bloodletting less common is total resistance, and it makes no difference who perpetrates the killing. This was demonstrated in the last few days in living color as Democrats tried to make the case that Republicans are so rigid and doctrinaire (and in the pocket of the NRA) that they would not even allow the government to stop suspected terrorists on the secret "Watch List" from buying guns. It's a tricky argument since the Watch List is a civil liberties nightmare to begin with, but Republicans did manage to twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain why terrorist suspects have inviolable 2nd Amendment rights. But that does not mean the right doesn't have a lot of ideas about what needs to be done. The fact that this has been designated a radical Islamic extremist terrorist attack (as opposed to the radical Christian extremist attack that happened the week before) has galvanized them into action. Led by their presidential frontrunner, Donald Trump, they have a lot of ideas about what needs to be done. Trump has a colorful history of animus toward Muslims, having made quite a spectacle of himself four years ago as King of the Birthers, hiring detectives to prove that President Obama wasn't born in the U.S. and insinuating that he is a secret Muslim. In this campaign, Trump first turned his nativist aggression against undocumented workers from Mexico but his hostility toward Muslims -- and the previously barely suppressed hostility of his followers -- has recently been on more prominent display. Ever since September, long before the recent brouhaha, he's been saying that he would not only deny Syrian refugees entry, he would deport all the refugees who are already here. Advertisement: After the Paris attacks, he blathered the usual rightwing bromide, that all this would have been prevented if the victims had been armed. He added that he would bomb the oil fields in Iraq. And he suggested that much more draconian measures were going to be necessary: “We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule… And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago…” When asked if among those "things," he would consider having American Muslims register with the government, he said he thought it might be necessary. Advertisement: Later, he said this: “This morning they asked me a question. ‘Would you approve waterboarding” Would I approve waterboarding? Yeah. And let me ask you a question? I said, on the other side, they chop off our young people’s heads and they put ’em on a stick. On the other side they build these iron cages and they’ll put 20 people in them and they drop ’em in the ocean for 15 minutes and pull ’em up 15 minutes later. Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I’d approve it, you bet your ass — in a heartbeat. "And I would approve more than that. Don’t kid yourself, folks. It works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn’t work.They’ll say, ‘oh it has no value’, well I know people, very, very important people and they want to be politically correct and I see some people taking on television, ‘well I don’t know if it works’ and they tell me later on, ‘it works, it works, believe me, it works’. "And you know what? If it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway for what they’re doing to us.” It was hard to imagine how he could top that for shocking pathological malevolence. But San Bernardino has changed the campaign and Trump is the field marshall leading the charge. He went on Fox News last Friday and said, "We're fighting a very politically correct war. And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families.” He went on "The O'Reilly Factor" later that night and spelled out what he was talking about: "Do you think the wives and the families knew exactly what was going to happen with September 11th? Well I do, and I think they did. “We have to be much more vigilant, and we have to be much tougher. We can’t allow this to happen: They take the wives, they put ‘em on planes, they send ‘em home. ‘Let’s go home and let’s watch Daddy tonight on television knock down the World Trade Center’ — there has to be retribution. And if there’s not going to be retribution, you’re never going to stop terrorism." O'Reilly asked what he meant by "take out" and Trump replied, “you have to wipe out their homes where they came from. You have to absolutely wipe ‘em out. It’s the only way you’re going to stop terrorism. You have all these cells all over the place.” He added: Advertisement: “I want to tell you they would suffer. They know what was going on. If you look at what happened with these terrorists, they put their wives on the planes — those wives knew exactly what was happening, the children, everybody knew.” Asked how he knows that Trump replied, “Because I know. Because that’s the way life is. Because I’m a realist. That’s the way life works. The wives knew what the husbands were going to do.” (This claim that all the hijackers sent their families home before the attacks is just wild nonsense. ) That was Friday. On Saturday, at a rally in Iowa, he went further: Advertisement: "They've got all sorts of bombs, pipe bombs all sorts of crap all over the apartment, the mother didn't know anything ... [rolls eyes] "I watched the sister of the guy last night on television and I'm pretty good at this stuff and I watched her, she had the veil, the whole thing. And she's talkin' about the brother. First of all the brother was killed a couple of days ago, she's not at all, she's talking like, (looks at his watch) in fact "I think I have to go now my time's up", so matter of fact ... "I thought she was lying so much. I'm good at this. I thought she was a total liar. (crowd cheers, some shouting "yeah!") She lied about him. Oh "she didn't know, oh she didn't know he felt this way... "She knew. And a lot of other people knew too. A lot of other people." Yesterday morning he repeated it to Sunday morning hosts who didn't seem to find what he said to be terribly unusual: "I probably don't believe the sister," Trump declared in an interview with "Face the Nation." "So you would go after her?" host John Dickerson asked Trump. "I would go after a lot of people and find out whether or not they knew. I'd be able to find out. Cause I don't believe the sister...we have to stop terrorists," Trump explained. "And the only way we're going to stop them, in my opinion, is that way. You know, they say they don't mind dying. I think they do mind dying. But I can tell you this. They want their families left alone. We have to stop terrorism." I would go after a lot of people and find out whether or not they knew. I'd be able to find out. Cause I don't believe the sister, When he said, "I'd be able to find out," it doesn't take much to imagine what he plans to do. After all, he had just said a week ago that he would bring back waterboarding, adding "I would approve more than that." Ok, fine. So it's Trump and "in your guts your know he's nuts". But he is not alone. His crowds lustily cheer these comments and the rest of the GOP field is following in his footsteps. Ted Cruz, now looking as though he's about to overtake Ben Carson in second place and possibly Trump himself in Iowa, hasn't been talking about "taking out" family members of terrorist suspects. But he is talking about using nuclear weapons: Advertisement: "We will carpet bomb them into oblivion. I don’t know if sand can glow in the dark, but we’re going to find out." Apparently concerned that Trump is going to unman him, Cruz issued this cri de coeur: “We see Loretta Lynch, the attorney general, promising in the wake of this terrorist attack — does she come out and say, ‘We’re going to track down the terrorists and kill them’? "No, she says prosecute anyone that has the temerity to stand up and speak against radical Islamic terrorism. "Well, let me tell you right now, radical Islamic terrorism is evil. "Mr. President, there is not a moral equivalence between radical Islamic terrorists and Christians and Jews. "One has a philosophy from day one of murdering those who they consider infidels; the other preach love and forgiveness and standing together as one humanity. "And let me say beyond that in the United States, we will not enforce Sharia Law. "And madam attorney general, if you wanna come prosecute me for executing my First Amendment rights, come and get me, I’m right here!” The crowd roared with excitement at this bold show of incoherent rage and manly aggression. According to Trump and Cruz, making it a little bit more difficult for killers to get their hands on deadly weapons is impossible. But registration of Muslims, closing mosques, torture, "taking out" wives and children, carpet bombing civilians into oblivion and even possible nuclear war are now on the menu. Unfortunately, it's almost certain that we will have more mass killing before the election next year, motivated by a variety of homicidal and suicidal urges and enabled by a culture awash in firearms. But unless it's perpetrated by a Muslim extremist the Trump party will be too busy beating their chests and issuing bellicose threats to even notice. They have lots of lurid suggestions about how to exact retribution on our enemies but they have absolutely nothing to say about how to lower the body count in this country.

www.salon.com

left

eMyHWYf2bOyvhkst

test

8EiVQB854EL3K7uf

education

Reason

http://reason.com/volokh/2018/01/19/university-of-alabama-student-expelled-f

University of Alabama Student Expelled for Racist Instagram Rant

2018-01-19

Eugene Volokh, Veronique De Rugy, Jacob Sullum, Masha Abarinova, Keith E. Whittington, Zuri Davis, Matt Welch, Nick Gillespie

According to press accounts , a University of Alabama student was expelled for posting an Instagram video in which she said , among other things , `` I fucking hate niggers , '' and then some . The University president issued a statement condemning the video and saying the student `` is no longer enrolled here '' ; that does n't outright say that she was expelled , but I have no ███ to doubt the press accounts . Now no-one can confuse the video with a thoughtful argument . If empty hostility like this vanished from American life ( perhaps through some magical transfusion of decency and good judgment ) , the nation would be a better place . But there 's a practical ███ that the First Amendment forbids expelling university students for saying such things—or for that matter saying that they hate fucking Americans or Israelis , or love Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Che or whoever else . The last several years have made clear what the preceding decades should have shown as well : Attempts to punish people for their views are n't going to be neatly cabined just to the extreme . Condemnations of illegal immigration , of the Black Lives Matter movement , of affirmative action , of Israel , and of a wide range of other things are routinely excoriated as racist or anti-Semitic . Some such excoriation may be factually accurate in some instances ; but it means that , if supposedly racist speech can be suppressed , then any expression of such views risks being suppressed as well . Likewise , we 've routinely seen people on campuses try to suppress serious speakers alongside the ridiculous , and to suppress substantive arguments alongside epithets . Nor is this limited to race and ethnicity . Sharp criticism of Islam is viewed by many as morally equivalent to racism ( and is sometimes even outright labeled racism ) . Logically , the same should apply to sharp criticism of Catholicism , evangelical Christianity , and the like . Likewise , the notion that disapproval of homosexuality—not just slinging epithets but any form of discrimination or support for discrimination—is morally tantamount to racism is a commonplace of modern debates about gay rights . If university students know that students can be freely expelled for racist rants , would they feel confident that they would n't be expelled—or suspended or otherwise punished—for expressing their views even without the epithets ? Would they feel confident that they would n't be punished for expressing views critical of illegal aliens or transgender rights , or for arguing that there are biological differences between the sexes or between racial groups ? Even apart from the rights of the particular student in this case , is there any safe harbor that officials like the University of Alabama president can offer to other students who want to express other views that the president may find `` highly offensive and deeply hurtful , '' and that `` do not represent … the values of [ the ] University '' ? Justice Black 's 1961 dissenting opinion in Communist Party of U.S. v. Subversive Activities Control Bd . began with the famous line : I do not believe that it can be too often repeated that the freedoms of speech , press , petition and assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment must be accorded to the ideas we hate or sooner or later they will be denied to the ideas we cherish . Justice Powell 's majority opinion in Healy v. James ( 1972 ) relied on this very point , in holding that college students who hold extreme views ( there , again leftist views ) are protected even against far lesser penalties than expulsion . This was n't abstract theorizing : This was practical calculation based on the experience of preceding decades , experience that seems fully applicable today . It 's too bad that so many are forgetting it now .

According to press accounts, a University of Alabama student was expelled for posting an Instagram video in which she said, among other things, "I fucking hate niggers," and then some. The University president issued a statement condemning the video and saying the student "is no longer enrolled here"; that doesn't outright say that she was expelled, but I have no reason to doubt the press accounts. Now no-one can confuse the video with a thoughtful argument. If empty hostility like this vanished from American life (perhaps through some magical transfusion of decency and good judgment), the nation would be a better place. But there's a practical reason that the First Amendment forbids expelling university students for saying such things—or for that matter saying that they hate fucking Americans or Israelis, or love Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Che or whoever else. The last several years have made clear what the preceding decades should have shown as well: Attempts to punish people for their views aren't going to be neatly cabined just to the extreme. Condemnations of illegal immigration, of the Black Lives Matter movement, of affirmative action, of Israel, and of a wide range of other things are routinely excoriated as racist or anti-Semitic. Some such excoriation may be factually accurate in some instances; but it means that, if supposedly racist speech can be suppressed, then any expression of such views risks being suppressed as well. Likewise, we've routinely seen people on campuses try to suppress serious speakers alongside the ridiculous, and to suppress substantive arguments alongside epithets. Nor is this limited to race and ethnicity. Sharp criticism of Islam is viewed by many as morally equivalent to racism (and is sometimes even outright labeled racism). Logically, the same should apply to sharp criticism of Catholicism, evangelical Christianity, and the like. Likewise, the notion that disapproval of homosexuality—not just slinging epithets but any form of discrimination or support for discrimination—is morally tantamount to racism is a commonplace of modern debates about gay rights. If university students know that students can be freely expelled for racist rants, would they feel confident that they wouldn't be expelled—or suspended or otherwise punished—for expressing their views even without the epithets? Would they feel confident that they wouldn't be punished for expressing views critical of illegal aliens or transgender rights, or for arguing that there are biological differences between the sexes or between racial groups? Even apart from the rights of the particular student in this case, is there any safe harbor that officials like the University of Alabama president can offer to other students who want to express other views that the president may find "highly offensive and deeply hurtful," and that "do not represent … the values of [the] University"? Justice Black's 1961 dissenting opinion in Communist Party of U.S. v. Subversive Activities Control Bd. began with the famous line: I do not believe that it can be too often repeated that the freedoms of speech, press, petition and assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment must be accorded to the ideas we hate or sooner or later they will be denied to the ideas we cherish. Justice Powell's majority opinion in Healy v. James (1972) relied on this very point, in holding that college students who hold extreme views (there, again leftist views) are protected even against far lesser penalties than expulsion. This wasn't abstract theorizing: This was practical calculation based on the experience of preceding decades, experience that seems fully applicable today. It's too bad that so many are forgetting it now.

www.reason.com

right

8EiVQB854EL3K7uf

test

vWjLcQ3wfHAgL2ce

supreme_court

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/44465354fd8219a0bc2fec0962c526ec

Mental fitness claim halts 2nd federal execution -- for now

2020-07-15

Michael Balsamo, Michael Tarm

Protesters against the death penalty gather in Terre Haute , Ind. , Wednesday , July 15 , 2020 . Wesley Ira Purkey , convicted of a gruesome 1998 kidnapping and killing , is scheduled to be executed Wednesday evening at the federal prison in Terre Haute . ( AP Photo/Michael Conroy ) Protesters against the death penalty gather in Terre Haute , Ind. , Wednesday , July 15 , 2020 . Wesley Ira Purkey , convicted of a gruesome 1998 kidnapping and killing , is scheduled to be executed Wednesday evening at the federal prison in Terre Haute . ( AP Photo/Michael Conroy ) TERRE HAUTE , Ind . ( AP ) — A judge on Wednesday halted the execution of a man , said to be suffering from dementia , who was set to die by lethal injection in the federal government ’ s second execution this week after a 17-year hiatus . Wesley Ira Purkey , convicted of a gruesome 1998 kidnapping and killing , was scheduled to die at the U.S. Penitentiary in Terre Haute , Indiana , where Daniel Lewis Lee was put to death Tuesday after his eleventh-hour legal bids failed . U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington , D.C. , imposed two injunctions prohibiting the federal Bureau of Prisons from moving forward with Purkey ’ s execution , but the Justice Department immediately appealed . An appeals court panel kept in place both injunctions in orders Wednesday evening . Appeals to the Supreme Court were still pending . It all suggested a volley of litigation would continue into the evening , similar to what happened before the government executed Lee following a ruling from the Supreme Court . One of the injunctions imposed Wednesday would halt not only Purkey ’ s execution , but another that has been scheduled for Friday and one in August . Earlier Wednesday , the Supreme Court ended a separate stay by the 7th U.S . Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago . Lee , convicted of killing an Arkansas family in a 1990s plot to build a whites-only nation , was the first of four condemned men scheduled to die in July and August despite the coronavirus pandemic raging inside and outside prisons . “ This competency issue is a very strong issue on paper , ” said Robert Dunham , executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center . “ The Supreme Court has halted executions on this issue in the past . At a minimum , the question of whether Purkey dies is going to go down to the last minute . ” Judge Chutkan didn ’ t rule on whether Purkey was competent but said the court needed to evaluate the claim . She said there was no question he ’ d suffer “ irreparable harm ” if he was put to death before his claim could be evaluated . Lee ’ s execution had gone forward a day late . It was scheduled for Monday afternoon , but the Supreme Court only gave the green light in a 5-4 ruling early Tuesday . Repeatedly on Wednesday , a federal judge also denied a request from Dustin Lee Honken , an Iowa drug kingpin scheduled to be executed on Friday , to delay his execution . The judge said he would not delay Honken ’ s execution due to the coronavirus pandemic and said the Bureau of Prisons was in the best position to weigh the health risks . The issue of Purkey ’ s mental health arose in the runup to his 2003 trial and when jurors had to decide whether he should be put to death in the killing of 16-year-old Jennifer Long in Kansas City , Missouri . Prosecutors said he raped and stabbed her , dismembered her with a chainsaw , burned the body and dumped her ashes in a pond in Kansas . Purkey was separately convicted and sentenced to life in the beating death of 80-year-old Mary Ruth Bales , of Kansas City , Kansas . But the legal questions of whether he was mentally fit then are different from whether he ’ s fit now to be put to death . Purkey ’ s lawyers argue he clearly isn ’ t , saying in recent filings he suffers from advancing Alzheimer ’ s disease . “ He has long accepted responsibility for the crime that put him on death row , ” one of his lawyers , Rebecca Woodman , said . “ But as his dementia has progressed , he no longer has a rational understanding of why the government plans to execute him . ” Purkey believes his planned execution is part of a conspiracy involving his attorneys , Woodman said . In other filings , they describe delusions that people were spraying poison into his room and that drug dealers implanted a device in his chest meant to kill him . While various legal issues in Purkey ’ s case have been hashed , rehashed and settled by courts over nearly two decades , “ competency is something that is always in flux , ” according to Dunham , who teaches law school courses on capital punishment . In a landmark 1986 decision , the Supreme Court ruled the Constitution prohibits executing someone who lacks a reasonable understanding of why he ’ s being executed . It involved the case of Alvin Ford , who was convicted of murder but whose mental health deteriorated behind bars to the point , according to his lawyer , he believed he was pope . “ I could say I was Napoleon , ” Dunham said . “ But if I say I understand that Napoleon was sentenced to death for a crime and is being executed for it — that could allow the execution to go ahead . ” Purkey ’ s mental issues go beyond Alzheimer ’ s , his lawyers have said . They say he was subject to sexual and mental abuse as a child and , at 14 , was diagnosed with schizophrenia , bipolar disorder , major depression and psychosis . Last week , three mental health organizations urged U.S. Attorney General William Barr to commute Purkey ’ s sentence to life in prison without possibility of parole . The National Alliance on Mental Illness , Mental Health America and the Treatment Advocacy Center said executing mentally ailing people like Purkey “ constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and does not comport with ‘ evolving standards of decency . ’ ” Glenda Lamont , the mother of the slain teenager , told The Kansas City Star last year she planned to attend Purkey ’ s execution . “ I don ’ t want to say that I ’ m happy , ” Lamont said . “ At the same time , he is a crazy madman that doesn ’ t deserve , in my opinion , to be breathing anymore . ” President Donald Trump ’ s campaign touted the Lee execution in an email blast , saying the president “ Ensured Total Justice for the Victims of an Evil Killer ” and demanding his political opponent Joe Biden explain why he now opposes capital punishment . There was an unofficial moratorium on federal executions after the Obama administration ordered a review in 2014 following a botched execution in Oklahoma .

Protesters against the death penalty gather in Terre Haute, Ind., Wednesday, July 15, 2020. Wesley Ira Purkey, convicted of a gruesome 1998 kidnapping and killing, is scheduled to be executed Wednesday evening at the federal prison in Terre Haute. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy) Protesters against the death penalty gather in Terre Haute, Ind., Wednesday, July 15, 2020. Wesley Ira Purkey, convicted of a gruesome 1998 kidnapping and killing, is scheduled to be executed Wednesday evening at the federal prison in Terre Haute. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy) TERRE HAUTE, Ind. (AP) — A judge on Wednesday halted the execution of a man, said to be suffering from dementia, who was set to die by lethal injection in the federal government’s second execution this week after a 17-year hiatus. Legal wrangling continued Wednesday night with execution still possible. Wesley Ira Purkey, convicted of a gruesome 1998 kidnapping and killing, was scheduled to die at the U.S. Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, where Daniel Lewis Lee was put to death Tuesday after his eleventh-hour legal bids failed. ADVERTISEMENT U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., imposed two injunctions prohibiting the federal Bureau of Prisons from moving forward with Purkey’s execution, but the Justice Department immediately appealed. An appeals court panel kept in place both injunctions in orders Wednesday evening. Appeals to the Supreme Court were still pending. It all suggested a volley of litigation would continue into the evening, similar to what happened before the government executed Lee following a ruling from the Supreme Court. One of the injunctions imposed Wednesday would halt not only Purkey’s execution, but another that has been scheduled for Friday and one in August. Earlier Wednesday, the Supreme Court ended a separate stay by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. Lee, convicted of killing an Arkansas family in a 1990s plot to build a whites-only nation, was the first of four condemned men scheduled to die in July and August despite the coronavirus pandemic raging inside and outside prisons. Purkey, 68, of Lansing, Kansas, would be the second. “This competency issue is a very strong issue on paper,” said Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. “The Supreme Court has halted executions on this issue in the past. At a minimum, the question of whether Purkey dies is going to go down to the last minute.” Judge Chutkan didn’t rule on whether Purkey was competent but said the court needed to evaluate the claim. She said there was no question he’d suffer “irreparable harm” if he was put to death before his claim could be evaluated. Lee’s execution had gone forward a day late. It was scheduled for Monday afternoon, but the Supreme Court only gave the green light in a 5-4 ruling early Tuesday. Repeatedly on Wednesday, a federal judge also denied a request from Dustin Lee Honken, an Iowa drug kingpin scheduled to be executed on Friday, to delay his execution. The judge said he would not delay Honken’s execution due to the coronavirus pandemic and said the Bureau of Prisons was in the best position to weigh the health risks. The issue of Purkey’s mental health arose in the runup to his 2003 trial and when jurors had to decide whether he should be put to death in the killing of 16-year-old Jennifer Long in Kansas City, Missouri. Prosecutors said he raped and stabbed her, dismembered her with a chainsaw, burned the body and dumped her ashes in a pond in Kansas. Purkey was separately convicted and sentenced to life in the beating death of 80-year-old Mary Ruth Bales, of Kansas City, Kansas. But the legal questions of whether he was mentally fit then are different from whether he’s fit now to be put to death. Purkey’s lawyers argue he clearly isn’t, saying in recent filings he suffers from advancing Alzheimer’s disease . “He has long accepted responsibility for the crime that put him on death row,” one of his lawyers, Rebecca Woodman, said. “But as his dementia has progressed, he no longer has a rational understanding of why the government plans to execute him.” ADVERTISEMENT Purkey believes his planned execution is part of a conspiracy involving his attorneys, Woodman said. In other filings, they describe delusions that people were spraying poison into his room and that drug dealers implanted a device in his chest meant to kill him. While various legal issues in Purkey’s case have been hashed, rehashed and settled by courts over nearly two decades, “competency is something that is always in flux,” according to Dunham, who teaches law school courses on capital punishment. In a landmark 1986 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the Constitution prohibits executing someone who lacks a reasonable understanding of why he’s being executed. It involved the case of Alvin Ford, who was convicted of murder but whose mental health deteriorated behind bars to the point, according to his lawyer, he believed he was pope. “I could say I was Napoleon,” Dunham said. “But if I say I understand that Napoleon was sentenced to death for a crime and is being executed for it — that could allow the execution to go ahead.” Purkey’s mental issues go beyond Alzheimer’s, his lawyers have said. They say he was subject to sexual and mental abuse as a child and, at 14, was diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression and psychosis. Last week, three mental health organizations urged U.S. Attorney General William Barr to commute Purkey’s sentence to life in prison without possibility of parole. The National Alliance on Mental Illness, Mental Health America and the Treatment Advocacy Center said executing mentally ailing people like Purkey “constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and does not comport with ‘evolving standards of decency.’” Glenda Lamont, the mother of the slain teenager, told The Kansas City Star last year she planned to attend Purkey’s execution. “I don’t want to say that I’m happy,” Lamont said. “At the same time, he is a crazy madman that doesn’t deserve, in my opinion, to be breathing anymore.” President Donald Trump’s campaign touted the Lee execution in an email blast, saying the president “Ensured Total Justice for the Victims of an Evil Killer” and demanding his political opponent Joe Biden explain why he now opposes capital punishment. There was an unofficial moratorium on federal executions after the Obama administration ordered a review in 2014 following a botched execution in Oklahoma. ___ Associated Press writers Roxana Hegeman in Wichita, Kansas, and Mark Sherman and Colleen Long in Washington contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

vWjLcQ3wfHAgL2ce

test

9IsYYG90G0b8XKgK

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2019/march/anti-semitism-debate-divides-dems-who-struggle-with-response-to-ilhan-omars-remarks

Anti-Semitism Debate Divides Dems Who Struggle with Response to Ilhan Omar's Remarks

2019-03-06

The Democratic Party is in meltdown trying to deal with charges of anti-Semitism . Once again , a fresman congresswoman giving the leadership headaches over her comments . The controversy is all about the latest charges of anti-Semitism and it comes as the party deals with a divide over support for Israel . `` I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay for people to push allegience to a foreign country , '' Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D-MN ) said , sparking accusations that she was using a centuries-old smear against Israel supporters . Omar 's comment led to accusations of anti-Semitism by members of her own party . `` Words matter , and when people say words that are biased , bigoted and hurtful , to another group of Americans , they have to be condemned quickly , '' said former Sen. Joe Lieberman ( D-CT ) . Here 's the text of the Democrats ' House resolution addressing the sitution . The Trump-Pence team is already setting its sights on re-election in 2020 , and one issue they 're watching is the debate over anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party . Kayleigh McEnany , national press secretary for the reelection campaign , told ███ 's Faith Nation that the recurring anti-Semitic remarks by lawmakers like Rep. Omar are sad for America . `` This is not a one-time thing for Ilhan Omar . There have been multiple remarks . Likewise , we have seen some comments that are similar from Rashida Tlaib and certainly those around her , '' McEnany said . `` You know this is something that we should all stand against ... there 's no doubt she should n't be sitting on the Foreign Affairs Committee . '' McEnany says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) should take action and remove Omar from the committee . Meanwhile , the House of Representatives resolution aimed at addressing anti-Semitism on Capitol Hill has been released . The Democratic leadership had said they would bring it to the floor Wednesday , but it was been delayed . The resolution was supposed to come as a rebuke of freshman congresswoman Omar , who 's facing another backlash over anti-Semitic tweets made last weekend . However , The Associated Press reported new House members confronted their leaders over the resolution implicitly rebuking Omar over her comments on Israel at the party 's weekly closed meeting . Democrats are still debating whether Omar will be permitted to keep her seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee . There was clear dissension among the Democrats on whether a resolution condemning anti-Semitism was even necessary , given that the House voted on a similar measure already . `` I 'm not sure we need to continue to do this every single time , '' said Rep. Primayla Jayapal , the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus . The comments coming just a few weeks after another set of Omar tweets were condemned by Pelosi and other House leadership who said : `` Omar 's use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel 's supporters is deeply offensive . '' Omar , one of two Muslim women in Congress , has declined to apologize for the latest statement . Meanwhile , a number of Republican leaders have waded into the controversy . Rep. Steve Scalise ( R-LA ) said , `` If they really are serious about addressing the problem , Nancy Pelosi has to remove her from the Foreign Affairs Committee . '' Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) said , `` It 's unconscionable for any member of the United States Congress any less a member of the foreign relations committee to repeatedly traffic in base stereotypes . ''

The Democratic Party is in meltdown trying to deal with charges of anti-Semitism. Once again, a fresman congresswoman giving the leadership headaches over her comments. The controversy is all about the latest charges of anti-Semitism and it comes as the party deals with a divide over support for Israel. "I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay for people to push allegience to a foreign country," Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) said, sparking accusations that she was using a centuries-old smear against Israel supporters. Omar's comment led to accusations of anti-Semitism by members of her own party. "Words matter, and when people say words that are biased, bigoted and hurtful, to another group of Americans, they have to be condemned quickly," said former Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Here's the text of the Democrats' House resolution addressing the sitution. The Trump-Pence team is already setting its sights on re-election in 2020, and one issue they're watching is the debate over anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party. Kayleigh McEnany, national press secretary for the reelection campaign, told CBN's Faith Nation that the recurring anti-Semitic remarks by lawmakers like Rep. Omar are sad for America. "This is not a one-time thing for Ilhan Omar. There have been multiple remarks. Likewise, we have seen some comments that are similar from Rashida Tlaib and certainly those around her," McEnany said. "You know this is something that we should all stand against... there's no doubt she shouldn't be sitting on the Foreign Affairs Committee." McEnany says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) should take action and remove Omar from the committee. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives resolution aimed at addressing anti-Semitism on Capitol Hill has been released. The Democratic leadership had said they would bring it to the floor Wednesday, but it was been delayed. The resolution was supposed to come as a rebuke of freshman congresswoman Omar, who's facing another backlash over anti-Semitic tweets made last weekend. However, The Associated Press reported new House members confronted their leaders over the resolution implicitly rebuking Omar over her comments on Israel at the party's weekly closed meeting. Democrats are still debating whether Omar will be permitted to keep her seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. There was clear dissension among the Democrats on whether a resolution condemning anti-Semitism was even necessary, given that the House voted on a similar measure already. "I'm not sure we need to continue to do this every single time," said Rep. Primayla Jayapal, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The comments coming just a few weeks after another set of Omar tweets were condemned by Pelosi and other House leadership who said: "Omar's use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel's supporters is deeply offensive." Omar, one of two Muslim women in Congress, has declined to apologize for the latest statement. Meanwhile, a number of Republican leaders have waded into the controversy. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) said, "If they really are serious about addressing the problem, Nancy Pelosi has to remove her from the Foreign Affairs Committee." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said, "It's unconscionable for any member of the United States Congress any less a member of the foreign relations committee to repeatedly traffic in base stereotypes."

www1.cbn.com

right

9IsYYG90G0b8XKgK

test

ZFX34FWMpxtpIdQh

media_bias

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/the-anger-of-the-hurricane-media/

The Anger of the Hurricane Media

R. Emmett Tyrrell, J.T. Young, Brandon Crocker, Scott Mckay, Ron Ross

Here we sit in the comfort of Washington and we read of the discomfort in Florida . There a massive storm moved from the Caribbean north through south Florida , displacing as many as five million people . It marched up the west coast displacing many more . The eye of the storm settled on Naples and Fort Myers , Florida , but it terrified pretty much the whole state , including the largest population of retired Americans gathered anywhere . It was the seventh-largest hurricane ever to threaten the United States , and it came on the heels of the death and destruction that Mother Nature visited upon Texas , prompting one cynic to say , “ We ’ ve got to get Mother Nature before she gets us . ” Florida ’ s governor , Rick Scott , was tireless in issuing warnings to the apprehensive citizenry of his state and in monitoring the activities of his state ’ s National Guard and first responders . He was on the nation ’ s television screens non-stop . He declared at one press conference , “ This is a catastrophic storm our state has never seen. ” He expressed similar sentiments continually . He also said “ Pray , pray for everybody in Florida. ” The citizenry responded responsibly . State and local government responded responsibly , but what was the response of the national media , or as we say the Mainstream Media ? The Washington Post neatly summed up the Mainstream ’ s general response when it headlined an article “ Florida Governor Has Refused to Recognize Climate-Change Risks , Critics Say. ” In the body of this preposterous article appeared this telling line : “ Scott ’ s office did not respond to a request for comment for this article…. ” Did it occur to anyone at the Post that the Governor ’ s office might be under water or that the Governor might be otherwise preoccupied ? This is how poisonous left-wing politics has become in America . Even at the height of a historic crisis the Mainstream Media has time to advance a political point , a point that is , incidentally , highly debatable . Not that there is ever any time for debate with the left . It blabs on about how the consensus of the scientific community all believes that global warming is behind such events as hurricane Irma . It quotes political critics of Governor Scott at length . It never could find a person who sided with Scott . It only quoted his opponents . It never lets up on advancing its point of view . Nonetheless its point of view is not in the ascendancy . Now I shall startle you perhaps , but I think along with Governor Scott ’ s critics that there is a human factor in “ global warming. ” It is not large , and by no means is “ global warming ” a steady growing factor in global weather . We really do not know what the future holds for climate . We do know that all the nostrums advanced to solve “ global warming ” will impede global growth , which means ensuring continued poverty for the world ’ s poor . Moreover , a significant number of the world ’ s governments have shown no inclination to follow the nostrums ’ inhibiting requirements , which means the nostrums will have little or no effect . The debate about climate and how to limit global warming is a farce . The most prudent course is to follow a policy that allows growth worldwide . By allowing growth the industries of the world will be able to apply science and innovation to the problem of “ our carbon footprint. ” A wealthier world in time will have the resources to develop technologies to deal with future problems , among them climate . There is no proof that Hurricane Irma or Hurricane Harvey were caused by global warming , or intensified by global warming , but global warming can in time be dealt with by technological development . As for the poisonous rhetoric of the left , I have no cure . Do you remember a few years ago when the left was actually boasting of its anger ? It was as if anger were a political virtue . At the time I marveled that the descendants of Eleanor Roosevelt would consider anger a noble political value . I rather thought there might be a rebellion within the left ’ s ranks . Suddenly a “ reform ” movement would spread through leftist ranks , and they would favor sweetness and light over anger . Obviously I was wrong . Anger amongst the left has endured . In fact , it has gottten more intense . Is there anything like it on the right ? Actually there is if you go far enough on the political spectrum . Consider the Ku Klux Klan — there may even be a few thousand of them .

Washington Here we sit in the comfort of Washington and we read of the discomfort in Florida. There a massive storm moved from the Caribbean north through south Florida, displacing as many as five million people. It marched up the west coast displacing many more. The eye of the storm settled on Naples and Fort Myers, Florida, but it terrified pretty much the whole state, including the largest population of retired Americans gathered anywhere. It was the seventh-largest hurricane ever to threaten the United States, and it came on the heels of the death and destruction that Mother Nature visited upon Texas, prompting one cynic to say, “We’ve got to get Mother Nature before she gets us.” Florida’s governor, Rick Scott, was tireless in issuing warnings to the apprehensive citizenry of his state and in monitoring the activities of his state’s National Guard and first responders. He was on the nation’s television screens non-stop. He declared at one press conference, “This is a catastrophic storm our state has never seen.” He expressed similar sentiments continually. He also said “Pray, pray for everybody in Florida.” The citizenry responded responsibly. State and local government responded responsibly, but what was the response of the national media, or as we say the Mainstream Media? The Washington Post neatly summed up the Mainstream’s general response when it headlined an article “Florida Governor Has Refused to Recognize Climate-Change Risks, Critics Say.” In the body of this preposterous article appeared this telling line: “Scott’s office did not respond to a request for comment for this article….” Did it occur to anyone at the Post that the Governor’s office might be under water or that the Governor might be otherwise preoccupied? This is how poisonous left-wing politics has become in America. Even at the height of a historic crisis the Mainstream Media has time to advance a political point, a point that is, incidentally, highly debatable. Not that there is ever any time for debate with the left. It blabs on about how the consensus of the scientific community all believes that global warming is behind such events as hurricane Irma. It quotes political critics of Governor Scott at length. It never could find a person who sided with Scott. It only quoted his opponents. It never lets up on advancing its point of view. Nonetheless its point of view is not in the ascendancy. Now I shall startle you perhaps, but I think along with Governor Scott’s critics that there is a human factor in “global warming.” It is not large, and by no means is “global warming” a steady growing factor in global weather. We really do not know what the future holds for climate. We do know that all the nostrums advanced to solve “global warming” will impede global growth, which means ensuring continued poverty for the world’s poor. Moreover, a significant number of the world’s governments have shown no inclination to follow the nostrums’ inhibiting requirements, which means the nostrums will have little or no effect. The debate about climate and how to limit global warming is a farce. The most prudent course is to follow a policy that allows growth worldwide. By allowing growth the industries of the world will be able to apply science and innovation to the problem of “our carbon footprint.” A wealthier world in time will have the resources to develop technologies to deal with future problems, among them climate. There is no proof that Hurricane Irma or Hurricane Harvey were caused by global warming, or intensified by global warming, but global warming can in time be dealt with by technological development. As for the poisonous rhetoric of the left, I have no cure. Do you remember a few years ago when the left was actually boasting of its anger? It was as if anger were a political virtue. At the time I marveled that the descendants of Eleanor Roosevelt would consider anger a noble political value. I rather thought there might be a rebellion within the left’s ranks. Suddenly a “reform” movement would spread through leftist ranks, and they would favor sweetness and light over anger. Obviously I was wrong. Anger amongst the left has endured. In fact, it has gottten more intense. Is there anything like it on the right? Actually there is if you go far enough on the political spectrum. Consider the Ku Klux Klan — there may even be a few thousand of them.

www.spectator.org

right

ZFX34FWMpxtpIdQh

test

5HZ23T5ojhuIuHZ9

lgbt_rights

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2019/november/coca-cola-promoting-destructive-mental-disorders-with-new-sprite-commercial

Coca-Cola Promoting Destructive Mental Disorders With New Sprite Commercial

2019-11-19

Sprite has a new commercial coming to your TV screens . I 'll tell you right up front that I found it chilling . It is a supposedly sympathetic , loving spot where parents indulge their children 's transgender fantasies that they can actually be someone they were not born to be . One mother is seen binding the breasts of her daughter in order to make her look more boyish . Another mother helps her son put on makeup before he goes out to meet his boyfriend . All these `` loving '' images come with a beautiful music bed that tugs at your heartstrings - `` let there be peace on earth '' - while at the same time coaxes you to buy into what many doctors and psychiatrists are saying is a mental disorder . And nowhere , by the way , do you see anyone taking a sip of Sprite . Since when did enabling people - especially children - in their confused mental state become `` loving '' ? Much less become a vehicle to sell soda ? I know what many of you are thinking . Like me , you say it 's gotten so crazy out there , sometimes you just want to try to escape , stick your head in the sand , and ignore what 's going on . But that 's just not possible anymore . Here 's what 's going on : the so-called `` influencers '' of our society - the media , Hollywood , the schools , your `` enlightened '' businesses - are in a determined , organized , deliberate effort to foist the most toxic and destructive behaviors on us as normal and good . And we can not hide from it . Instead , we must resist it with the truth . The transgender lie - and it is a falsehood - says you are not the gender you were born as biologically ; instead , you are the gender you think you are and want to be . That belief has led to the promotion of medical procedures and hormone treatments for kids to `` transition '' from one gender to another , including puberty blockers , opposite-sex hormones , and finally , surgical removal or altering of genitalia . READ : Teen Who Had a Sex Change Says He Now Feels Like a 'Frankenstein ' But these procedures and the propaganda push for acceptance of trangenderism as normal , like this Sprite commercial , come at a time when a rising chorus of doctors and psychiatrists say `` transitioning '' is destructive and dangerous for children . Dr. Michael Laidlaw , an endocrinologist based in Rocklin , California , says medical associations themselves have been subverted with trans propaganda not backed up by research . As ███ News has reported , Dr. Laidlaw told The Christian Post that the Endocrine Society , Pediatric Endocrine Society , and the American Academy of Pediatrics have been taken over by the most radical elements of the profession . `` These radical trans activists were involved in writing the Endocrine Society guidelines in 2009 and 2017 . These are low to no quality evidence guidelines , and anyone can read for themselves the poor evidence they have for these treatments for children and adolescents . There is no long-term evidence for benefits for these treatments , '' Laidlaw stressed . READ : 'Mom , I 'm Transgender ' : Parents Grapple as Trans Phenomenon Explodes Counseling used to be the first treatment for children confused over their gender . `` Until very recently , these children and adolescents were supported and cared for with counseling , '' Dr. Malone told the CP . `` With counseling , or even watchful waiting , an average of 85 % of these children would have a resolution of their distress by early adulthood . There are currently 10 studies in the medical literature demonstrating this . '' But that kind of research is not what 's promoted by the trans activist ideologues in media or medicine . In March , the United Kingdom 's The Telegraph reported that Oxford University professor , Dr. Michael Biggs , accused the National Health Service 's clinic for transgender children of hiding negative evidence about the effects of puberty blockers on children . Instead , Biggs claimed , the clinic is continuing experimental treatment on adolescents without solid evidence of its long-term effects . Dr. Biggs ' own research suggests that after a year of treatment `` a significant increase '' was found in patients who had been born female telling staff that they `` deliberately try to hurt or kill myself , '' according to the Telegraph . Biggs says the evidence showed that `` Puberty blockers exacerbated gender dysphoria . Yet the study has been used to justify rolling out this drug regime to several hundred children aged under 16 . '' Dr. Laidlaw equates the `` gender affirmative '' treatment now in vogue with brainwashing young children . They are psychologically damaged by puberty blockers , he believes , and then made even more confused , depressed and even psychotic by cross-sex hormones , according to the CP . `` The puberty blockers are a drug-induced model of not only blocking essential aspects of development but also solidifying the belief that they must take wrong sex hormones to escape from their situation . These wrong sex hormones are very dangerous and have blood clots , cardiovascular , and cancer risks . '' Dr. John McHugh , a distinguished professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University , calls this chemical treatment of minors who are uncomfortable with their birth sex `` reckless and irresponsible . '' `` Many people are doing what amounts to an experiment on these young people without telling them it 's an experiment ... You need evidence for that , and this is a very serious treatment . It is comparable to doing frontal lobotomies . '' McHugh believes there could be a link between feelings of transgenderism and poor mental health . `` I think their mental problems , often depression , discouragement , are the things that need treatment , '' he said . `` I 'm not positive about this . It 's a hypothesis , but it is a very plausible hypothesis , and it would explain why many of the people who go on to have treatment of their body discover they are just as depressed , discouraged , and live just as problematic lives as they did before , because they did not address the primary problem . '' Additionally , McHugh referenced the results of a 2018 study that would indicate a cautious approach to treatment is a better option . The study was reportedly censored by Brown University in Providence , Rhode Island , after the survey 's lead researcher , professor Lisa Littman , discovered a `` contagion effect '' with transgenderism among children . `` In on-line forums , parents have been reporting that their children are experiencing what is described here as 'rapid-onset gender dysphoria , ' appearing for the first time during puberty or even after its completion , '' wrote Littman , an assistant professor of behavioral sciences at Brown . `` The onset of gender dysphoria seemed to occur in the context of belonging to a peer group where one , multiple , or even all of the friends have become gender dysphoric and transgender-identified during the same timeframe . '' Gender confusion among young people , McHugh said , is `` mostly being driven by psychological and psychosocial problems these people have , '' which , he added , `` explains the rapid onset gender dysphoria Lisa Littman has spelled out . '' With that in mind , what effect will this Sprite commercial have on suggestive children ? How many will be beset by this `` contagion effect '' and suddenly think they must be transgender ? With all the scientific reasons not to promote trangenderism in medicine or on TV , maybe it 's time to remember one more -- Genesis 1:27 : `` And God created man in His own image , in His own image created him ; male and female He created them . ''

ANALYSIS Sprite has a new commercial coming to your TV screens. I'll tell you right up front that I found it chilling. It is a supposedly sympathetic, loving spot where parents indulge their children's transgender fantasies that they can actually be someone they were not born to be. One mother is seen binding the breasts of her daughter in order to make her look more boyish. Another mother helps her son put on makeup before he goes out to meet his boyfriend. All these "loving" images come with a beautiful music bed that tugs at your heartstrings - "let there be peace on earth" - while at the same time coaxes you to buy into what many doctors and psychiatrists are saying is a mental disorder. And nowhere, by the way, do you see anyone taking a sip of Sprite. Since when did enabling people - especially children - in their confused mental state become "loving"? Much less become a vehicle to sell soda? I know what many of you are thinking. Like me, you say it's gotten so crazy out there, sometimes you just want to try to escape, stick your head in the sand, and ignore what's going on. But that's just not possible anymore. Here's what's going on: the so-called "influencers" of our society - the media, Hollywood, the schools, your "enlightened" businesses - are in a determined, organized, deliberate effort to foist the most toxic and destructive behaviors on us as normal and good. And we can not hide from it. Instead, we must resist it with the truth. The transgender lie - and it is a falsehood - says you are not the gender you were born as biologically; instead, you are the gender you think you are and want to be. That belief has led to the promotion of medical procedures and hormone treatments for kids to "transition" from one gender to another, including puberty blockers, opposite-sex hormones, and finally, surgical removal or altering of genitalia. READ: Teen Who Had a Sex Change Says He Now Feels Like a 'Frankenstein' But these procedures and the propaganda push for acceptance of trangenderism as normal, like this Sprite commercial, come at a time when a rising chorus of doctors and psychiatrists say "transitioning" is destructive and dangerous for children. Dr. Michael Laidlaw, an endocrinologist based in Rocklin, California, says medical associations themselves have been subverted with trans propaganda not backed up by research. As CBN News has reported, Dr. Laidlaw told The Christian Post that the Endocrine Society, Pediatric Endocrine Society, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have been taken over by the most radical elements of the profession. "These radical trans activists were involved in writing the Endocrine Society guidelines in 2009 and 2017. These are low to no quality evidence guidelines, and anyone can read for themselves the poor evidence they have for these treatments for children and adolescents. There is no long-term evidence for benefits for these treatments," Laidlaw stressed. READ: 'Mom, I'm Transgender': Parents Grapple as Trans Phenomenon Explodes Counseling used to be the first treatment for children confused over their gender. Dr. William Malone is an endocrinologist. "Until very recently, these children and adolescents were supported and cared for with counseling," Dr. Malone told the CP. "With counseling, or even watchful waiting, an average of 85% of these children would have a resolution of their distress by early adulthood. There are currently 10 studies in the medical literature demonstrating this." But that kind of research is not what's promoted by the trans activist ideologues in media or medicine. In March, the United Kingdom's The Telegraph reported that Oxford University professor, Dr. Michael Biggs, accused the National Health Service's clinic for transgender children of hiding negative evidence about the effects of puberty blockers on children. Instead, Biggs claimed, the clinic is continuing experimental treatment on adolescents without solid evidence of its long-term effects. Dr. Biggs' own research suggests that after a year of treatment "a significant increase" was found in patients who had been born female telling staff that they "deliberately try to hurt or kill myself," according to the Telegraph. Biggs says the evidence showed that "Puberty blockers exacerbated gender dysphoria. Yet the study has been used to justify rolling out this drug regime to several hundred children aged under 16." Dr. Laidlaw equates the "gender affirmative" treatment now in vogue with brainwashing young children. They are psychologically damaged by puberty blockers, he believes, and then made even more confused, depressed and even psychotic by cross-sex hormones, according to the CP. "The puberty blockers are a drug-induced model of not only blocking essential aspects of development but also solidifying the belief that they must take wrong sex hormones to escape from their situation. These wrong sex hormones are very dangerous and have blood clots, cardiovascular, and cancer risks." Dr. John McHugh, a distinguished professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, calls this chemical treatment of minors who are uncomfortable with their birth sex "reckless and irresponsible." CBN News previously reported about Dr. McHugh's grave concern. "Many people are doing what amounts to an experiment on these young people without telling them it's an experiment...You need evidence for that, and this is a very serious treatment. It is comparable to doing frontal lobotomies." McHugh believes there could be a link between feelings of transgenderism and poor mental health. "I think their mental problems, often depression, discouragement, are the things that need treatment," he said. "I'm not positive about this. It's a hypothesis, but it is a very plausible hypothesis, and it would explain why many of the people who go on to have treatment of their body discover they are just as depressed, discouraged, and live just as problematic lives as they did before, because they did not address the primary problem." Additionally, McHugh referenced the results of a 2018 study that would indicate a cautious approach to treatment is a better option. The study was reportedly censored by Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, after the survey's lead researcher, professor Lisa Littman, discovered a "contagion effect" with transgenderism among children. "In on-line forums, parents have been reporting that their children are experiencing what is described here as 'rapid-onset gender dysphoria,' appearing for the first time during puberty or even after its completion," wrote Littman, an assistant professor of behavioral sciences at Brown. "The onset of gender dysphoria seemed to occur in the context of belonging to a peer group where one, multiple, or even all of the friends have become gender dysphoric and transgender-identified during the same timeframe." Gender confusion among young people, McHugh said, is "mostly being driven by psychological and psychosocial problems these people have," which, he added, "explains the rapid onset gender dysphoria Lisa Littman has spelled out." With that in mind, what effect will this Sprite commercial have on suggestive children? How many will be beset by this "contagion effect" and suddenly think they must be transgender? With all the scientific reasons not to promote trangenderism in medicine or on TV, maybe it's time to remember one more -- Genesis 1:27: "And God created man in His own image, in His own image created him; male and female He created them."

www1.cbn.com

right

5HZ23T5ojhuIuHZ9

test

bFSKY8pSrmz5UL6M

cybersecurity

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/11/julian-assange-charged-with-computer-hacking-conspiracy

Julian Assange charged with computer hacking conspiracy

2019-04-11

Jon Swaine

US justice department alleges that Assange conspired with Chelsea Manning to break into a secret Pentagon computer network Julian Assange has been charged by the US with conspiring to hack into a secret Pentagon computer network , in a criminal indictment unveiled soon after the WikiLeaks founder ’ s arrest in London . Assange is accused of working with Chelsea Manning , then a US army intelligence analyst , to break into the defense department network in March 2010 to obtain classified documents . Julian Assange : US justice department says he faces five years in jail – live updates Read more Assange , 47 , is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion . He faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison if convicted , though he may yet face additional charges . US prosecutors allege Assange helped Manning crack an encrypted password to gain access to the computer network under a username that did not belong to her , making it more difficult for authorities to trace the source of leaked documents . Play Video 0:55 Julian Assange removed from Ecuadorian embassy in London - video “ Assange , who did not possess a security clearance or need to know , was not authorised to receive classified information of the United States , ” they said . Manning had by then given WikiLeaks hundreds of thousands of secret government records , including logs from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq . She went on to give them a huge cache of secret diplomatic cables . Some of the files were published by WikiLeaks in partnership with news organisations including ███ . The indictment cited online discussions between the two in which Assange was seen “ actively encouraging Manning to provide more information ” , the justice department said . “ After this upload , that ’ s all I really have got left , ” Manning was said to have told Assange in one message . Assange allegedly replied : “ Curious eyes never run dry in my experience . ” Assange was secretly indicted in March last year by a grand jury in Alexandria , Virginia , according to the documents released on Thursday . The charge remained a secret until it was partly revealed by the justice department in a mistaken court filing last November . By charging Assange with hacking rather than for publishing classified information , US prosecutors avoided having to directly challenge the press freedoms guaranteed under the first amendment of the US constitution . The charge accuses Assange of conspiring to “ knowingly access a computer without authorisation ” in order to obtain secret information whose release “ could be used to the injury of the United States and the advantage of any foreign nation ” . But allies of Assange said the US was prosecuting a publisher by the back door . Barry Pollack , an attorney for the WikiLeaks founder , condemned what he called “ an unprecedented effort ” to “ extradite a foreign journalist to face criminal charges for publishing truthful information ” . Edward Snowden , the NSA whistleblower , described Assange ’ s arrest as “ a dark moment for press freedom ” . Barack Obama ’ s administration was known to have investigated WikiLeaks in the years following the release of Manning ’ s document haul . But Eric Holder , Obama ’ s first attorney general , reportedly decided against bringing charges out of concerns that a precedent could be set for prosecuting publishers . The grand jury in Virginia has continued investigating Assange in recent months , indicating the possibility of future charges . WikiLeaks has come under scrutiny for publishing leaked spying tools taken from the CIA , and for releasing emails hacked from the accounts of senior Democrats during the 2016 election campaign . Senator Mark Warner of Virginia , the senior Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee , said in response to the charges that Assange had become “ a direct participant in Russian efforts to undermine the west ” and should be punished . The US confirmed it would seek the extradition of Assange from the UK . He was arrested on Thursday morning at the embassy of Ecuador , where he had been staying since 2012 after being granted asylum . He was then under investigation by authorities in Sweden for allegations of sexual assault , which he denied . Attorneys for Assange said they would fight the extradition process , which could result in a lengthy legal dispute in the British courts system . Manning was convicted in 2013 under the Espionage Act for stealing classified government records . In May 2017 she was released from a military prison in Kansas after serving seven years of a 35-year sentence . Barack Obama granted Manning clemency during his final days in office . Manning has been jailed in Virginia for the past month after being found in contempt of court for refusing to testify to the grand jury investigating Assange . She was held in solitary confinement for part of that time .

US justice department alleges that Assange conspired with Chelsea Manning to break into a secret Pentagon computer network This article is more than 6 months old This article is more than 6 months old Julian Assange has been charged by the US with conspiring to hack into a secret Pentagon computer network, in a criminal indictment unveiled soon after the WikiLeaks founder’s arrest in London. Assange is accused of working with Chelsea Manning, then a US army intelligence analyst, to break into the defense department network in March 2010 to obtain classified documents. Julian Assange: US justice department says he faces five years in jail – live updates Read more Assange, 47, is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. He faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison if convicted, though he may yet face additional charges. US prosecutors allege Assange helped Manning crack an encrypted password to gain access to the computer network under a username that did not belong to her, making it more difficult for authorities to trace the source of leaked documents. Play Video 0:55 Julian Assange removed from Ecuadorian embassy in London - video “Assange, who did not possess a security clearance or need to know, was not authorised to receive classified information of the United States,” they said. Manning had by then given WikiLeaks hundreds of thousands of secret government records, including logs from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. She went on to give them a huge cache of secret diplomatic cables. Some of the files were published by WikiLeaks in partnership with news organisations including the Guardian. The indictment cited online discussions between the two in which Assange was seen “actively encouraging Manning to provide more information”, the justice department said. “After this upload, that’s all I really have got left,” Manning was said to have told Assange in one message. Assange allegedly replied: “Curious eyes never run dry in my experience.” Assange was secretly indicted in March last year by a grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, according to the documents released on Thursday. The charge remained a secret until it was partly revealed by the justice department in a mistaken court filing last November. By charging Assange with hacking rather than for publishing classified information, US prosecutors avoided having to directly challenge the press freedoms guaranteed under the first amendment of the US constitution. The charge accuses Assange of conspiring to “knowingly access a computer without authorisation” in order to obtain secret information whose release “could be used to the injury of the United States and the advantage of any foreign nation”. But allies of Assange said the US was prosecuting a publisher by the back door. Barry Pollack, an attorney for the WikiLeaks founder, condemned what he called “an unprecedented effort” to “extradite a foreign journalist to face criminal charges for publishing truthful information”. Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower, described Assange’s arrest as “a dark moment for press freedom”. Barack Obama’s administration was known to have investigated WikiLeaks in the years following the release of Manning’s document haul. But Eric Holder, Obama’s first attorney general, reportedly decided against bringing charges out of concerns that a precedent could be set for prosecuting publishers. The grand jury in Virginia has continued investigating Assange in recent months, indicating the possibility of future charges. WikiLeaks has come under scrutiny for publishing leaked spying tools taken from the CIA, and for releasing emails hacked from the accounts of senior Democrats during the 2016 election campaign. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, said in response to the charges that Assange had become “a direct participant in Russian efforts to undermine the west” and should be punished. The US confirmed it would seek the extradition of Assange from the UK. He was arrested on Thursday morning at the embassy of Ecuador, where he had been staying since 2012 after being granted asylum. He was then under investigation by authorities in Sweden for allegations of sexual assault, which he denied. Attorneys for Assange said they would fight the extradition process, which could result in a lengthy legal dispute in the British courts system. Manning was convicted in 2013 under the Espionage Act for stealing classified government records. In May 2017 she was released from a military prison in Kansas after serving seven years of a 35-year sentence. Barack Obama granted Manning clemency during his final days in office. Manning has been jailed in Virginia for the past month after being found in contempt of court for refusing to testify to the grand jury investigating Assange. She was held in solitary confinement for part of that time.

www.theguardian.com

left

bFSKY8pSrmz5UL6M

test

4pF7JVVTXN1yWWum

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2016/november/trumps-cabinet-a-motley-collection-of-believers

Trump's Cabinet: A Motley Collection of Believers

2016-11-30

Abraham Lincoln had his `` Team of Rivals . '' John F. Kennedy had his `` Wise Men . '' While history has n't yet given a nickname for President-elect Donald Trump 's cabinet and his executive team , it 's starting to look like he 's surrounding himself with men and women of faith . Here are some of his selections , as of Dec. 2 . The vice president-elect grew up as an altar boy and made a `` commitment to Christ '' in college and has described himself as a `` Christian , a conservative , and a Republican , '' in that order . As Indiana 's governor , he signed a bill to protect religious freedom in his state and shortly before Election Day , he made a special appeal to Christians , telling them his `` faith always comes first . '' The multi-term Alabama senator was one of the first supporters of Trump 's campaign and soon thereafter became an advisor . Now , he 's the president-elect 's pick for attorney general . The choice is not without controversy . Sessions has had to dodge accusations of racism stemming from his work as a prosecutor in the Justice Department . As a child , Sessions was active in Boy Scouts activities and the Camden Methodist Church . He later went to a Methodist-affiliated college , Huntingdon , and he 's served as a leader and Sunday school teacher at his family 's church , Ashland Place United Methodist Church in Mobile . The man who served as the finance chairman for Trump 's campaign is now being tapped to head the department made cool by Alexander Hamilton : Treasury . Mnuchin had worked as a partner at Goldman Sachs for 17 years before launching his own hedge fund , `` Dune Capital Management . '' While there , he 's invested in several blockbuster films , including `` Avatar , '' `` Mad Max : Fury Road , '' and the critically panned yet commercially successful `` Suicide Squad . '' Mnuchin , who is Jewish , could be subjected to a confirmation fight in the Senate since many opponents are likely to zero in on his involvement in the 2008 housing market crash . When Trump meets the members of his cabinet , he wo n't be the only billionaire at the table . His nominee to run the Commerce Department , Wilbur Ross , can also stare at a nine-figure bank account . The investor has a spot on Forbes ' exclusive list and a net worth of $ 2.9 billion . Ross , who attended an elite Catholic school as a youth , is an avid art collector . He became known as the `` King of Bankruptcy '' for his knack for buying beaten-down companies with the potential to deliver profits , including the casino of then real-estate magnate Donald Trump . Before becoming a Georgia congressman , Rep. Tom Price was known as Tom Price , M.D. , due to his career as an orthopedic surgeon in the suburbs of Atlanta . Dr. Price has long been a vocal critic of the Affordable Care Act and has proposed dismantling and replacing it . Price , a Presbyterian , has a voting record that aligns with conservative Christianity . He is opposed to same-sex marriage , federal funding for abortion , and federal requirements that insurance plans cover contraception with no co-pay . The world-famous neurosurgeon burst onto the national scene following a controversial and politically charged speech directed at President Obama during the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013 . Carson was raised in poverty by a mother who could not read , and he endured more than his fair share of racial abuse in school . He persevered through it all before becoming a pioneer resident at Johns Hopkins ( the details of which can be seen in the movie `` Gifted Hands , '' starring Cuba Gooding , Jr . ) The soft-spoken neurosurgeon is a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist church and is open about his faith . In an interview with PBS , he talked about relying on God after a diagnosis with cancer , saying , `` I just said , 'Lord , if it 's time for me to go , You know what is best . I do n't want to go , but if it 's time , that 's fine , I trust You , ' and I was at peace . '' Elaine Chao has had her fair share of visits to the Roosevelt Room , as she previously served as a cabinet official under the administration of President George W. Bush . As his secretary of labor , she was the first Asian-American woman to hold a cabinet-level position . Chao , who came to America at the age of 8 , is married to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , who is a Southern Baptist . Earlier this year , McConnell sat down with ███ 's David Brody to talk about his legecy - and his faith . During the campaign , Trump said he wanted to shrink the Education Department and shift responsibilities to the state and local government . To accomplish that task , he 's nominated Michigan 's Betsy DeVos for education secretary . DeVos , an ardent supporter of school choice , is the daughter-in-law of Amway founder Richard DeVos . The elder DeVos , by the way , has a net worth of $ 5.1 billion ... higher than Trump 's . According to Religion News Service , Betsy DeVos has `` deep roots '' in the Christian reformed community . She graduated from Calvin College and now attends Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids , Michigan – the same church once made popular by Rob Bell . One political scientist at her alma mater told The Washington Post that Devos `` will not likely be one to focus on curriculum issues like evolution and creationism , which has been a concern in some conservative Christian circles . Instead , her concerns about school vouchers reflect a larger concern about what 's best for the public . '' The chairman of the Republican National Committee was one of the first people to be chosen for a role in Trump 's administration . Priebus is a lifelong member of the Greek Orthodox Church and told CNN that three things get him through the day : the Greek Orthodox liturgy , the Republican Party platform , and the Milwaukee Brewers schedule . As the governor of South Carolina , Nikki Haley called for the Confederate flag to be removed from the grounds of the state Capitol after the racially charged shootings of nine parishioners in a historically black church in 2015 . Just last week , as the death penalty trial for the alleged perpetrator , Dylann Roof , gets started , Haley issued a call to prayer . She immigrated to the Palmetto State from India with her Sikh family and converted to Christianity after marrying Michael Haley 20 years ago . In 2010 , Haley referenced her faith in Christ by saying it `` has a profound impact on my daily life and I look to Him for guidance with every decision I make . God has blessed my family in so many ways , and my faith in the Lord gives me great strength on a daily basis . Being a Christian is not about words but about living for Christ every day . '' While voters of Kansas ' 4th Congressional District overwhelmingly wanted Pompeo to return to Washington for a fourth term in the House ( Pompeo won with 61 percent of the vote ) , they may have to settle for a replacement . Instead of serving on Capitol Hill , Trump asked Pompeo to serve as the head of the CIA . Pompeo previously denounced Obama for his decision to close the CIA 's black sites and also his requirement for government interrogators to adhere to the rules of the Army Field Manual ( in basic English : no secret prisons , no torture ) . Those are probably not issues Pompeo talked about at the Eastminster Presbyterian Church , where he taught a fifth grade Sunday School class . One of the most outspoken opponents of radical Islam is now the chief advisor to a president with no foreign policy experience . Retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn , a former intelligence officer , was named as Trump 's national security advisor . In an interview with ███ , he said that 'America is at war – and the sooner we realize that , the sooner we can defeat ISIS . ' He has called Islam a `` political ideology '' that `` hides behind being a religion '' and likened it to a `` cancer . '' Flynn says he was `` born and raised in an Irish-Catholic family of blue-collar Democrats . '' Stay tuned to ███.com for the latest on all of President-elect Donald Trump 's cabinet selections . * Trivia answer : Elizabeth Dole . If you knew that , thank you for at least reading this article .

Abraham Lincoln had his "Team of Rivals." John F. Kennedy had his "Wise Men." While history hasn't yet given a nickname for President-elect Donald Trump's cabinet and his executive team, it's starting to look like he's surrounding himself with men and women of faith. Here are some of his selections, as of Dec. 2. Vice President: Gov. Mike Pence The vice president-elect grew up as an altar boy and made a "commitment to Christ" in college and has described himself as a "Christian, a conservative, and a Republican," in that order. As Indiana's governor, he signed a bill to protect religious freedom in his state and shortly before Election Day, he made a special appeal to Christians, telling them his "faith always comes first." Cabinet-Level Selections Attorney General: Sen. Jeff Sessions The multi-term Alabama senator was one of the first supporters of Trump's campaign and soon thereafter became an advisor. Now, he's the president-elect's pick for attorney general. The choice is not without controversy. Sessions has had to dodge accusations of racism stemming from his work as a prosecutor in the Justice Department. As a child, Sessions was active in Boy Scouts activities and the Camden Methodist Church. He later went to a Methodist-affiliated college, Huntingdon, and he's served as a leader and Sunday school teacher at his family's church, Ashland Place United Methodist Church in Mobile. Secretary of the Treasury: Steven Mnuchin The man who served as the finance chairman for Trump's campaign is now being tapped to head the department made cool by Alexander Hamilton: Treasury. Mnuchin had worked as a partner at Goldman Sachs for 17 years before launching his own hedge fund, "Dune Capital Management." While there, he's invested in several blockbuster films, including "Avatar," "Mad Max: Fury Road," and the critically panned yet commercially successful "Suicide Squad." Mnuchin, who is Jewish, could be subjected to a confirmation fight in the Senate since many opponents are likely to zero in on his involvement in the 2008 housing market crash. Secretary of Commerce: Wilbur Ross When Trump meets the members of his cabinet, he won't be the only billionaire at the table. His nominee to run the Commerce Department, Wilbur Ross, can also stare at a nine-figure bank account. The investor has a spot on Forbes' exclusive list and a net worth of $2.9 billion. Ross, who attended an elite Catholic school as a youth, is an avid art collector. He became known as the "King of Bankruptcy" for his knack for buying beaten-down companies with the potential to deliver profits, including the casino of then real-estate magnate Donald Trump. Secretary of Health and Human Services: Rep. Tom Price Before becoming a Georgia congressman, Rep. Tom Price was known as Tom Price, M.D., due to his career as an orthopedic surgeon in the suburbs of Atlanta. Dr. Price has long been a vocal critic of the Affordable Care Act and has proposed dismantling and replacing it. Price, a Presbyterian, has a voting record that aligns with conservative Christianity. He is opposed to same-sex marriage, federal funding for abortion, and federal requirements that insurance plans cover contraception with no co-pay. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development: Dr. Ben Carson The world-famous neurosurgeon burst onto the national scene following a controversial and politically charged speech directed at President Obama during the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013. Carson was raised in poverty by a mother who could not read, and he endured more than his fair share of racial abuse in school. He persevered through it all before becoming a pioneer resident at Johns Hopkins (the details of which can be seen in the movie "Gifted Hands," starring Cuba Gooding, Jr.) The soft-spoken neurosurgeon is a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist church and is open about his faith. In an interview with PBS, he talked about relying on God after a diagnosis with cancer, saying, "I just said, 'Lord, if it's time for me to go, You know what is best. I don't want to go, but if it's time, that's fine, I trust You,' and I was at peace." Secretary of Transportation: Secretary Elaine Chao Elaine Chao has had her fair share of visits to the Roosevelt Room, as she previously served as a cabinet official under the administration of President George W. Bush. As his secretary of labor, she was the first Asian-American woman to hold a cabinet-level position. Chao, who came to America at the age of 8, is married to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is a Southern Baptist. Earlier this year, McConnell sat down with CBN's David Brody to talk about his legecy - and his faith. Pop Quiz: If Chao makes it through the confirmation process, she will be the second person to have this on her resume: a) the wife of a Senate Majority Leader b) the Secretary of Transportation and c) the Secretary of Labor. Who was the first? Answer... at the end of this article! Secretary of Education: Betsy DeVos During the campaign, Trump said he wanted to shrink the Education Department and shift responsibilities to the state and local government. To accomplish that task, he's nominated Michigan's Betsy DeVos for education secretary. DeVos, an ardent supporter of school choice, is the daughter-in-law of Amway founder Richard DeVos. The elder DeVos, by the way, has a net worth of $5.1 billion... higher than Trump's. According to Religion News Service, Betsy DeVos has "deep roots" in the Christian reformed community. She graduated from Calvin College and now attends Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan – the same church once made popular by Rob Bell. One political scientist at her alma mater told The Washington Post that Devos "will not likely be one to focus on curriculum issues like evolution and creationism, which has been a concern in some conservative Christian circles. Instead, her concerns about school vouchers reflect a larger concern about what's best for the public." Other Selections Chief of Staff: Reince Preibus The chairman of the Republican National Committee was one of the first people to be chosen for a role in Trump's administration. Priebus is a lifelong member of the Greek Orthodox Church and told CNN that three things get him through the day: the Greek Orthodox liturgy, the Republican Party platform, and the Milwaukee Brewers schedule. Ambassador to the United Nations: Gov. Nikki Haley As the governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley called for the Confederate flag to be removed from the grounds of the state Capitol after the racially charged shootings of nine parishioners in a historically black church in 2015. Just last week, as the death penalty trial for the alleged perpetrator, Dylann Roof, gets started, Haley issued a call to prayer. She immigrated to the Palmetto State from India with her Sikh family and converted to Christianity after marrying Michael Haley 20 years ago. In 2010, Haley referenced her faith in Christ by saying it "has a profound impact on my daily life and I look to Him for guidance with every decision I make. God has blessed my family in so many ways, and my faith in the Lord gives me great strength on a daily basis. Being a Christian is not about words but about living for Christ every day." Director of the CIA: Rep. Mike Pompeo While voters of Kansas' 4th Congressional District overwhelmingly wanted Pompeo to return to Washington for a fourth term in the House (Pompeo won with 61 percent of the vote), they may have to settle for a replacement. Instead of serving on Capitol Hill, Trump asked Pompeo to serve as the head of the CIA. Pompeo previously denounced Obama for his decision to close the CIA's black sites and also his requirement for government interrogators to adhere to the rules of the Army Field Manual (in basic English: no secret prisons, no torture). Those are probably not issues Pompeo talked about at the Eastminster Presbyterian Church, where he taught a fifth grade Sunday School class. National Security Advisor: Ret. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn One of the most outspoken opponents of radical Islam is now the chief advisor to a president with no foreign policy experience. Retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, a former intelligence officer, was named as Trump's national security advisor. In an interview with CBN, he said that 'America is at war – and the sooner we realize that, the sooner we can defeat ISIS.' He has called Islam a "political ideology" that "hides behind being a religion" and likened it to a "cancer." Flynn says he was "born and raised in an Irish-Catholic family of blue-collar Democrats." Stay tuned to CBN.com for the latest on all of President-elect Donald Trump's cabinet selections. * Trivia answer: Elizabeth Dole. If you knew that, thank you for at least reading this article.

www1.cbn.com

right

4pF7JVVTXN1yWWum

test

vCSFuERHBcK3E8j6

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/04/what-is-a-grand-jury-and-how-serious-is-it-for-donald-trump

What is a grand jury and how serious is it for Donald Trump?

2017-08-04

Ewen Macaskill

Use of a grand jury to investigate links between Trump ’ s presidential team and Russia could be very serious . Here ’ s what you need to know about grand juries What is a grand jury and how serious is it for Donald Trump ? It has emerged that US special counsel Robert Mueller is using a grand jury in Washington as part of an investigation into potential coordination or collusion between Donald Trump ’ s presidential campaign and Russia . But what is a grand jury , how does it work and what does Trump have to fear ? Grand juries are used in only a handful of countries . In the US , they are normally made up of about 16 to 23 members of the public rather than the usual 12 , hence “ grand ” jury . They are held in secret – the fact that one has been convened is not even officially acknowledged . The Wall Street Journal leaked that one has been set up in Washington by Mueller . It will look into links between the Trump team and Russia to influence the White House election and whether there has been any subsequent attempt to obstruct justice . Potentially huge . The grand jury decides whether a case is strong enough to push ahead with an indictment . But one of the main reasons for holding a grand jury is that it is a powerful investigative tool . It can subpoena witnesses and demand the production of documents . Yes . Richard Nixon was called before a grand jury in 1975 over the Watergate case after he resigned as president . Bill Clinton was president when he testified before a grand jury into the Whitewater real estate controversy . Donald Trump Jr and the president ’ s son-in-law and White House adviser , Jared Kushner , could also be called to testify over their controversial June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer . Federal prosecutors often treat them as fishing expeditions . Witnesses can be questioned under oath for hours on end , with investigators hoping to trip them up and make them perjure themselves . Unlike in ordinary courts , witnesses are not allowed to have lawyers present . Witnesses have to leave the court to consult with lawyers sitting outside and grand juries are characterised by the time-consuming act of witnesses going in and out . Lawyers warn witnesses not to be lulled into over-confidence by answering a string of soft questions , and implore witnesses to consult with them before answering even seemingly easy questions . Unlike in ordinary courts , jurors are also allowed to ask questions . Mueller , appointed special counsel in May following the dismissal of FBI director James Comey , has been investigating since May whether members of the Trump team have lied about links to Russians and whether Trump himself tried to obstruct justice . As of yet , no subpoenas have been received by the president or Kushner . How long will it take for a grand jury to decide if criminal charges should be brought ? Grand juries tend to be slow , running for months or even years . He has for months insisted that reports about links to Russia are fake news and told a rally of supporters in West Virginia on Thursday night that “ they ’ re trying to cheat you out of the leadership that you want with a fake story ” .

Use of a grand jury to investigate links between Trump’s presidential team and Russia could be very serious. Here’s what you need to know about grand juries What is a grand jury and how serious is it for Donald Trump? It has emerged that US special counsel Robert Mueller is using a grand jury in Washington as part of an investigation into potential coordination or collusion between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia. But what is a grand jury, how does it work and what does Trump have to fear? What is a grand jury? Grand juries are used in only a handful of countries. In the US, they are normally made up of about 16 to 23 members of the public rather than the usual 12, hence “grand” jury. They are held in secret – the fact that one has been convened is not even officially acknowledged. The Wall Street Journal leaked that one has been set up in Washington by Mueller. It will look into links between the Trump team and Russia to influence the White House election and whether there has been any subsequent attempt to obstruct justice. How serious is this development for Trump? Potentially huge. The grand jury decides whether a case is strong enough to push ahead with an indictment. But one of the main reasons for holding a grand jury is that it is a powerful investigative tool. It can subpoena witnesses and demand the production of documents. Could Trump be called to give evidence? Yes. Richard Nixon was called before a grand jury in 1975 over the Watergate case after he resigned as president. Bill Clinton was president when he testified before a grand jury into the Whitewater real estate controversy. Donald Trump Jr and the president’s son-in-law and White House adviser, Jared Kushner, could also be called to testify over their controversial June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer. Why are grand juries feared? Federal prosecutors often treat them as fishing expeditions. Witnesses can be questioned under oath for hours on end, with investigators hoping to trip them up and make them perjure themselves. Unlike in ordinary courts, witnesses are not allowed to have lawyers present. Witnesses have to leave the court to consult with lawyers sitting outside and grand juries are characterised by the time-consuming act of witnesses going in and out. Lawyers warn witnesses not to be lulled into over-confidence by answering a string of soft questions, and implore witnesses to consult with them before answering even seemingly easy questions. Unlike in ordinary courts, jurors are also allowed to ask questions. What is the grand jury investigating? Mueller, appointed special counsel in May following the dismissal of FBI director James Comey, has been investigating since May whether members of the Trump team have lied about links to Russians and whether Trump himself tried to obstruct justice. As of yet, no subpoenas have been received by the president or Kushner. How long will it take for a grand jury to decide if criminal charges should be brought? Grand juries tend to be slow, running for months or even years. How has Trump reacted? He has for months insisted that reports about links to Russia are fake news and told a rally of supporters in West Virginia on Thursday night that “they’re trying to cheat you out of the leadership that you want with a fake story”. Sign up for Guardian US Today to receive the day’s top US stories every morning

www.theguardian.com

left

vCSFuERHBcK3E8j6

test

SjlA8JS216xvGbyY

us_military

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/fcf3ec359401c7575f5402b4da9b00a3

AP sources: White House aware of Russian bounties in 2019

2020-06-30

James Laporta

FILE - In this Nov. 30 , 2017 file photo , American soldiers wait on the tarmac in Logar province , Afghanistan . Top officials in the White House were aware in early 2019 of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban for the deaths of Americans , a full year earlier than has been previously reported . ( AP Photo/Rahmat Gul , File ) FILE - In this Nov. 30 , 2017 file photo , American soldiers wait on the tarmac in Logar province , Afghanistan . Top officials in the White House were aware in early 2019 of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban for the deaths of Americans , a full year earlier than has been previously reported . ( AP Photo/Rahmat Gul , File ) Top officials in the White House were aware in early 2019 of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban for the deaths of Americans , a full year earlier than has been previously reported , according to U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the intelligence . The assessment was included in at least one of President Donald Trump ’ s written daily intelligence briefings at the time , according to the officials . Then-national security adviser John Bolton also told colleagues at the time that he briefed Trump on the intelligence assessment in March 2019 . The White House didn ’ t respond to questions about Trump or other officials ’ awareness of Russia ’ s provocations in 2019 . The White House has said Trump wasn ’ t — and still hasn ’ t been — briefed on the intelligence assessments because they haven ’ t been fully verified . However , it ’ s rare for intelligence to be confirmed without a shadow of a doubt before it is presented to top officials . Bolton declined to comment Monday when asked by the AP if he ’ d briefed Trump about the matter in 2019 . On Sunday , he suggested to NBC that Trump was claiming ignorance of Russia ’ s provocations to justify his administration ’ s lack of response . “ He can disown everything if nobody ever told him about it , ” Bolton said . The revelations cast new doubt on the White House ’ s efforts to distance Trump from the Russian intelligence assessments . The AP reported Sunday that concerns about Russian bounties also were in a second written presidential daily briefing this year and that current national security adviser Robert O ’ Brien had discussed the matter with Trump . O ’ Brien denies doing that . On Monday , O ’ Brien said that while the intelligence assessments regarding Russian bounties “ have not been verified , ” the administration has “ been preparing should the situation warrant action . ” The administration ’ s earlier awareness of the Russian efforts raises additional questions about why Trump didn ’ t take punitive action against Moscow for efforts that put the lives of American service members at risk . Trump has sought throughout his time in office to improve relations with Russia and President Vladimir Putin , moving this year to try to reinstate Russia as part of a group of world leaders it had been kicked out of . Officials said they didn ’ t consider the intelligence assessments in 2019 to be particularly urgent , given Russian meddling in Afghanistan isn ’ t a new occurrence . The officials with knowledge of Bolton ’ s apparent briefing for Trump said it contained no “ actionable intelligence , ” meaning the intelligence community didn ’ t have enough information to form a strategic plan or response . However , the classified assessment of Russian bounties was the sole purpose of the meeting . The officials insisted on anonymity because they weren ’ t authorized to disclose the highly sensitive information . The intelligence that surfaced in early 2019 indicated Russian operatives had become more aggressive in their desire to contract with the Taliban and members of the Haqqani Network , a militant group aligned with the Taliban in Afghanistan and designated a foreign terrorist organization in 2012 during the Obama administration . The National Security Council and the undersecretary of defense for intelligence held meetings regarding the intelligence . The NSC didn ’ t respond to questions about the meetings . Late Monday , the Pentagon issued a statement saying it was evaluating the intelligence but so far had “ no corroborating evidence to validate the recent allegations . ” “ Regardless , we always take the safety and security of our forces in Afghanistan — and around the world — most seriously and therefore continuously adopt measures to prevent harm from potential threats , ” said Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman . Concerns about Russian bounties flared anew this year after members of the elite Naval Special Warfare Development Group , known to the public as SEAL Team Six , raided a Taliban outpost and recovered roughly $ 500,000 in U.S. currency . The funds bolstered the suspicions of the American intelligence community that Russians had offered money to Taliban militants and linked associations . The White House contends the president was unaware of this development , too . The officials told the AP that career government officials developed potential options for the White House to respond to the Russian aggression in Afghanistan , which was first reported by The New York Times . However , the Trump administration has yet to authorize any action . The intelligence in 2019 and 2020 surrounding Russian bounties was derived in part from debriefings of captured Taliban militants . Officials with knowledge of the matter told the AP that Taliban operatives from opposite ends of the country and from separate tribes offered similar accounts . Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied Russian intelligence officers had offered payments to the Taliban in exchange for targeting U.S. and coalition forces . Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called the Taliban ’ s chief negotiator , a spokesman for the insurgents said Tuesday , but it was unknown whether there was any mention during their conversation of allegations about Russian bounties . Pompeo pressed the insurgents to reduce violence in Afghanistan and discussed ways of advancing a U.S.-Taliban peace deal signed in February , the Taliban spokesman tweeted . The U.S. is investigating whether Americans died because of the Russian bounties . Officials are focused on an April 2019 attack on an American convoy . Three U.S. Marines were killed after a car rigged with explosives detonated near their armored vehicles as they returned to Bagram Airfield , the largest U.S. military installation in Afghanistan . The Defense Department identified them as Marine Staff Sgt . Christopher Slutman , 43 , of Newark , Delaware ; Sgt . Benjamin Hines , 31 , of York , Pennsylvania ; and Cpl . Robert Hendriks , 25 , of Locust Valley , New York . They were infantrymen assigned to 2nd Battalion , 25th Marines , a reserve infantry unit headquartered out of Garden City , New York . Hendriks ’ father told the AP that even a rumor of Russian bounties should have been immediately addressed . “ If this was kind of swept under the carpet as to not make it a bigger issue with Russia , and one ounce of blood was spilled when they knew this , I lost all respect for this administration and everything , ” Erik Hendriks said . Three other service members and an Afghan contractor were wounded in the attack . As of April 2019 , the attack was under a separate investigation , unrelated to the Russian bounties . The officials who spoke to the AP also said they were looking closely at insider attacks from 2019 to determine if they were linked to Russian bounties .

FILE - In this Nov. 30, 2017 file photo, American soldiers wait on the tarmac in Logar province, Afghanistan. Top officials in the White House were aware in early 2019 of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban for the deaths of Americans, a full year earlier than has been previously reported. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul, File) FILE - In this Nov. 30, 2017 file photo, American soldiers wait on the tarmac in Logar province, Afghanistan. Top officials in the White House were aware in early 2019 of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban for the deaths of Americans, a full year earlier than has been previously reported. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul, File) Top officials in the White House were aware in early 2019 of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban for the deaths of Americans, a full year earlier than has been previously reported, according to U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the intelligence. The assessment was included in at least one of President Donald Trump’s written daily intelligence briefings at the time, according to the officials. Then-national security adviser John Bolton also told colleagues at the time that he briefed Trump on the intelligence assessment in March 2019. The White House didn’t respond to questions about Trump or other officials’ awareness of Russia’s provocations in 2019. The White House has said Trump wasn’t — and still hasn’t been — briefed on the intelligence assessments because they haven’t been fully verified. However, it’s rare for intelligence to be confirmed without a shadow of a doubt before it is presented to top officials. ADVERTISEMENT Bolton declined to comment Monday when asked by the AP if he’d briefed Trump about the matter in 2019. On Sunday, he suggested to NBC that Trump was claiming ignorance of Russia’s provocations to justify his administration’s lack of response. “He can disown everything if nobody ever told him about it,” Bolton said. The revelations cast new doubt on the White House’s efforts to distance Trump from the Russian intelligence assessments. The AP reported Sunday that concerns about Russian bounties also were in a second written presidential daily briefing this year and that current national security adviser Robert O’Brien had discussed the matter with Trump. O’Brien denies doing that. On Monday, O’Brien said that while the intelligence assessments regarding Russian bounties “have not been verified,” the administration has “been preparing should the situation warrant action.” The administration’s earlier awareness of the Russian efforts raises additional questions about why Trump didn’t take punitive action against Moscow for efforts that put the lives of American service members at risk. Trump has sought throughout his time in office to improve relations with Russia and President Vladimir Putin, moving this year to try to reinstate Russia as part of a group of world leaders it had been kicked out of. Officials said they didn’t consider the intelligence assessments in 2019 to be particularly urgent, given Russian meddling in Afghanistan isn’t a new occurrence. The officials with knowledge of Bolton’s apparent briefing for Trump said it contained no “actionable intelligence,” meaning the intelligence community didn’t have enough information to form a strategic plan or response. However, the classified assessment of Russian bounties was the sole purpose of the meeting. ADVERTISEMENT The officials insisted on anonymity because they weren’t authorized to disclose the highly sensitive information. The intelligence that surfaced in early 2019 indicated Russian operatives had become more aggressive in their desire to contract with the Taliban and members of the Haqqani Network, a militant group aligned with the Taliban in Afghanistan and designated a foreign terrorist organization in 2012 during the Obama administration. The National Security Council and the undersecretary of defense for intelligence held meetings regarding the intelligence. The NSC didn’t respond to questions about the meetings. Late Monday, the Pentagon issued a statement saying it was evaluating the intelligence but so far had “no corroborating evidence to validate the recent allegations.” “Regardless, we always take the safety and security of our forces in Afghanistan — and around the world — most seriously and therefore continuously adopt measures to prevent harm from potential threats,” said Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman. Concerns about Russian bounties flared anew this year after members of the elite Naval Special Warfare Development Group, known to the public as SEAL Team Six, raided a Taliban outpost and recovered roughly $500,000 in U.S. currency. The funds bolstered the suspicions of the American intelligence community that Russians had offered money to Taliban militants and linked associations. The White House contends the president was unaware of this development, too. The officials told the AP that career government officials developed potential options for the White House to respond to the Russian aggression in Afghanistan, which was first reported by The New York Times. However, the Trump administration has yet to authorize any action. The intelligence in 2019 and 2020 surrounding Russian bounties was derived in part from debriefings of captured Taliban militants. Officials with knowledge of the matter told the AP that Taliban operatives from opposite ends of the country and from separate tribes offered similar accounts. Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied Russian intelligence officers had offered payments to the Taliban in exchange for targeting U.S. and coalition forces. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called the Taliban’s chief negotiator , a spokesman for the insurgents said Tuesday, but it was unknown whether there was any mention during their conversation of allegations about Russian bounties. Pompeo pressed the insurgents to reduce violence in Afghanistan and discussed ways of advancing a U.S.-Taliban peace deal signed in February, the Taliban spokesman tweeted. The U.S. is investigating whether Americans died because of the Russian bounties. Officials are focused on an April 2019 attack on an American convoy . Three U.S. Marines were killed after a car rigged with explosives detonated near their armored vehicles as they returned to Bagram Airfield, the largest U.S. military installation in Afghanistan. The Defense Department identified them as Marine Staff Sgt. Christopher Slutman, 43, of Newark, Delaware; Sgt. Benjamin Hines, 31, of York, Pennsylvania; and Cpl. Robert Hendriks, 25, of Locust Valley, New York. They were infantrymen assigned to 2nd Battalion, 25th Marines, a reserve infantry unit headquartered out of Garden City, New York. Hendriks’ father told the AP that even a rumor of Russian bounties should have been immediately addressed. “If this was kind of swept under the carpet as to not make it a bigger issue with Russia, and one ounce of blood was spilled when they knew this, I lost all respect for this administration and everything,” Erik Hendriks said. Three other service members and an Afghan contractor were wounded in the attack. As of April 2019, the attack was under a separate investigation, unrelated to the Russian bounties. The officials who spoke to the AP also said they were looking closely at insider attacks from 2019 to determine if they were linked to Russian bounties. ___ Associated Press writers Zeke Miller and Deb Riechmann in Washington, Deepti Hajela in New York and Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

SjlA8JS216xvGbyY

test

hzIEdjehVWKZhKjM

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/donald-trump-jeb-bush-feud-ad-war/2015/09/01/id/672982/

Trump Launches 'Willie Horton' Ad, Jeb Fires Back

2015-09-01

Cathy Burke, Sandy Fitzgerald

This is no `` act of love '' as Jeb Bush said ... A video posted by Donald J. Trump ( @ realdonaldtrump ) on Aug 31 , 2015 at 9:16am PDT Who 's the real @ realDonaldTrump ? He donated to sanctuary city supporting @ NancyPelosi and called her “ The Greatest. ” pic.twitter.com/px89v3TeG5 — Jeb Bush ( @ JebBush ) August 31 , 2015 The ad war is escalating between Donald Trump and Jeb Bush , with the GOP presidential front-runner releasing a blast at the former Florida governor that drew comparisons to the 1988 Willie Horton attack ad used by Bush 's father to criticize Democratic opponent Michael Dukakis.Trump 's ad , released Monday on his Instagram account , juxtaposes Bush 's 2014 statement about people who enter the country illegally committing an `` act of love '' with images of illegal immigrants who 've been charged with or convicted of murder . `` Forget love . It 's time to get tough ! '' the Trump ad urges.On Tuesday , Bush fired back with his own burn , '' The Real Donald Trump , '' featuring a series of clips from years-old interviews in which the real estate billionaire spouts far more liberal views . `` I 'm very pro-choice , '' Trump says in one clip . `` You 'd be shocked if I said that , in many cases , I probably identify more as a Democrat , '' he says in another.And on Twitter , Bush went after his rival 's own immigration record.Bush , 62 , is among the Republican presidential candidates whose standing has been damaged by Trump 's summer rise . An average of recent opinion polls by Real Clear Politics puts Bush in third place with 9.5 percent , behind Trump at 26.5 percent and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 12 percent for the November 2016 presidential election . The video and other comments by the former Florida governor suggest Bush is willing to take on Trump in a way other Republicans have thus far avoided , raising the possibility of fireworks at the next Republican debate on Sept. 16 in California . The Bush video came the day after the Trump organization issued a video that attacked Bush 's belief that immigration is an `` act of love '' by showing mug shots of three illegal immigrants either convicted or suspected of murder . Asked by reporters in Miami on Tuesday about the Trump attack , Bush said he considered much of the criticism from his rival to be personal in nature . The Bush video shows Trump praising Clinton , the former secretary of state and favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination , as a good negotiator on Iran at a time when Republicans are denouncing the Obama administration 's proposed nuclear deal with Tehran . `` If you look at the record of what ( Trump ) believes , he supports Democrats , '' Bush told reporters in Miami. `` .... This is not a guy who is a conservative . `` And using his own words is not a mischaracterization . It came out of his own mouth . '' Trump acknowledged in a CNN interview on Tuesday that `` at one point , I was a Democrat for a period of time , '' saying that in New York City , `` everybody was a Democrat practically . '' `` Over the years as Ronald Reagan changed , I also changed , '' Trump added , noting that the late Republican president had also once been a Democrat . `` I became much more conservative . I also became a Republican . '' In a set of tweets about the Bush attack , Trump said : `` Yet another weak hit by a candidate with a failing campaign . Will Jeb sink as low in the polls as the others who have gone after me ? ''

This is no "act of love" as Jeb Bush said... A video posted by Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump) on Aug 31, 2015 at 9:16am PDT Who's the real @realDonaldTrump? He donated to sanctuary city supporting @NancyPelosi and called her “The Greatest.” pic.twitter.com/px89v3TeG5 — Jeb Bush (@JebBush) August 31, 2015 The ad war is escalating between Donald Trump and Jeb Bush, with the GOP presidential front-runner releasing a blast at the former Florida governor that drew comparisons to the 1988 Willie Horton attack ad used by Bush's father to criticize Democratic opponent Michael Dukakis.Trump's ad, released Monday on his Instagram account , juxtaposes Bush's 2014 statement about people who enter the country illegally committing an "act of love" with images of illegal immigrants who've been charged with or convicted of murder."Forget love. It's time to get tough!" the Trump ad urges.On Tuesday, Bush fired back with his own burn,"The Real Donald Trump," featuring a series of clips from years-old interviews in which the real estate billionaire spouts far more liberal views."I'm very pro-choice," Trump says in one clip."You'd be shocked if I said that, in many cases, I probably identify more as a Democrat," he says in another.And on Twitter, Bush went after his rival's own immigration record.Bush, 62, is among the Republican presidential candidates whose standing has been damaged by Trump's summer rise. An average of recent opinion polls by Real Clear Politics puts Bush in third place with 9.5 percent, behind Trump at 26.5 percent and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 12 percent for the November 2016 presidential election. The video and other comments by the former Florida governor suggest Bush is willing to take on Trump in a way other Republicans have thus far avoided, raising the possibility of fireworks at the next Republican debate on Sept. 16 in California. The Bush video came the day after the Trump organization issued a video that attacked Bush's belief that immigration is an "act of love" by showing mug shots of three illegal immigrants either convicted or suspected of murder. Asked by reporters in Miami on Tuesday about the Trump attack, Bush said he considered much of the criticism from his rival to be personal in nature. The Bush video shows Trump praising Clinton, the former secretary of state and favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination, as a good negotiator on Iran at a time when Republicans are denouncing the Obama administration's proposed nuclear deal with Tehran. "If you look at the record of what (Trump) believes, he supports Democrats," Bush told reporters in Miami. " .... This is not a guy who is a conservative. "And using his own words is not a mischaracterization. It came out of his own mouth." Trump acknowledged in a CNN interview on Tuesday that "at one point, I was a Democrat for a period of time," saying that in New York City, "everybody was a Democrat practically." "Over the years as Ronald Reagan changed, I also changed," Trump added, noting that the late Republican president had also once been a Democrat. "I became much more conservative. I also became a Republican." In a set of tweets about the Bush attack, Trump said: "Yet another weak hit by a candidate with a failing campaign. Will Jeb sink as low in the polls as the others who have gone after me?" Related Stories:

www.newsmax.com

right

hzIEdjehVWKZhKjM

test

Yj5TzcyyLL9ghdNa

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49141521

Trump’s ‘rat-infested’ attack on lawmaker was racist, says Pelosi

Democratic House speaker Nancy Pelosi has accused US President Donald Trump of `` racist attacks '' in his tweets about an African-American lawmaker . Mr Trump attacked Democratic Rep Elijah Cummings and his Maryland district on Twitter . The president described Mr Cummings ' majority-black district in Baltimore as a `` rodent-infested mess '' . Mr Cummings was a `` bully '' , Mr Trump wrote , for criticising the treatment of migrants at the US-Mexico border . As chairman of the House Oversight Committee , Mr Cummings has instigated a series of investigations into the Trump administration 's policies , including its handling of migrants at detention centres . Ms Pelosi led Democratic legislators in defending Mr Cummings and condemning Trump 's tweets . The tweets , Ms Pelosi wrote , were `` racist attacks '' on Mr Cummings , whose district 's population is more than 50 % black according to US census data . President Trump 's remarks come just weeks after he was criticised for another tweet telling `` 'progressive ' Democrat congresswomen '' to `` go back '' to the `` crime infested '' places they came from . The message was aimed at four lawmakers of colour - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , Rashida Tlaib , Ayanna Pressley , and Ilhan Omar - all of whom are US citizens . Last week , Mr Cummings lashed out at acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan and conditions at migrant detention centres at a congressional hearing . In a heated exchange with Mr McAleenan , Mr Cummings demanded `` improvement '' at border facilities . Mr Cummings , who represents Maryland 's 7th congressional district , suggested the Trump administration had `` an empathy deficit '' in its handling of migrants . Posting to Twitter on Saturday , Mr Trump appeared outraged at Mr Cumming 's comments . The tweets also come days after a Democratic-led congressional committee voted to subpoena the private communications of senior White House officials . Mr Cummings accused the Trump administration of not keeping communications records in compliance with federal law . The committee 's investigation is one of several being pursued by House Democrats into the president and his administration . What further reaction has there been to Mr Trump 's tweets ? A prolific critic of Mr Trump , Mr Cummings has responded in kind , tweeting : `` It is my constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch . But , it is my moral duty to fight for my constituents . '' In another tweet , Baltimore 's mayor , Bernard `` Jack '' Young , called Mr Trump `` a disappointment to the people '' of his city , and to `` our country , and to the world '' . The response from Republican Party representatives has been muted so far . But many other Democrats have derided Mr Trump 's latest remarks . Joe Biden , the frontrunner to challenge Trump in 2020 's presidential election , scorned the president 's tweets as an example of why he is `` unfit to hold the office '' . In a video shared by The Hill , Elizabeth Warren - another presidential candidate - added that President Trump 's `` racist '' remarks were `` insulting both to the congressman and to the people he represents '' . The hashtag # WeAreBaltimore has also been trending on Twitter , with thousands of social media users expressing their solidarity with the city . Among them was David Simon , a journalist and writer of The Wire , a critically-acclaimed American crime drama series set in Baltimore . Since his initial comments , Mr Trump has attacked Mr Cummings in several other tweets . `` Cummings has done nothing but milk Baltimore dry , but the public is getting wise to the bad job that he is doing ! , '' read one . The president has also retweeted a video shared by actor Terrence Williams which allegedly shows a large mound of rubbish dumped outside a house in West Baltimore . Mr Trump urged his followers to `` take a look '' at the `` badly run district '' , signing off the tweet with the hashtag # BlacksForTrump2020 .

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Donald Trump called Elijah Cummings' Baltimore district a "rodent-infested mess" Democratic House speaker Nancy Pelosi has accused US President Donald Trump of "racist attacks" in his tweets about an African-American lawmaker. Mr Trump attacked Democratic Rep Elijah Cummings and his Maryland district on Twitter. The president described Mr Cummings' majority-black district in Baltimore as a "rodent-infested mess". Mr Cummings was a "bully", Mr Trump wrote, for criticising the treatment of migrants at the US-Mexico border. As chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Mr Cummings has instigated a series of investigations into the Trump administration's policies, including its handling of migrants at detention centres. Ms Pelosi led Democratic legislators in defending Mr Cummings and condemning Trump's tweets. The tweets, Ms Pelosi wrote, were "racist attacks" on Mr Cummings, whose district's population is more than 50% black according to US census data. President Trump's remarks come just weeks after he was criticised for another tweet telling "'progressive' Democrat congresswomen" to "go back" to the "crime infested" places they came from. The message was aimed at four lawmakers of colour - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, and Ilhan Omar - all of whom are US citizens. What sparked Mr Trump's latest tweets? Last week, Mr Cummings lashed out at acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan and conditions at migrant detention centres at a congressional hearing. In a heated exchange with Mr McAleenan, Mr Cummings demanded "improvement" at border facilities. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Elijah Cummings blasted the acting Department of Homeland Security chief over detained migrant children Mr Cummings, who represents Maryland's 7th congressional district, suggested the Trump administration had "an empathy deficit" in its handling of migrants. Posting to Twitter on Saturday, Mr Trump appeared outraged at Mr Cumming's comments. The tweets also come days after a Democratic-led congressional committee voted to subpoena the private communications of senior White House officials. Mr Cummings accused the Trump administration of not keeping communications records in compliance with federal law. The committee's investigation is one of several being pursued by House Democrats into the president and his administration. What further reaction has there been to Mr Trump's tweets? A prolific critic of Mr Trump, Mr Cummings has responded in kind, tweeting: "It is my constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch. But, it is my moral duty to fight for my constituents." In another tweet, Baltimore's mayor, Bernard "Jack" Young, called Mr Trump "a disappointment to the people" of his city, and to "our country, and to the world". The response from Republican Party representatives has been muted so far. But many other Democrats have derided Mr Trump's latest remarks. Joe Biden, the frontrunner to challenge Trump in 2020's presidential election, scorned the president's tweets as an example of why he is "unfit to hold the office". In a video shared by The Hill, Elizabeth Warren - another presidential candidate - added that President Trump's "racist" remarks were "insulting both to the congressman and to the people he represents". Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption A "dog whistle" is a political message only some of the electorate are meant to understand More on race in the US The hashtag #WeAreBaltimore has also been trending on Twitter, with thousands of social media users expressing their solidarity with the city. Among them was David Simon, a journalist and writer of The Wire, a critically-acclaimed American crime drama series set in Baltimore. Since his initial comments, Mr Trump has attacked Mr Cummings in several other tweets. "Cummings has done nothing but milk Baltimore dry, but the public is getting wise to the bad job that he is doing!," read one. The president has also retweeted a video shared by actor Terrence Williams which allegedly shows a large mound of rubbish dumped outside a house in West Baltimore. Mr Trump urged his followers to "take a look" at the "badly run district", signing off the tweet with the hashtag #BlacksForTrump2020.

www.bbc.com

center

Yj5TzcyyLL9ghdNa

test

78UGKPrKHNjQenTD

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/18/house-republicans-announce-vote-on-three-month-extension-of-debt-ceiling/

House Republicans to vote next week on three-month extension of debt ceiling

2013-01-18

Williamsburg , Virginia ( CNN ) - While at a GOP retreat , House Republican leaders on Friday announced a vote next week on a three-month extension of the debt limit , with a requirement that both chambers pass a budget or else go without pay . The added condition to the short term extension bill aims to force the Democratic-led Senate to pass a budget–something the upper chamber has n't done in four years . `` That is a shameful run that needs to end , this year , '' House Speaker John Boehner said in his closing remarks at the retreat , according to excerpts provided by his office . `` We are going to pursue strategies that will obligate the Senate to finally join the House in confronting the government ’ s spending problem . '' Building onto that , House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said in a statement that if the Senate or House fail to pass a budget in three months , members of Congress `` will not be paid by the American people for failing to do their job . No budget , no pay . '' House GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy told CNN that `` what we 're trying to do is put us on a path to a balanced budget . '' `` April 15th is the deadline for both houses to pass a budget , '' he continued . `` A budget is a roadmap to not only where you are but where you can go . Unfortunately the House has passed one the last two times , but the Senate has not , and what has that created ? A $ 16 trillion debt . An idea of not knowing where our economy is gon na go . '' The short-term extension strategy represents a departure from recent discussions where Republicans pushed that any increase in the debt limit must include spending cuts that amounted to the same size of the increase . And Republican leaders seem to be steering clear of any suggestions that the party is willing to risk allowing the government to default on its loans–the consequence should the debt ceiling be kept as is–as a way to put pressure on the White House and Senate Democrats to carve out drastic spending cuts . `` We are not going to default- I do n't know of anybody , and I move in fairly fiscally conservative circles within our party – none of us are talking about default , '' said conservative GOP Rep. Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina . He also signaled he agreed with the new House GOP strategy . `` If you can figure out ways to get little types of reforms , little fixes for small extensions I do n't find that objectionable , '' Mulvaney told reporters . This is a notable shift , given that Mulvaney , and many of his colleagues elected in 2010 , pushed for major spending cuts in exchange for increasing the debt limit . Adam Jentleson , a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid responded Friday , saying the Senate would be `` happy to consider '' the House bill if it would `` avoid default and allow the United States to meet its existing obligations . '' `` We have an obligation to pay the bills we have already incurred – bills for which many House Republicans voted , '' Jentleson continued , though he did n't address the Republicans ' condition about passing a budget . Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , meanwhile , agreed with House Republicans ' insistence on a budget from the Senate . “ It ’ s not the discussion about the debt and budget failures that has put our nation ’ s credit rating at risk-it ’ s the unsustainable debt , the out-of-control Washington spending , and the failure to budget that got us here . It ’ s time to change , and the debt ceiling discussion is the perfect time for that debate , ” he said in a statement . White House Press Secretary Jay Carney also responded to the news Friday afternoon . `` We are encouraged that there are signs that Congressional Republicans may back off their insistence on holding our economy hostage to extract drastic cuts in Medicare , education and programs middle class families depend on , '' he said . President Barack Obama , however , has previously closed the door to negotiating over the debt ceiling or passing a solution in increments , saying `` America can not afford another debate with this Congress about whether or not they should pay the bills they 've already racked up . '' `` They 're going to have to send me something that 's sensible . And we should n't be doing this ... on a one to three-month timeframe , '' Obama said at a news conference on Monday . `` Why would we do that ? This is the United States of America . ... What , we ca n't manage our affairs in such a way that we pay our bills and we provide some certainty in terms of how we pay our bills ? '' The necessity of raising the debt ceiling comes shortly after the fiscal cliff , which found Republicans and Democrats at stalemate for weeks over averting tax increases and spending cuts that they had designed to trigger if they could not reach a deal . `` I 'm not going to have a monthly or every-three-months conversation about whether or not we pay our bills , '' Obama said . `` Because that in and of itself does severe damage . Even the threat of default hurts our economy . It 's hurting our economy as we speak . We should n't be having that debate . '' Republican Rep. John Fleming , R-Louisiana , said Thursday the short-term extension idea came out of an ad hoc group led by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan , and Boehner signaled he supported the approach . At one of the closed door sessions at the retreat , rank and file members viewed a slide show that highlighted how one of the last major deficit reduction packages – known as Gramm-Rudman – was preceded by a series of short term extensions in the debt ceiling . `` I think we 're all pretty much on board , '' Fleming said , and noted that impetus behind it was to keep the pressure on for reaching a broader deal to cut spending .

7 years ago Williamsburg, Virginia (CNN) - While at a GOP retreat, House Republican leaders on Friday announced a vote next week on a three-month extension of the debt limit, with a requirement that both chambers pass a budget or else go without pay. The added condition to the short term extension bill aims to force the Democratic-led Senate to pass a budget–something the upper chamber hasn't done in four years. Follow @politicalticker "That is a shameful run that needs to end, this year," House Speaker John Boehner said in his closing remarks at the retreat, according to excerpts provided by his office. "We are going to pursue strategies that will obligate the Senate to finally join the House in confronting the government’s spending problem." Building onto that, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said in a statement that if the Senate or House fail to pass a budget in three months, members of Congress "will not be paid by the American people for failing to do their job. No budget, no pay." House GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy told CNN that "what we're trying to do is put us on a path to a balanced budget." "April 15th is the deadline for both houses to pass a budget," he continued. "A budget is a roadmap to not only where you are but where you can go. Unfortunately the House has passed one the last two times, but the Senate has not, and what has that created? A $16 trillion debt. An idea of not knowing where our economy is gonna go." The short-term extension strategy represents a departure from recent discussions where Republicans pushed that any increase in the debt limit must include spending cuts that amounted to the same size of the increase. And Republican leaders seem to be steering clear of any suggestions that the party is willing to risk allowing the government to default on its loans–the consequence should the debt ceiling be kept as is–as a way to put pressure on the White House and Senate Democrats to carve out drastic spending cuts. "We are not going to default- I don't know of anybody, and I move in fairly fiscally conservative circles within our party – none of us are talking about default," said conservative GOP Rep. Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina. He also signaled he agreed with the new House GOP strategy. "If you can figure out ways to get little types of reforms, little fixes for small extensions I don't find that objectionable," Mulvaney told reporters. This is a notable shift, given that Mulvaney, and many of his colleagues elected in 2010, pushed for major spending cuts in exchange for increasing the debt limit. Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid responded Friday, saying the Senate would be "happy to consider" the House bill if it would "avoid default and allow the United States to meet its existing obligations." "We have an obligation to pay the bills we have already incurred – bills for which many House Republicans voted," Jentleson continued, though he didn't address the Republicans' condition about passing a budget. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, agreed with House Republicans' insistence on a budget from the Senate. “It’s not the discussion about the debt and budget failures that has put our nation’s credit rating at risk-it’s the unsustainable debt, the out-of-control Washington spending, and the failure to budget that got us here. It’s time to change, and the debt ceiling discussion is the perfect time for that debate,” he said in a statement. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney also responded to the news Friday afternoon. "We are encouraged that there are signs that Congressional Republicans may back off their insistence on holding our economy hostage to extract drastic cuts in Medicare, education and programs middle class families depend on," he said. President Barack Obama, however, has previously closed the door to negotiating over the debt ceiling or passing a solution in increments, saying "America cannot afford another debate with this Congress about whether or not they should pay the bills they've already racked up." "They're going to have to send me something that's sensible. And we shouldn't be doing this ... on a one to three-month timeframe," Obama said at a news conference on Monday. "Why would we do that? This is the United States of America. ... What, we can't manage our affairs in such a way that we pay our bills and we provide some certainty in terms of how we pay our bills?" The necessity of raising the debt ceiling comes shortly after the fiscal cliff, which found Republicans and Democrats at stalemate for weeks over averting tax increases and spending cuts that they had designed to trigger if they could not reach a deal. "I'm not going to have a monthly or every-three-months conversation about whether or not we pay our bills," Obama said. "Because that in and of itself does severe damage. Even the threat of default hurts our economy. It's hurting our economy as we speak. We shouldn't be having that debate." Republican Rep. John Fleming, R-Louisiana, said Thursday the short-term extension idea came out of an ad hoc group led by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, and Boehner signaled he supported the approach. At one of the closed door sessions at the retreat, rank and file members viewed a slide show that highlighted how one of the last major deficit reduction packages – known as Gramm-Rudman – was preceded by a series of short term extensions in the debt ceiling. Fleming said many conservatives backed the idea. "I think we're all pretty much on board," Fleming said, and noted that impetus behind it was to keep the pressure on for reaching a broader deal to cut spending. - CNN’s Paul Courson contributed to this report.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

78UGKPrKHNjQenTD

test

SMl4R4ybNdszmbuG

politics

Guest Writer - Right

https://spectator.org/the-real-constitutional-crisis/

OPINION: The Real Constitutional Crisis

F.H. Buckley, Dov Fischer, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jeffrey Lord, William Murchison

In case you haven ’ t been listening , we ’ re supposed to be in the middle of a constitutional crisis . That ’ s what Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler are telling us , and it ’ s all because Donald Trump and Bill Barr are refusing to submit to House subpoenas . Never mind that Trump allowed Special Counsel Robert Mueller to interview everyone he wanted , without asserting executive privilege , and that everything you might want to know about the administration is out there in Mueller ’ s report . ( It ’ s not always pretty . ) Never mind that , when the shoe was on the other foot , Obama ruled by decree and Eric Holder didn ’ t want to talk about Fast and Furious . So even by Democratic standards , it sounds pretty hysterical . But there is a quiet constitutional crisis that ’ s happening , underneath all the noise . We ’ ve got a constitution with a separation of powers which assumes that people can work together . That ’ s supposed to ensure that bad policies will be screened away and that only good policies will be enacted . But when one party refuses to work with the other , nothing gets enacted . That ’ s supposed eventually to bring both sides to the table , and in the past that ’ s what always happened . Except for that one time , in 1861 . Now it ’ s happening again . It ’ s not like 1995 , when Bill Clinton could turn on a dime and work with Newt Gingrich , or 2001 when George W. Bush got along with Teddy Kennedy . This time it looks more permanent . If Trump is Hitler and the dictator Nadler is warning us about , then you don ’ t expect to see any deals getting cut . What ’ s different today is the Democrats have bought into the idea of “ no enemies on the left , ” which means they ’ re prisoners of the most radical people on their fringes . They hang out with Louis Farrakhan , and we ’ re still waiting for them to condemn the Antifa rioters . In 1992 Bill Clinton cut loose anti-white racist Sister Souljah , but since then identity politics and racism have gone mainstream in the Party and we don ’ t see any Sister Souljah Moments from them today . Like children playing with fire , they ’ ve bought into ideas that put them far outside the mainstream , and they ’ re several standard deviations to the left of where they used to be . Bill Clinton thought that abortion should be “ safe , legal and rare , ” but that ’ s not where the present party is . We ’ ll see you later-term abortions , and raise you infanticide , says Gov . Ralph Northam . The very woke Beto O ’ Rourke seeks the blessing of Al Sharpton and endorses racial reparations . As for the green new deal , if the world is going to end in 12 years , it ’ s whoopee time and anything goes . That ’ s not a crisis , however . That ’ s just lunacy , and it ’ s something the voters can correct . Where you have a crisis is where one party kisses goodbye to the most fundamental understanding about our system of government . Things like the idea that the winner of the Electoral College is the duly elected president , that there ’ s something special about American citizenship , something not shared with non-citizens . Or simply the idea that Americans should be proud of their country . When all of that is out the window , when one party no longer thinks that our form of government is legitimate because it ’ s undemocratic , because abortion rights aren ’ t protected and because Republicans sometimes win , then you have a constitutional crisis . So should we get worked up about that ? No . It ’ s like that 1914 Austrian telegram : “ situation grave but not serious. ” It ’ s only serious if you take Jerry Nadler and AOC seriously , and you won ’ t do that if you ’ ve preserved your sense of humor . When one party goes so far off the rails , the best strategy for the other party is to be the only adult in the room . Admittedly , Donald Trump hasn ’ t always helped , but if the Republicans stick to Trump ’ s policies , the ones that explain the Revolution of 2016 , that constitutional crisis is going to fizzle out . America ’ s creed is liberalism , the traditionally Democratic idea that freedom is better than repression , that free markets beat socialism , that we don ’ t prefer one set of people on the basis of their race or religion , that free speech trumps censorship , that our government should provide an economy with jobs for everyone who can work and a generous safety net for those who can ’ t . It ’ s pretty basic stuff , but if today ’ s Democrats have abandoned it and the Republicans seize the mantle of old-fashioned liberalism , they can become America ’ s natural governing party . F.H . Buckley teaches at Scalia Law School and is author of The Republican Workers Party : How the Trump Victory Drove Everyone Crazy , and Why It Was Just What We Needed .

In case you haven’t been listening, we’re supposed to be in the middle of a constitutional crisis. That’s what Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler are telling us, and it’s all because Donald Trump and Bill Barr are refusing to submit to House subpoenas. Never mind that Trump allowed Special Counsel Robert Mueller to interview everyone he wanted, without asserting executive privilege, and that everything you might want to know about the administration is out there in Mueller’s report. (It’s not always pretty.) Never mind that, when the shoe was on the other foot, Obama ruled by decree and Eric Holder didn’t want to talk about Fast and Furious. So even by Democratic standards, it sounds pretty hysterical. But there is a quiet constitutional crisis that’s happening, underneath all the noise. We’ve got a constitution with a separation of powers which assumes that people can work together. That’s supposed to ensure that bad policies will be screened away and that only good policies will be enacted. But when one party refuses to work with the other, nothing gets enacted. That’s supposed eventually to bring both sides to the table, and in the past that’s what always happened. Except for that one time, in 1861. Now it’s happening again. It’s not like 1995, when Bill Clinton could turn on a dime and work with Newt Gingrich, or 2001 when George W. Bush got along with Teddy Kennedy. This time it looks more permanent. If Trump is Hitler and the dictator Nadler is warning us about, then you don’t expect to see any deals getting cut. What’s different today is the Democrats have bought into the idea of “no enemies on the left,” which means they’re prisoners of the most radical people on their fringes. They hang out with Louis Farrakhan, and we’re still waiting for them to condemn the Antifa rioters. In 1992 Bill Clinton cut loose anti-white racist Sister Souljah, but since then identity politics and racism have gone mainstream in the Party and we don’t see any Sister Souljah Moments from them today. Like children playing with fire, they’ve bought into ideas that put them far outside the mainstream, and they’re several standard deviations to the left of where they used to be. Bill Clinton thought that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare,” but that’s not where the present party is. We’ll see you later-term abortions, and raise you infanticide, says Gov. Ralph Northam. The very woke Beto O’Rourke seeks the blessing of Al Sharpton and endorses racial reparations. As for the green new deal, if the world is going to end in 12 years, it’s whoopee time and anything goes. That’s not a crisis, however. That’s just lunacy, and it’s something the voters can correct. Where you have a crisis is where one party kisses goodbye to the most fundamental understanding about our system of government. Things like the idea that the winner of the Electoral College is the duly elected president, that there’s something special about American citizenship, something not shared with non-citizens. Or simply the idea that Americans should be proud of their country. When all of that is out the window, when one party no longer thinks that our form of government is legitimate because it’s undemocratic, because abortion rights aren’t protected and because Republicans sometimes win, then you have a constitutional crisis. So should we get worked up about that? No. It’s like that 1914 Austrian telegram: “situation grave but not serious.” It’s only serious if you take Jerry Nadler and AOC seriously, and you won’t do that if you’ve preserved your sense of humor. When one party goes so far off the rails, the best strategy for the other party is to be the only adult in the room. Admittedly, Donald Trump hasn’t always helped, but if the Republicans stick to Trump’s policies, the ones that explain the Revolution of 2016, that constitutional crisis is going to fizzle out. America’s creed is liberalism, the traditionally Democratic idea that freedom is better than repression, that free markets beat socialism, that we don’t prefer one set of people on the basis of their race or religion, that free speech trumps censorship, that our government should provide an economy with jobs for everyone who can work and a generous safety net for those who can’t. It’s pretty basic stuff, but if today’s Democrats have abandoned it and the Republicans seize the mantle of old-fashioned liberalism, they can become America’s natural governing party. F.H. Buckley teaches at Scalia Law School and is author of The Republican Workers Party: How the Trump Victory Drove Everyone Crazy, and Why It Was Just What We Needed.

www.spectator.org

right

SMl4R4ybNdszmbuG

test

DpWF8ZNmaPMlimZz

federal_budget

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/9a70f20290db4bd593d4051c84c547e5

Hard-won budget, debt deal clears Senate, advances to Trump

2019-08-01

Andrew Taylor

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , smiles after vote on a hard-won budget deal that would permit the government to resume borrowing to pay all of its obligations and would remove the prospect of a government shutdown in October , at the Capitol in Washington , Thursday , Aug. 1 , 2019 . ( AP Photo/J . Scott Applewhite ) Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , smiles after vote on a hard-won budget deal that would permit the government to resume borrowing to pay all of its obligations and would remove the prospect of a government shutdown in October , at the Capitol in Washington , Thursday , Aug. 1 , 2019 . ( AP Photo/J . Scott Applewhite ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — A hard-won budget and debt deal easily cleared the Senate on Thursday , powered by President Donald Trump ’ s endorsement and a bipartisan drive to cement recent spending increases for the Pentagon and domestic agencies . The legislation passed by a 67-28 vote as Trump and his GOP allies relied on lots of Democratic votes to propel it over the finish line . Passage marked a drama-free solution to a worrisome set of looming Washington deadlines as both allies and adversaries of the president set aside ideology in exchange for relative fiscal peace and stability . The measure , which Trump has promised to sign , would permit the government to resume borrowing to pay all its bills and would set an overall $ 1.37 trillion limit on agency budgets approved by Congress annually . It does nothing to stem the government ’ s spiraling debt and the return of $ 1 trillion-plus deficits but it also takes away the prospect of a government shutdown in October or the threat of deep automatic spending cuts . The administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , played strong hands in the talks that sealed the agreement last week , producing a pragmatic measure that had much for lawmakers to dislike . Trump did step back from a possible fight over spending increases sought by liberals , and he achieved his priorities on Pentagon budgets and the stock market-soothing borrowing limit . “ Budget Deal is phenomenal for our Great Military , our Vets , and Jobs , Jobs , Jobs ! ” Trump tweeted before the vote . “ Two year deal gets us past the Election . Go for it Republicans , there is always plenty of time to CUT ! ” Pelosi won remarkable Democratic unity in pushing the bill through the House last week despite divides on issues such as impeachment and health care . Democrats in the GOP-controlled Senate delivered most of their votes for the deal . Many of the more solidly conservative Republicans said it allowed for unchecked borrowing and too much spending . The measure was an epitaph to the 2011 Budget Control Act , which came about due to a tea party-fueled battle over debt limit legislation during the run-up to President Barack Obama ’ s re-election . That law promised more than $ 2 trillion in deficit cuts through 2021 , including automatic spending cuts that were put in place after the failure of a so-called deficit supercommittee . “ It ’ s not just Democrats . Republicans are also guilty . At least the big-government Republicans who will vote for this monstrous addition of debt , ” said Sen. Rand Paul , R-Ky. “ Many of the supporters of this debt deal ran around their states for years complaining that , ‘ President Obama ’ s spending too much and borrowing too much , ’ and these same Republicans now , the whole disingenuous lot of them , will wiggle their way to the front of the trough . ” The bill would lift the debt limit for two years , into either a second Trump term or the administration of a Democratic successor . It would reverse scheduled 10 percent cuts to defense and nondefense programs next year , at a two-year cost of more than $ 200 billion . An additional $ 100 billion over two years would add to recent gains for military readiness , combating opioids and other domestic initiatives , and would keep pace with rising costs for veterans ’ health care . Those increases alone , assuming they are repeated year after year , promise to add $ 2 trillion or more to the government ’ s $ 22 trillion debt over the coming decade . The bill was powered by a coalition of GOP defense hawks , Democrats seeking to preserve gains in domestic accounts , and the leaders of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees . Democrats voted for the bill by a wide margin , and it won a healthy majority of Senate Republicans . “ Providing sufficient funding for our military and eliminating the threat of sequestration for good are absolutely necessary for our military to have the budgetary stability and predictability they so desperately need , ” said the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee , Sen. James Inhofe , R-Okla . It was also a long-sought victory for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , who initiated the negotiations and was deeply invested in bringing order and relative predictability to the budget and debt deadlines . Losers included more conservative elements of the White House . Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney , a former tea party congressman from South Carolina , and acting budget director Russell Vought were rebuffed in attempts to add spending cuts to defray the bill ’ s cost . “ We have to invest in improved readiness to help our military commanders plan for emerging challenges , in research and development to support the U.S. military of the future , and in rock-solid support for our alliance commitments , ” McConnell said . “ This deal is an opportunity to do exactly that . This is the agreement the administration has negotiated . This is the deal the House has passed . This is the deal President Trump is waiting and eager to sign into law . ” Sen. Michael Bennet , D-Colo. , a longshot candidate for president , accused Republicans of financial hypocrisy . “ When I first came here in 2009 , Republicans railed against the rising debt and federal spending , even as our economy reeled , ” Bennet said . “ Remarkably , they seemed to have forgotten their supposedly principled calls for fiscal discipline now that President Trump is in office . ” Follow-up legislation would fill in the line-by-line details of agency budgets when the Senate returns in September . Trump is sure to continue seeking billions of dollars for border security and wall construction , but unlike last year he does not appear eager for a government shutdown over it .

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., smiles after vote on a hard-won budget deal that would permit the government to resume borrowing to pay all of its obligations and would remove the prospect of a government shutdown in October, at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, Aug. 1, 2019. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., smiles after vote on a hard-won budget deal that would permit the government to resume borrowing to pay all of its obligations and would remove the prospect of a government shutdown in October, at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, Aug. 1, 2019. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) WASHINGTON (AP) — A hard-won budget and debt deal easily cleared the Senate on Thursday, powered by President Donald Trump’s endorsement and a bipartisan drive to cement recent spending increases for the Pentagon and domestic agencies. The legislation passed by a 67-28 vote as Trump and his GOP allies relied on lots of Democratic votes to propel it over the finish line. Passage marked a drama-free solution to a worrisome set of looming Washington deadlines as both allies and adversaries of the president set aside ideology in exchange for relative fiscal peace and stability. The measure, which Trump has promised to sign, would permit the government to resume borrowing to pay all its bills and would set an overall $1.37 trillion limit on agency budgets approved by Congress annually. It does nothing to stem the government’s spiraling debt and the return of $1 trillion-plus deficits but it also takes away the prospect of a government shutdown in October or the threat of deep automatic spending cuts . The administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., played strong hands in the talks that sealed the agreement last week, producing a pragmatic measure that had much for lawmakers to dislike. Trump did step back from a possible fight over spending increases sought by liberals, and he achieved his priorities on Pentagon budgets and the stock market-soothing borrowing limit. “Budget Deal is phenomenal for our Great Military, our Vets, and Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!” Trump tweeted before the vote. “Two year deal gets us past the Election. Go for it Republicans, there is always plenty of time to CUT!” Pelosi won remarkable Democratic unity in pushing the bill through the House last week despite divides on issues such as impeachment and health care. Democrats in the GOP-controlled Senate delivered most of their votes for the deal. Many of the more solidly conservative Republicans said it allowed for unchecked borrowing and too much spending. The measure was an epitaph to the 2011 Budget Control Act, which came about due to a tea party-fueled battle over debt limit legislation during the run-up to President Barack Obama’s re-election. That law promised more than $2 trillion in deficit cuts through 2021, including automatic spending cuts that were put in place after the failure of a so-called deficit supercommittee. “It’s not just Democrats. Republicans are also guilty. At least the big-government Republicans who will vote for this monstrous addition of debt,” said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. “Many of the supporters of this debt deal ran around their states for years complaining that, ‘President Obama’s spending too much and borrowing too much,’ and these same Republicans now, the whole disingenuous lot of them, will wiggle their way to the front of the trough.” The bill would lift the debt limit for two years, into either a second Trump term or the administration of a Democratic successor. It would reverse scheduled 10 percent cuts to defense and nondefense programs next year, at a two-year cost of more than $200 billion. An additional $100 billion over two years would add to recent gains for military readiness, combating opioids and other domestic initiatives, and would keep pace with rising costs for veterans’ health care. Those increases alone, assuming they are repeated year after year, promise to add $2 trillion or more to the government’s $22 trillion debt over the coming decade. The bill was powered by a coalition of GOP defense hawks, Democrats seeking to preserve gains in domestic accounts, and the leaders of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Democrats voted for the bill by a wide margin, and it won a healthy majority of Senate Republicans. “Providing sufficient funding for our military and eliminating the threat of sequestration for good are absolutely necessary for our military to have the budgetary stability and predictability they so desperately need,” said the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla. It was also a long-sought victory for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who initiated the negotiations and was deeply invested in bringing order and relative predictability to the budget and debt deadlines. Losers included more conservative elements of the White House. Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, a former tea party congressman from South Carolina, and acting budget director Russell Vought were rebuffed in attempts to add spending cuts to defray the bill’s cost. “We have to invest in improved readiness to help our military commanders plan for emerging challenges, in research and development to support the U.S. military of the future, and in rock-solid support for our alliance commitments,” McConnell said. “This deal is an opportunity to do exactly that. This is the agreement the administration has negotiated. This is the deal the House has passed. This is the deal President Trump is waiting and eager to sign into law.” Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., a longshot candidate for president, accused Republicans of financial hypocrisy. “When I first came here in 2009, Republicans railed against the rising debt and federal spending, even as our economy reeled,” Bennet said. “Remarkably, they seemed to have forgotten their supposedly principled calls for fiscal discipline now that President Trump is in office.” Follow-up legislation would fill in the line-by-line details of agency budgets when the Senate returns in September. Trump is sure to continue seeking billions of dollars for border security and wall construction, but unlike last year he does not appear eager for a government shutdown over it.

www.apnews.com

center

DpWF8ZNmaPMlimZz

test

KlS4nZCmBIADuDTL

federal_budget

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/sequester-house-likely-to-pass-continuing-resolution-on-thursday/

House Likely to Pass Continuing Resolution on Thursday

John Parkinson

House Republicans unveiled a stopgap measure today to fund the federal government through the rest of the fiscal year , a move intended to mollify a deeply divided Congress that has fought through three years of bruising budget battles . The continuing resolution , known around Washington as a CR , is subject to sequestration levels in its entirety , setting the top-line overall rate of spending at $ 982 billion , down from $ 1.047 trillion the previous fiscal year . The CR keeps the FY2012 spending level as a base for 10 out of 12 appropriations bills , but notably , the legislation includes a full-year Defense appropriations bill , as well as a full-year Military Construction/Veterans Affairs appropriations bill . These two measures , which are still subject to sequestration , were negotiated with broad bipartisan support even though they did not become law during the last session of Congress . Aides on both sides of the aisle say the funding tactic enables lawmakers to respond to changing circumstances or address the funding priorities of an agency rather than rely on existing spending plans that may have become outdated or impractical . `` The legislation will avoid a government shutdown on March 27 , prioritize DoD and Veterans programs , and allow the Pentagon some leeway to do its best with the funding it has , '' Rep. Hal Rogers , the chairman of the appropriations committee , wrote in a statement Monday . `` This CR package is the right thing to do , and it 's the right time to do it . '' For example , former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Congress the Pentagon has an $ 11 billion shortfall below the administration 's request this year for the Operations and Maintenance section of the defense budget . To close that deficit , the Defense appropriations bill included in the CR takes about $ 7 billion from Research and Development and Procurement and increases the authority for Operations and Maintenance by about $ 10.4 billion . While in practice the rebalanced money for Operations and Maintenance cushions the effect of the arbitrary sequestration cuts , aides say legislators drafting the bill did not write the bill with the intent to offset sequestration . `` It 's just the right thing to focus on the core function of government : national security , '' one House Republican aide said . `` An $ 11 billion shortfall [ in Operations and Maintenance ] affects readiness . '' Democrats , however , contend that the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs are `` not unique '' to the funding challenges facing Washington . Rep. Nita Lowey , the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee , said it is `` extremely disappointing '' that the CR locks most of the federal government into `` outdated plans and spending levels . '' `` Governing by continuing resolution limits the ability of federal departments and agencies to respond to changing circumstances , implement laws enacted by Congress , eliminate unnecessary spending , and budget responsibly , '' said Lowey , D-N.Y. `` It has an adverse effect on federal efforts to improve schools , health care , and homeland security ; protect the environment ; and create jobs and grow the economy . '' The legislation also addresses an apparent need for increased security , identified after the Benghazi attack in Libya , by including a provision to increase the current level for embassy security by about $ 2 billion . The CR also provides additional funding for federal prisons and includes a provision requiring Immigration and Customs Enforcement `` to sustain the mandated capacity of 34,000 detention beds . '' It also extends the current pay freeze for federal employees , which includes members of Congress and Senators , even though President Obama has issued an executive order implementing a 0.5 percent pay increase . Despite an impasse over sequestration last week , House Speaker John Boehner emerged from a meeting with President Obama and other congressional leaders Friday , assuring reporters that a government shutdown is not in the cards . `` The House is going to move a continuing resolution next week to fund the government past March 27 , and I 'm hopeful that we wo n't have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown while we 're dealing with the sequester at the same time , '' Boehner , R-Ohio , said . The bill is expected to be on the floor for debate on Wednesday and a vote on Thursday .

House Republicans unveiled a stopgap measure today to fund the federal government through the rest of the fiscal year, a move intended to mollify a deeply divided Congress that has fought through three years of bruising budget battles. The continuing resolution, known around Washington as a CR, is subject to sequestration levels in its entirety, setting the top-line overall rate of spending at $982 billion, down from $1.047 trillion the previous fiscal year. The CR keeps the FY2012 spending level as a base for 10 out of 12 appropriations bills, but notably, the legislation includes a full-year Defense appropriations bill, as well as a full-year Military Construction/Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. These two measures, which are still subject to sequestration, were negotiated with broad bipartisan support even though they did not become law during the last session of Congress. Aides on both sides of the aisle say the funding tactic enables lawmakers to respond to changing circumstances or address the funding priorities of an agency rather than rely on existing spending plans that may have become outdated or impractical. "The legislation will avoid a government shutdown on March 27, prioritize DoD and Veterans programs, and allow the Pentagon some leeway to do its best with the funding it has," Rep. Hal Rogers, the chairman of the appropriations committee, wrote in a statement Monday. "This CR package is the right thing to do, and it's the right time to do it." For example, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Congress the Pentagon has an $11 billion shortfall below the administration's request this year for the Operations and Maintenance section of the defense budget. To close that deficit, the Defense appropriations bill included in the CR takes about $7 billion from Research and Development and Procurement and increases the authority for Operations and Maintenance by about $10.4 billion. While in practice the rebalanced money for Operations and Maintenance cushions the effect of the arbitrary sequestration cuts, aides say legislators drafting the bill did not write the bill with the intent to offset sequestration. "It's just the right thing to focus on the core function of government: national security," one House Republican aide said. "An $11 billion shortfall [in Operations and Maintenance] affects readiness." Democrats, however, contend that the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs are "not unique" to the funding challenges facing Washington. Rep. Nita Lowey, the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said it is "extremely disappointing" that the CR locks most of the federal government into "outdated plans and spending levels." "Governing by continuing resolution limits the ability of federal departments and agencies to respond to changing circumstances, implement laws enacted by Congress, eliminate unnecessary spending, and budget responsibly," said Lowey, D-N.Y. "It has an adverse effect on federal efforts to improve schools, health care, and homeland security; protect the environment; and create jobs and grow the economy." The legislation also addresses an apparent need for increased security, identified after the Benghazi attack in Libya, by including a provision to increase the current level for embassy security by about $2 billion. The CR also provides additional funding for federal prisons and includes a provision requiring Immigration and Customs Enforcement "to sustain the mandated capacity of 34,000 detention beds." It also extends the current pay freeze for federal employees, which includes members of Congress and Senators, even though President Obama has issued an executive order implementing a 0.5 percent pay increase. Despite an impasse over sequestration last week, House Speaker John Boehner emerged from a meeting with President Obama and other congressional leaders Friday, assuring reporters that a government shutdown is not in the cards. "The House is going to move a continuing resolution next week to fund the government past March 27, and I'm hopeful that we won't have to deal with the threat of a government shutdown while we're dealing with the sequester at the same time," Boehner, R-Ohio, said. The bill is expected to be on the floor for debate on Wednesday and a vote on Thursday.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

KlS4nZCmBIADuDTL

test

YYc9KhyF6XisY3uD

media_bias

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/04/26/1993-cnn-clip-of-biden-accusers-mother-calling-larry-king-vanishes-from-google-play-catalog/

1993 CNN Clip of Biden Accuser’s Mother Calling Larry King Vanishes from Google Play Catalog

2020-04-26

Allum Bokhari

A clip from a 1993 episode of CNN ’ s Larry King Live featuring the mother of Biden accuser Tara Reade has seemingly been removed from the Google Play catalog . The clip is an important piece of information in Reade ’ s allegation that Biden sexually assaulted her in the same year , as it supports her claim that she told her mother about the incident . In the clip , Reade ’ s mother appears to be discussing an incident involving her senator and her daughter , without naming either . BREAKING : Is this the mother of Joe Biden 's accuser talking to CNN in 1993 ? pic.twitter.com/rF7jw35s2F — MediaResearchCenter ( @ theMRC ) April 24 , 2020 Reade ’ s mother passed away in 2016 , but Reade has confirmed to multiple media organizations that she recognizes the voice of the woman speaking to King as her mother . CNN claims it can not corroborate that the person in the clip is Reade ’ s mother . Fox News confirmed that the August 11 , 1993 episode of Larry King Live appears to have vanished from the Google Play catalog . Twitter user J.L . Hamilton shared a screenshot showing the Aug. 11 , 1993 , broadcast of “ Larry King Live ” was no longer listed in the season three catalog of the iconic CNN talk show . Mysteriously , though , the Aug. 10 broadcast , which is listed as “ Episode 154 ” is followed by the Aug. 12 broadcast , which is listed as “ Episode 155 , ” suggesting that episode and the ones that follow could be incorrectly listed and off by a number . Fox News later verified the Aug. 11 episode is not listed on the streaming service . It is unclear when it was removed from the catalog . CNN spokesman Matt Dornic said the accusation that the clip had been taken down was “ total BS , ” adding that listings on the site are not sourced from the network . “ We do not have a distro deal for [ Larry King Live ] w/ Google play , ” said Dornic . “ Listings on the site are not sourced [ through ] CNN . True for [ Fox News ] programs too . ” This is B.S . CNN didn ’ t remove anything . We do not have a distro deal for LKL w/ Google Play . Listings on the site are not sourced thru CNN . Click any episode , it will say “ not available to watch. ” True for @ foxnews programs too . I ’ ll wait 4 ur correction & apology . Screenshots : pic.twitter.com/Lb2ZJw3kcX — Matt Dornic ( @ mdornic ) April 26 , 2020 Google has yet to respond to ███ ’ request for comment . Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at ███ .

A clip from a 1993 episode of CNN’s Larry King Live featuring the mother of Biden accuser Tara Reade has seemingly been removed from the Google Play catalog. The clip is an important piece of information in Reade’s allegation that Biden sexually assaulted her in the same year, as it supports her claim that she told her mother about the incident. In the clip, Reade’s mother appears to be discussing an incident involving her senator and her daughter, without naming either. The clip can be found on Twitter: BREAKING: Is this the mother of Joe Biden's accuser talking to CNN in 1993? pic.twitter.com/rF7jw35s2F — MediaResearchCenter (@theMRC) April 24, 2020 Reade’s mother passed away in 2016, but Reade has confirmed to multiple media organizations that she recognizes the voice of the woman speaking to King as her mother. CNN claims it cannot corroborate that the person in the clip is Reade’s mother. Fox News confirmed that the August 11, 1993 episode of Larry King Live appears to have vanished from the Google Play catalog. Via Fox: Twitter user J.L. Hamilton shared a screenshot showing the Aug. 11, 1993, broadcast of “Larry King Live” was no longer listed in the season three catalog of the iconic CNN talk show. Mysteriously, though, the Aug. 10 broadcast, which is listed as “Episode 154” is followed by the Aug. 12 broadcast, which is listed as “Episode 155,” suggesting that episode and the ones that follow could be incorrectly listed and off by a number. Fox News later verified the Aug. 11 episode is not listed on the streaming service. It is unclear when it was removed from the catalog. CNN spokesman Matt Dornic said the accusation that the clip had been taken down was “total BS,” adding that listings on the site are not sourced from the network. “We do not have a distro deal for [Larry King Live] w/ Google play,” said Dornic. “Listings on the site are not sourced [through] CNN. True for [Fox News] programs too.” This is B.S. CNN didn’t remove anything. We do not have a distro deal for LKL w/ Google Play. Listings on the site are not sourced thru CNN. Click any episode, it will say “not available to watch.” True for @foxnews programs too. I’ll wait 4 ur correction & apology. Screenshots: pic.twitter.com/Lb2ZJw3kcX — Matt Dornic (@mdornic) April 26, 2020 Google has yet to respond to Breitbart News’ request for comment. Are you an insider at Google, Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, or any other tech company who wants to confidentially reveal wrongdoing or political bias at your company? Reach out to Allum Bokhari at his secure email address allumbokhari@protonmail.com. Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News.

www.breitbart.com

right

YYc9KhyF6XisY3uD

test

3OOCsPYFGYyFPEhS

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/facebook-political-ads-social-media-history-online-democracy

'It might work too well': the dark art of political advertising online

2018-03-19

Julia Carrie Wong

Digital campaigns have evolved from banner ads 20 years ago to Cambridge Analytica harvesting our Facebook data . Has the rise of micro-targeting become a threat to democracy ? Alan Gould was hitting a wall . It was the late 1990s , and the political advertising operative had an idea about using a relatively newfangled tool – banner ads on web sites – to promote political candidates . “ It was pretty clear to me at the time that the ability to target and tailor messaging was perfect for political campaigns , ” Gould recalled recently . “ I did a whole presentation on the internet and the power to connect , track , do fundraising , target . ” But when Gould finished his pitches , he would be met with blank stares . “ I was a very lonely pied piper , ” he says . Finally , in 1998 , Gould found a political candidate who was so far behind in the polls , and so strapped for cash , that he was willing to take a risk and spend $ 100,000 on banner ads on the New York Times homepage . Peter Vallone , then a New York City council member challenging George Pataki for the governorship , gave Gould the green light for an ad buy that has since entered the history books as the first significant use of online advertising in a political campaign . ‘ I made Steve Bannon ’ s psychological warfare tool ’ : meet the data war whistleblower Read more The ads themselves are lost to internet history – Gould believes he may have copies somewhere on floppy discs . But it ’ s not hard to draw a line from that moment to Robert Mueller ’ s 16 February indictment of the Internet Research Agency , which alleges that Russian agents carried out a conspiracy to interfere with a US presidential election , in large part by purchasing targeted Facebook ads designed to “ encourage US minority groups not to vote ” . Or to the news recently revealed in the Observer that 50m Facebook profiles were obtained and misused by data mining company Cambridge Analytica to target voters during the 2016 presidential election . Play Video 3:41 What is the Cambridge Analytica scandal ? - video explainer The Vallone ads contained rudimentary versions of many of the attributes that make digital advertising such a powerful – and terrifying – force today : the ability to target specific audiences with tailored messages , then track their reaction . “ Come November 2000 , I expect the question will no longer be whether web-based political advertising works , ” wrote Cyrus Krohn , then the manager of political advertising for the Microsoft Network , in a prescient 1999 column for Slate , “ but whether it works too well . ” Nearly 20 years later , the world has caught up to Krohn ’ s concerns , with some critics making the not entirely hyperbolic argument that micro-targeted “ dark advertising ” on Facebook is a fundamental threat to democracy itself . Is it too late for democracy to fix itself ? In February , Donald Trump named Brad Parscale as his 2020 re-election campaign manager . The decision lends credence to what Parscale has been saying for the past year : that his Facebook advertising operation won Trump the election . Parscale had been a little-known digital marketing executive working out of Texas when he was tapped to build Trump ’ s campaign website in 2015 . Until then , digital advertising was barely a rounding error in campaign budgets . In 2008 , the year Barack Obama became the first social media candidate , candidates spent just $ 22.25m on online political ads , according to an analysis by Borrell Associates . That number grew significantly in 2012 , but the real explosion came in 2016 , when campaigns pumped $ 1.4bn into digital ads . US presidential campaigns are often remembered – and understood – by their advertisements . Lyndon B Johnson ’ s “ Daisy ” ad powerfully ( and controversially ) set the stakes of an election in a nuclear world . George HW Bush ’ s “ Willie Horton ” attack ad still epitomizes the racist dog-whistle politics of the tough-on-crime era . The message , as much as the messenger , is a key part of the debate over who is best equipped to lead the country . But no such public debate took place around Trump ’ s apparently game-changing digital political advertisements before election day . This is partly due to a loophole in the prevailing campaign finance law , which was written in 2002 and did not include internet ads in the class of regulated “ electioneering communications ” . But perhaps even more important is the very nature of online advertising , which is self-serve ( just sign up with a credit card and go ) and highly iterative . Parscale claims he typically ran 50,000 to 60,000 variations of Facebook ads each day during the Trump campaign , all targeting different segments of the electorate . Understanding the meaning of a single one of those ads would require knowing what the ad actually said , who the campaign targeted to see that ad , and how that audience responded . Multiply that by 100 and you have a headache ; by 50,000 and you ’ ll start to doubt your grasp on reality . Then remember that this is 50,000 a day over the course of a campaign that lasted more than a year . “ The reason I said it might work too well , ” Krohn said in a recent interview with ███ , “ is that mass marketing went away and micro-targeting – nano-targeting – came to fruition . ” Any candidate using Facebook can put a campaign message promising one thing in front of one group of voters while simultaneously running an ad with a completely opposite message in front of a different group of voters . The ads themselves are not posted anywhere for the general public to see ( this is what ’ s known as “ dark advertising ” ) , and chances are , no one will ever be the wiser . Trump digital director says Facebook helped win the White House Read more That undermines the very idea of a “ marketplace of ideas ” , says Ann Ravel , a former member of the Federal Election Commission who has long advocated stricter regulations on digital campaigning . “ The way to have a robust democracy is for people to hear all these ideas and make decisions and discuss , ” Ravel said . “ With microtargeting , that is not happening . ” Parscale and his staff told reporters with Bloomberg that they used Facebook ads to target Hillary Clinton supporters with messages designed to make them sit the election out , including her own forays into dog-whistle politics from the 1990s , which the Trump campaign hoped would discourage black voters from turning out to the polls . That degree of political manipulation might be unsavory , but it ’ s also relatively old-fashioned . One digital campaign staffer ( not affiliated with the Trump campaign ) compared it to Richard Nixon ’ s Southern Strategy , only “ technologically savvy ” . But new reporting by the Observer has revealed that the data analytics team that worked for Trump , Cambridge Analytica , went far beyond Nixonian dirty tricks . The firm obtained Facebook data harvested under the auspices of an academic study , the Observer has revealed , and then used that data to target millions of US voters based on their psychological weaknesses . “ We exploited Facebook to harvest millions of people ’ s profiles , ” whistleblower Christopher Wylie told the Observer about the data theft , “ and built models to exploit what we knew about them and target their inner demons . ” Political advertising in the US is the wild west compared with other western democracies , which tend to have shorter election campaigns with strict regulations on the amount and type of spending permitted . Such rules may enhance the impact of digital advertising , which is much cheaper than television and largely unregulated . The UK has seen a rapid shift to digital campaigning following the Conservative party ’ s embrace of Facebook in the 2015 general election . The Tories outspent Labour by a factor of 10 on Facebook advertisements , a decision that many political observers saw as decisive . In a country that bans political ads on television , Facebook enabled the Conservatives to reach 80.65 % of users in targeted constituencies with its promoted posts and video ads , according to marketing materials created by Facebook . ( At some point in the past year , the company began hiding previously produced “ Success Stories ” about its ability to sway election results . ) The Vote Leave campaign in the 2016 Brexit referendum went on to spend almost its entire budget on Facebook advertising , an investment that resulted in about 1bn targeted digital ads being served to voters over the course of a 10-week campaign . Though it is impossible to parse the exact impact of Facebook advertisements amid all the other factors that shape an electoral result ( including organic Facebook content ) , the platform is increasingly cited as a factor in the growing electoral might of far-right groups in Europe . The radical right-wing Alternative for Germany ( AfD ) party reportedly worked with a US campaign consultancy and Facebook itself to target German voters susceptible to its anti-immigrant message during the 2017 election in which AfD surged in popularity to become the third-largest party in parliament . Campaigning in Italy ’ s recent election , which saw the rise of anti-establishment parties , including the populist Five Star Movement and the far-right League , largely took place on social media . Facebook advertisements and targeting information gathered by Italian transparency group Openpolis found that the neo-fascist Brothers of Italy party ran a Facebook ad targeting Italian adults who are interested in the paramilitary police force , the carabinieri . After the polls closed in Italy , the League ’ s Matteo Salvini shared some words of gratitude with the press : “ Thank God for the internet . Thank God for social media . Thank God for Facebook . ” While investigations into the 2016 US election and Brexit referendum continue , it ’ s worth remembering that more elections are fast approaching . Scores of countries will hold national elections in 2018 , including Sweden , Ireland , Egypt , Mexico and Brazil . In the US , candidates for the 435 congressional and 35 Senate seats that are up for grabs in November are already running campaigns on Facebook , and we may never know what they ’ re saying in those advertisements . Take , for example , Paul Nehlen , a candidate who is running a Republican primary challenge against the speaker of the House , Paul Ryan , in Wisconsin . Nehlen is primarily known as a vehement antisemite who was once embraced by Steve Bannon and the Breitbart wing of the right , but was excommunicated after appearing on a white supremacist podcast . They ’ ve built this incredibly powerful platform that allows very narrow targeting ... so that scares me Alan Mislove , professor According to his FEC filings , Nehlen spent at least $ 2,791.72 on Facebook ads in the final six months of 2017 . In the first instance , everything that any Facebook advertiser can get : access to one of the most powerful databases of personal information that has ever existed , with insights into individuals ’ intimate relationships , political beliefs , consumer habits and internet browsing . Beyond that , we don ’ t know . Nehlen could be using Facebook to target likely voters in his district with a message about infrastructure . Or he could have taken a list of his own core supporters ( he has more than 40,000 likes on Facebook ) , used Facebook ’ s “ lookalike audience ” tool to find other people inclined to support his particular politics , then fed them ads designed to persuade more people to join him in hating Jews . Last fall , after Facebook had been forced to admit that , despite its initial denials , its platform had been used by foreign agents seeking to illegally influence the election , the company announced a set of reforms designed to assuage its critics – and stave off actual , enforceable regulation . Starting this summer , the platform has promised that every political ad will be linked back to the page that paid for it . The pages themselves will display every ad that they ’ re running , as well as demographic information about the audience that they are reaching , a measure that Mark Zuckerberg claimed would “ bring Facebook to an even higher standard of transparency ” than the law requires for television or other media . A version of these reforms is already live in Canada , where users can see all the ads being run by a political candidate in a designated tab on their page . Since 2014 , Facebook has had a transparency tool for all ads served on the platform . Click on the upper right-hand corner of a Facebook ad and you ’ ll see an option reading “ Why am I seeing this ad ? ” Click through and you ’ ll get an explanation of the characteristics that make you desirable to the advertiser . So far so good , but a new study by computer scientists found that Facebook ’ s ad explanations were “ often incomplete and sometimes misleading ” in a way that “ may allow malicious advertisers to easily obfuscate ad explanations that are discriminatory or that target privacy-sensitive attributes ” . Alan Mislove , a professor of computer science at Northeastern University and one of the study ’ s co-authors , said that he gave Facebook credit for having the feature at all , noting that it is one of the only examples of a company offering any kind of explanation of how an algorithm actually works . But the findings do not paint a particularly pretty picture of Facebook ’ s ability to self-regulate . “ They ’ ve built this incredibly powerful platform that allows very narrow targeting , a very powerful tool that anyone on the internet can use , so that scares me , ” Mislove said . “ And up until very recently , there was very little accountability . You as a malicious actor on Facebook don ’ t even really need to obfuscate your behavior , because the only person watching is Facebook . ” The best hope for bringing some order to the realm of digital political ads is through updating US law for the Facebook era . A bipartisan proposal to do just that exists . In October , Senators Amy Klobuchar , Mark Warner and John McCain introduced the Honest Ads Act , which would close the loophole that allows internet ads to avoid regulation , and also require internet platforms ( ie Facebook and Google ) to maintain a public file of all the political ads they run and who paid for them . But as much as we need transparency around political ads to maintain democracy , we also need a functioning democracy to get that transparency . And it ’ s not clear that it ’ s not already too late . “ In an ideal world , with a fully functioning Congress , there would be hearings around the Honest Ads Act , and you would have Facebook and Google and Twitter and experts testify to shine a light on the nature of political advertising , ” said Brendan Fischer , director of FEC reform at the Campaign Legal Center . “ We ’ re not close to that at all . ” In the absence of a fully functioning Congress , what is to be done ? Should we expect Facebook to simply stop selling political ads ? Antonio Garcia Martinez , a former product manager for Facebook who helped develop its advertising tools says that he has come to realize that political ads are simply a different beast than commercial ones , which can and should be treated differently by his former employer . “ Selling shoes needs to be different than selling politicians , even though the mechanics of it are identical , ” he said . “ Morally it ’ s different . ” Or should we pressure Facebook to stop allowing candidates with hateful or extremist views to use its tools ? “ If we farm these important democratic responsibilities out to a private company , today they might be regulating antisemitism , but tomorrow they ’ re regulating what people can say about the Honest Ads Act , ” Fischer said . Indeed , Facebook could already be suppressing political views unfavorable to its business practices , and we would have no way of knowing . It ’ s possible Facebook wouldn ’ t even know . In response to queries about inconsistent moderation of clothing advertisements , a Facebook spokeswoman recently told the New York Times that “ the company could not ask an automated system about [ its ] decisions ” . No one can pretend Facebook is just harmless fun any more | Ellie Mae O ’ Hagan Read more If this all seems positively dystopian , one person who is surprisingly sanguine is Alan Gould . Gould left politics soon after the Vallone campaign , founded an advertising analytics firm , sold it , and is now a tech investor . He does have concerns about media literacy and Facebook ’ s tendency to trap people in filter bubbles , but says : “ If people choose to stay in that bubble and not explore anything outside of it , that ’ s a statement about who they are and not about the technology . “ If you ’ re going to have a representative democracy , then you have to have a way to communicate with the voters and you ’ re going to use whatever is available , whether that ’ s newspapers or mail or email or Snapchat , ” he said . “ I don ’ t regret it at all . ”

Digital campaigns have evolved from banner ads 20 years ago to Cambridge Analytica harvesting our Facebook data. Has the rise of micro-targeting become a threat to democracy? Alan Gould was hitting a wall. It was the late 1990s, and the political advertising operative had an idea about using a relatively newfangled tool – banner ads on web sites – to promote political candidates. “It was pretty clear to me at the time that the ability to target and tailor messaging was perfect for political campaigns,” Gould recalled recently. “I did a whole presentation on the internet and the power to connect, track, do fundraising, target.” But when Gould finished his pitches, he would be met with blank stares. “I was a very lonely pied piper,” he says. Finally, in 1998, Gould found a political candidate who was so far behind in the polls, and so strapped for cash, that he was willing to take a risk and spend $100,000 on banner ads on the New York Times homepage. Peter Vallone, then a New York City council member challenging George Pataki for the governorship, gave Gould the green light for an ad buy that has since entered the history books as the first significant use of online advertising in a political campaign. ‘I made Steve Bannon’s psychological warfare tool’: meet the data war whistleblower Read more The ads themselves are lost to internet history – Gould believes he may have copies somewhere on floppy discs. But it’s not hard to draw a line from that moment to Robert Mueller’s 16 February indictment of the Internet Research Agency, which alleges that Russian agents carried out a conspiracy to interfere with a US presidential election, in large part by purchasing targeted Facebook ads designed to “encourage US minority groups not to vote”. Or to the news recently revealed in the Observer that 50m Facebook profiles were obtained and misused by data mining company Cambridge Analytica to target voters during the 2016 presidential election. Play Video 3:41 What is the Cambridge Analytica scandal? - video explainer The Vallone ads contained rudimentary versions of many of the attributes that make digital advertising such a powerful – and terrifying – force today: the ability to target specific audiences with tailored messages, then track their reaction. “Come November 2000, I expect the question will no longer be whether web-based political advertising works,” wrote Cyrus Krohn, then the manager of political advertising for the Microsoft Network, in a prescient 1999 column for Slate, “but whether it works too well.” Nearly 20 years later, the world has caught up to Krohn’s concerns, with some critics making the not entirely hyperbolic argument that micro-targeted “dark advertising” on Facebook is a fundamental threat to democracy itself. Is it too late for democracy to fix itself? Game-changing In February, Donald Trump named Brad Parscale as his 2020 re-election campaign manager. The decision lends credence to what Parscale has been saying for the past year: that his Facebook advertising operation won Trump the election. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Brad Parscale, the digital media director of Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, has been hired to lead his 2020 presidential re-election campaign. Photograph: Drew Angerer/Getty Images Parscale had been a little-known digital marketing executive working out of Texas when he was tapped to build Trump’s campaign website in 2015. Until then, digital advertising was barely a rounding error in campaign budgets. In 2008, the year Barack Obama became the first social media candidate, candidates spent just $22.25m on online political ads, according to an analysis by Borrell Associates. That number grew significantly in 2012, but the real explosion came in 2016, when campaigns pumped $1.4bn into digital ads. US presidential campaigns are often remembered – and understood – by their advertisements. Lyndon B Johnson’s “Daisy” ad powerfully (and controversially) set the stakes of an election in a nuclear world. George HW Bush’s “Willie Horton” attack ad still epitomizes the racist dog-whistle politics of the tough-on-crime era. The message, as much as the messenger, is a key part of the debate over who is best equipped to lead the country. But no such public debate took place around Trump’s apparently game-changing digital political advertisements before election day. This is partly due to a loophole in the prevailing campaign finance law, which was written in 2002 and did not include internet ads in the class of regulated “electioneering communications”. But perhaps even more important is the very nature of online advertising, which is self-serve (just sign up with a credit card and go) and highly iterative. Parscale claims he typically ran 50,000 to 60,000 variations of Facebook ads each day during the Trump campaign, all targeting different segments of the electorate. Understanding the meaning of a single one of those ads would require knowing what the ad actually said, who the campaign targeted to see that ad, and how that audience responded. Multiply that by 100 and you have a headache; by 50,000 and you’ll start to doubt your grasp on reality. Then remember that this is 50,000 a day over the course of a campaign that lasted more than a year. “The reason I said it might work too well,” Krohn said in a recent interview with the Guardian, “is that mass marketing went away and micro-targeting – nano-targeting – came to fruition.” Any candidate using Facebook can put a campaign message promising one thing in front of one group of voters while simultaneously running an ad with a completely opposite message in front of a different group of voters. The ads themselves are not posted anywhere for the general public to see (this is what’s known as “dark advertising”), and chances are, no one will ever be the wiser. Trump digital director says Facebook helped win the White House Read more That undermines the very idea of a “marketplace of ideas”, says Ann Ravel, a former member of the Federal Election Commission who has long advocated stricter regulations on digital campaigning. “The way to have a robust democracy is for people to hear all these ideas and make decisions and discuss,” Ravel said. “With microtargeting, that is not happening.” Parscale and his staff told reporters with Bloomberg that they used Facebook ads to target Hillary Clinton supporters with messages designed to make them sit the election out, including her own forays into dog-whistle politics from the 1990s, which the Trump campaign hoped would discourage black voters from turning out to the polls. That degree of political manipulation might be unsavory, but it’s also relatively old-fashioned. One digital campaign staffer (not affiliated with the Trump campaign) compared it to Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy, only “technologically savvy”. But new reporting by the Observer has revealed that the data analytics team that worked for Trump, Cambridge Analytica, went far beyond Nixonian dirty tricks. The firm obtained Facebook data harvested under the auspices of an academic study, the Observer has revealed, and then used that data to target millions of US voters based on their psychological weaknesses. “We exploited Facebook to harvest millions of people’s profiles,” whistleblower Christopher Wylie told the Observer about the data theft, “and built models to exploit what we knew about them and target their inner demons.” European elections Political advertising in the US is the wild west compared with other western democracies, which tend to have shorter election campaigns with strict regulations on the amount and type of spending permitted. Such rules may enhance the impact of digital advertising, which is much cheaper than television and largely unregulated. The UK has seen a rapid shift to digital campaigning following the Conservative party’s embrace of Facebook in the 2015 general election. The Tories outspent Labour by a factor of 10 on Facebook advertisements, a decision that many political observers saw as decisive. In a country that bans political ads on television, Facebook enabled the Conservatives to reach 80.65% of users in targeted constituencies with its promoted posts and video ads, according to marketing materials created by Facebook. (At some point in the past year, the company began hiding previously produced “Success Stories” about its ability to sway election results.) The Vote Leave campaign in the 2016 Brexit referendum went on to spend almost its entire budget on Facebook advertising, an investment that resulted in about 1bn targeted digital ads being served to voters over the course of a 10-week campaign. Though it is impossible to parse the exact impact of Facebook advertisements amid all the other factors that shape an electoral result (including organic Facebook content), the platform is increasingly cited as a factor in the growing electoral might of far-right groups in Europe. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Supporters of the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) political party demonstrate outside the Chancellery in Berlin last week. Photograph: Sean Gallup/Getty Images The radical right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party reportedly worked with a US campaign consultancy and Facebook itself to target German voters susceptible to its anti-immigrant message during the 2017 election in which AfD surged in popularity to become the third-largest party in parliament. Campaigning in Italy’s recent election, which saw the rise of anti-establishment parties, including the populist Five Star Movement and the far-right League, largely took place on social media. Facebook advertisements and targeting information gathered by Italian transparency group Openpolis found that the neo-fascist Brothers of Italy party ran a Facebook ad targeting Italian adults who are interested in the paramilitary police force, the carabinieri. After the polls closed in Italy, the League’s Matteo Salvini shared some words of gratitude with the press: “Thank God for the internet. Thank God for social media. Thank God for Facebook.” Targeting the midterms While investigations into the 2016 US election and Brexit referendum continue, it’s worth remembering that more elections are fast approaching. Scores of countries will hold national elections in 2018, including Sweden, Ireland, Egypt, Mexico and Brazil. In the US, candidates for the 435 congressional and 35 Senate seats that are up for grabs in November are already running campaigns on Facebook, and we may never know what they’re saying in those advertisements. Take, for example, Paul Nehlen, a candidate who is running a Republican primary challenge against the speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, in Wisconsin. Nehlen is primarily known as a vehement antisemite who was once embraced by Steve Bannon and the Breitbart wing of the right, but was excommunicated after appearing on a white supremacist podcast. They’ve built this incredibly powerful platform that allows very narrow targeting ... so that scares me Alan Mislove, professor According to his FEC filings, Nehlen spent at least $2,791.72 on Facebook ads in the final six months of 2017. What did that money buy? In the first instance, everything that any Facebook advertiser can get: access to one of the most powerful databases of personal information that has ever existed, with insights into individuals’ intimate relationships, political beliefs, consumer habits and internet browsing. Beyond that, we don’t know. Nehlen could be using Facebook to target likely voters in his district with a message about infrastructure. Or he could have taken a list of his own core supporters (he has more than 40,000 likes on Facebook), used Facebook’s “lookalike audience” tool to find other people inclined to support his particular politics, then fed them ads designed to persuade more people to join him in hating Jews. Last fall, after Facebook had been forced to admit that, despite its initial denials, its platform had been used by foreign agents seeking to illegally influence the election, the company announced a set of reforms designed to assuage its critics – and stave off actual, enforceable regulation. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook has taken steps to achieve ‘an even higher standard of transparency’. Photograph: Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images Starting this summer, the platform has promised that every political ad will be linked back to the page that paid for it. The pages themselves will display every ad that they’re running, as well as demographic information about the audience that they are reaching, a measure that Mark Zuckerberg claimed would “bring Facebook to an even higher standard of transparency” than the law requires for television or other media. A version of these reforms is already live in Canada, where users can see all the ads being run by a political candidate in a designated tab on their page. But there is good reason to be skeptical. Since 2014, Facebook has had a transparency tool for all ads served on the platform. Click on the upper right-hand corner of a Facebook ad and you’ll see an option reading “Why am I seeing this ad?” Click through and you’ll get an explanation of the characteristics that make you desirable to the advertiser. So far so good, but a new study by computer scientists found that Facebook’s ad explanations were “often incomplete and sometimes misleading” in a way that “may allow malicious advertisers to easily obfuscate ad explanations that are discriminatory or that target privacy-sensitive attributes”. Alan Mislove, a professor of computer science at Northeastern University and one of the study’s co-authors, said that he gave Facebook credit for having the feature at all, noting that it is one of the only examples of a company offering any kind of explanation of how an algorithm actually works. But the findings do not paint a particularly pretty picture of Facebook’s ability to self-regulate. “They’ve built this incredibly powerful platform that allows very narrow targeting, a very powerful tool that anyone on the internet can use, so that scares me,” Mislove said. “And up until very recently, there was very little accountability. You as a malicious actor on Facebook don’t even really need to obfuscate your behavior, because the only person watching is Facebook.” Honest Ads Act The best hope for bringing some order to the realm of digital political ads is through updating US law for the Facebook era. A bipartisan proposal to do just that exists. In October, Senators Amy Klobuchar, Mark Warner and John McCain introduced the Honest Ads Act, which would close the loophole that allows internet ads to avoid regulation, and also require internet platforms (ie Facebook and Google) to maintain a public file of all the political ads they run and who paid for them. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Senators Amy Klobuchar and Mark Warner introduce the Honest Ads Act at a news conference on Capitol Hill on 19 October 2017. Photograph: Michael Reynolds/EPA But as much as we need transparency around political ads to maintain democracy, we also need a functioning democracy to get that transparency. And it’s not clear that it’s not already too late. “In an ideal world, with a fully functioning Congress, there would be hearings around the Honest Ads Act, and you would have Facebook and Google and Twitter and experts testify to shine a light on the nature of political advertising,” said Brendan Fischer, director of FEC reform at the Campaign Legal Center. “We’re not close to that at all.” In the absence of a fully functioning Congress, what is to be done? Should we expect Facebook to simply stop selling political ads? Antonio Garcia Martinez, a former product manager for Facebook who helped develop its advertising tools says that he has come to realize that political ads are simply a different beast than commercial ones, which can and should be treated differently by his former employer. “Selling shoes needs to be different than selling politicians, even though the mechanics of it are identical,” he said. “Morally it’s different.” Or should we pressure Facebook to stop allowing candidates with hateful or extremist views to use its tools? “If we farm these important democratic responsibilities out to a private company, today they might be regulating antisemitism, but tomorrow they’re regulating what people can say about the Honest Ads Act,” Fischer said. Indeed, Facebook could already be suppressing political views unfavorable to its business practices, and we would have no way of knowing. It’s possible Facebook wouldn’t even know. In response to queries about inconsistent moderation of clothing advertisements, a Facebook spokeswoman recently told the New York Times that “the company could not ask an automated system about [its] decisions”. Frankenstein’s monster is not under any human’s control. No one can pretend Facebook is just harmless fun any more | Ellie Mae O’Hagan Read more If this all seems positively dystopian, one person who is surprisingly sanguine is Alan Gould. Gould left politics soon after the Vallone campaign, founded an advertising analytics firm, sold it, and is now a tech investor. He does have concerns about media literacy and Facebook’s tendency to trap people in filter bubbles, but says: “If people choose to stay in that bubble and not explore anything outside of it, that’s a statement about who they are and not about the technology. “If you’re going to have a representative democracy, then you have to have a way to communicate with the voters and you’re going to use whatever is available, whether that’s newspapers or mail or email or Snapchat,” he said. “I don’t regret it at all.”

www.theguardian.com

left

3OOCsPYFGYyFPEhS

test

HIQyVEkOn9Fju90G

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine/trump-says-he-discussed-biden-in-call-with-ukrainian-president-idUSKBN1W70G4

Trump says he discussed Biden in call with Ukrainian president

2019-09-23

Nandita Bose

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Sunday that he discussed Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden and his son in a call with Ukraine ’ s president . Trump ’ s statement to reporters about his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky came as the Democratic leader of a key congressional panel said the pursuit of Trump ’ s impeachment may be the “ only remedy ” to the situation . Trump ’ s call with Zelensky has been at the center of an escalating battle in Washington since Friday , when news outlets reported that Trump repeatedly asked the Ukrainian leader to investigate whether Biden , the Democratic front-runner to take on Trump in next year ’ s election , misused his position when he was vice president . Trump told reporters at the White House that their phone conversation was mostly congratulatory but also touched on corruption and the Bidens . “ The conversation I had was largely congratulatory , with largely corruption , all of the corruption taking place and largely the fact that we don ’ t want our people like Vice President Biden and his son creating to the corruption already in the Ukraine , ” Trump said . Democrats have said that if Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Biden , it is tantamount to promoting foreign interference in the 2020 election . Trump has denied doing anything improper . His allies , including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his personal attorney , Rudy Giuliani , have defended the president ’ s phone call , which , according to news reports , was the subject of a complaint made by an as-yet-unnamed whistleblower . If an investigation shows that Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden , the U.S. Congress may have no choice but to pursue impeachment , Democratic House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said on Sunday . Schiff had previously shied away from calling for impeachment , but his comments on CNN ’ s “ State of the Union ” showed his stance had shifted . “ If the president is essentially withholding military aid at the same time that he is trying to browbeat a foreign leader to do something illicit , to provide dirt on his opponent during a presidential campaign , then that may be the only remedy that is co-equal to the evil that conduct represents , ” Schiff said . U.S. President Donald Trump exits his cabin to deplane as he arrives aboard Air Force One at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York , U.S. September 22 , 2019 . ███/Jonathan Ernst Other legislators have called for the Democratic leadership to pursue impeachment immediately , but Democratic House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi has so far resisted calls to formally begin the process . In a letter to colleagues later on Sunday , Pelosi warned the administration against keeping the details of the whistleblower complaint secret . The administration has so far resisted sharing the details of the complaint with lawmakers . “ If the administration persists in blocking this whistleblower from disclosing to Congress a serious possible breach of constitutional duties by the president , they will be entering a grave new chapter of lawlessness which will take us into a whole new stage of investigation , ” Pelosi wrote . Senator Mitt Romney , who has clashed with Trump in the past , sounded a rare note of concern among Trump ’ s fellow Republicans , many of whom have remained silent , defended Trump or escalated their attacks on Biden in the days after the reports about the Trump-Zelensky call . “ If the President asked or pressured Ukraine ’ s president to investigate his political rival , either directly or through his personal attorney , it would be troubling in the extreme , ” Romney , the 2012 Republican presidential nominee , said in a Twitter post . Impeachment proceedings in Congress , which begin in the House , can lead to a president being removed from office , but Democrats would need the support of Republicans , who control the Senate . Multiple news organizations reported on Friday that Trump repeatedly asked Zelensky to investigate whether Biden misused his position as vice president under Democratic President Barack Obama to threaten to withhold U.S. aid unless a prosecutor who was looking into a gas company in which Biden ’ s son was involved was fired . Biden has confirmed he wanted the prosecutor fired but denies it was to help his son . Biden said the wider U.S. government , the European Union and other international institutions also wanted the prosecutor fired for his alleged failure to pursue major corruption cases . Biden said on Saturday there should be an investigation into Trump ’ s call , saying it “ appears to be an overwhelming abuse of power. ” He said he never spoke to his son about Ukraine .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Sunday that he discussed Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden and his son in a call with Ukraine’s president. Trump’s statement to reporters about his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky came as the Democratic leader of a key congressional panel said the pursuit of Trump’s impeachment may be the “only remedy” to the situation. Trump’s call with Zelensky has been at the center of an escalating battle in Washington since Friday, when news outlets reported that Trump repeatedly asked the Ukrainian leader to investigate whether Biden, the Democratic front-runner to take on Trump in next year’s election, misused his position when he was vice president. Trump told reporters at the White House that their phone conversation was mostly congratulatory but also touched on corruption and the Bidens. “The conversation I had was largely congratulatory, with largely corruption, all of the corruption taking place and largely the fact that we don’t want our people like Vice President Biden and his son creating to the corruption already in the Ukraine,” Trump said. Democrats have said that if Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Biden, it is tantamount to promoting foreign interference in the 2020 election. Trump has denied doing anything improper. His allies, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, have defended the president’s phone call, which, according to news reports, was the subject of a complaint made by an as-yet-unnamed whistleblower. If an investigation shows that Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden, the U.S. Congress may have no choice but to pursue impeachment, Democratic House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said on Sunday. Schiff had previously shied away from calling for impeachment, but his comments on CNN’s “State of the Union” showed his stance had shifted. “If the president is essentially withholding military aid at the same time that he is trying to browbeat a foreign leader to do something illicit, to provide dirt on his opponent during a presidential campaign, then that may be the only remedy that is co-equal to the evil that conduct represents,” Schiff said. U.S. President Donald Trump exits his cabin to deplane as he arrives aboard Air Force One at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, U.S. September 22, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst Other legislators have called for the Democratic leadership to pursue impeachment immediately, but Democratic House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi has so far resisted calls to formally begin the process. In a letter to colleagues later on Sunday, Pelosi warned the administration against keeping the details of the whistleblower complaint secret. The administration has so far resisted sharing the details of the complaint with lawmakers. “If the administration persists in blocking this whistleblower from disclosing to Congress a serious possible breach of constitutional duties by the president, they will be entering a grave new chapter of lawlessness which will take us into a whole new stage of investigation,” Pelosi wrote. ROMNEY VOICES CONCERN Senator Mitt Romney, who has clashed with Trump in the past, sounded a rare note of concern among Trump’s fellow Republicans, many of whom have remained silent, defended Trump or escalated their attacks on Biden in the days after the reports about the Trump-Zelensky call. “If the President asked or pressured Ukraine’s president to investigate his political rival, either directly or through his personal attorney, it would be troubling in the extreme,” Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, said in a Twitter post. FILE PHOTO: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) listens to a question from the moderator during a discussion on the Mueller investigation at a Center for American Progress (CAP) forum in Washington, U.S., July 23, 2019. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo Impeachment proceedings in Congress, which begin in the House, can lead to a president being removed from office, but Democrats would need the support of Republicans, who control the Senate. Multiple news organizations reported on Friday that Trump repeatedly asked Zelensky to investigate whether Biden misused his position as vice president under Democratic President Barack Obama to threaten to withhold U.S. aid unless a prosecutor who was looking into a gas company in which Biden’s son was involved was fired. Biden has confirmed he wanted the prosecutor fired but denies it was to help his son. Biden said the wider U.S. government, the European Union and other international institutions also wanted the prosecutor fired for his alleged failure to pursue major corruption cases. Biden said on Saturday there should be an investigation into Trump’s call, saying it “appears to be an overwhelming abuse of power.” He said he never spoke to his son about Ukraine.

www.reuters.com

center

HIQyVEkOn9Fju90G

test

XmpjWB3kYGUhBoVu

politics

Salon

https://www.salon.com/2019/07/19/send-her-back-is-nothing-new-racism-and-xenophobia-are-trumps-only-political-strategy/

"Send her back" is nothing new: Racism and xenophobia are Trump's only political strategy

2019-07-19

Heather Digparton

Donald Trump has bragged many times that his 2016 election victory was a result of his unique political genius , saying only recently , `` You know who got me elected ? I got me elected ! '' He is convinced that his instincts are infallible and that he speaks for the American electorate when he engages in his patented demagogic bigotry . He believes this is what brought him to the White House and is what will win him a second term . He has little choice but to try . Even with a healthy economy and no new wars , he 's been unable to raise his approval ratings above the 45 percent or so that elected him . For all of the media 's insistence over the past few years that his victory was a result of `` economic anxiety , '' Trump himself knows better . He knows he can only replicate his 2016 fluke by activating the racist id of his following to its fullest in order to once again eke out a narrow Electoral College victory . Now that he has found the perfect symbols of all his voters ' racism , xenophobia , misogyny , and Islamophobia in the persons of Reps. Ilhan Omar , Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley , there will be no turning back . They are the living personification of everything he and his voters loathe : Hispanic , Muslim , African American , progressive women . Trump 's recent Twitter tantrum and the ensuing outrage over his supporters ' `` Send her back '' chant really should not come as any surprise . After all , he is the king of the `` birthers , '' who managed to single-handedly convince millions of Americans that Barack Obama was a secret Muslim foreigner trying to pass himself off as an American citizen and was , therefore , an illegitimate president . These are his political roots . And you can forgive his followers for chanting `` Send her back , '' since Trump repeatedly promised to send refugees and immigrants back to where they came from during the 2016 campaign . It was a staple of his campaign from the very beginning to refer to Syrian refugees as a possible `` Trojan horse . '' In New Hampshire for the first time since he failed to correct a man 's rant about President Barack Obama being a Muslim , Trump was greeted by a few thousand cheering fans — and he was fired up . ... On the topic of Syrian refugees , Trump was forceful : `` I 'm putting people on notice that are coming here from Syria as part of this mass migration , that if I win , they 're going back ! ” He explained : “ They could be ISIS …This could be one of the great tactical ploys of all time . A 200,000-man army maybe , or if you said 50,000 or 80,000 or 100,000 , we got problems and that could be possible . I do n't know that it is , but it could be possible so they ’ re going back — they ’ re going back . ” One of his favorite performances was to read the lyrics to a song called `` The Snake , '' which he saw as a parable for immigrants and refugees turning on the Americans who generously `` took them in . '' He brought that back as a greatest hit at CPAC last year : From the beginning of his campaign , he spoke of mass deportations of undocumented immigrants , citing ( without naming it ) the grotesque `` Operation Wetback '' from the 1950s as his model . In one Republican primary debate , he explained : Let me just tell you that Dwight Eisenhower , good president , great president , people liked him . I like Ike , right ? The expression . `` I like Ike . '' Moved a million and a half illegal immigrants out of this country , moved them just beyond the border . They came back . Moved them again , beyond the border , they came back . Didn ’ t like it . Moved them way south . They never came back . Dwight Eisenhower . You don ’ t get nicer , you don ’ t get friendlier . He told the press that he would create a `` deportation force '' that would `` humanely '' remove these millions of citizens . In other words , he has formerly claimed that the first African American president of the United States was really a foreigner and he 's been talking about `` sending back '' immigrants and refugees for years . So this latest salvo is n't original , although it 's the first time he has combined claiming that a black American is an illegitimate citizen with calls for the person to `` go back to where they came from . '' So in that respect he 's taken the demagoguery up a notch . But his fans are just following the familiar grooves of his call-and-response chants by using words they 've heard a hundred times before . When he said at his North Carolina rally that Ilhan Omar has `` contempt for hard-working Americans , '' they knew exactly what to do . Trump danced around the `` Send her back '' chant when asked about it on Thursday , saying he `` disagreed with it '' and claiming that he tried to stop it . ( He did n't disagree with it and he did n't try to stop it . ) This is par for the course with Trump . He throws out the red meat to his crowds and then pretends he does n't like the fact that they gobbled it up like a school of red-bellied piranhas . But he does n't keep up the pretense for long . You will recall that when the eventually ubiquitous `` Lock her up '' chants first started he disavowed them , telling the media during a press conference : When I started talking about Hillary Clinton , the veterans who saw her 24 hours before started screaming , “ Lock her up ! Lock her up ! Lock her up ! ” They also screamed that , as you know , during the speech I made . The big speech . And I said , “ Don ’ t do that. ” Now , I didn ’ t do that for any reason . I really — I didn ’ t like it . And they stopped . Not one reporter said that I said that . They all said — they started screaming “ Lock her up ! Lock her up ! ” I said , “ Don ’ t do that. ” I think it ’ s a shame that they said it , but a lot of people would say that should happen . ” It was n't long before he told his people that he was going to stop being so nice and when the chants started he began puffing out his chest and strutting around the stage like Il Duce . During the presidential debates , he famously told Clinton that if he were president , “ you ’ d be in jail. ” The chants continue to this day . I have every expectation that he will do the same with `` Send her back '' or any other chant his fans come up with over the course of the next year and a half . He believes that pushing this odious demagoguery is how he will win because it 's how he won before . In any case , he does n't know how to do anything else .

Donald Trump has bragged many times that his 2016 election victory was a result of his unique political genius, saying only recently, "You know who got me elected? I got me elected!" He is convinced that his instincts are infallible and that he speaks for the American electorate when he engages in his patented demagogic bigotry. He believes this is what brought him to the White House and is what will win him a second term. He has little choice but to try. Even with a healthy economy and no new wars, he's been unable to raise his approval ratings above the 45 percent or so that elected him. For all of the media's insistence over the past few years that his victory was a result of "economic anxiety," Trump himself knows better. He knows he can only replicate his 2016 fluke by activating the racist id of his following to its fullest in order to once again eke out a narrow Electoral College victory. Advertisement: Now that he has found the perfect symbols of all his voters' racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and Islamophobia in the persons of Reps. Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley, there will be no turning back. They are the living personification of everything he and his voters loathe: Hispanic, Muslim, African American, progressive women. Trump's recent Twitter tantrum and the ensuing outrage over his supporters' "Send her back" chant really should not come as any surprise. After all, he is the king of the "birthers," who managed to single-handedly convince millions of Americans that Barack Obama was a secret Muslim foreigner trying to pass himself off as an American citizen and was, therefore, an illegitimate president. These are his political roots. And you can forgive his followers for chanting "Send her back," since Trump repeatedly promised to send refugees and immigrants back to where they came from during the 2016 campaign. It was a staple of his campaign from the very beginning to refer to Syrian refugees as a possible "Trojan horse." Advertisement: In New Hampshire for the first time since he failed to correct a man's rant about President Barack Obama being a Muslim, Trump was greeted by a few thousand cheering fans — and he was fired up. ... On the topic of Syrian refugees, Trump was forceful: "I'm putting people on notice that are coming here from Syria as part of this mass migration, that if I win, they're going back!” He explained: “They could be ISIS …This could be one of the great tactical ploys of all time. A 200,000-man army maybe, or if you said 50,000 or 80,000 or 100,000, we got problems and that could be possible. I don't know that it is, but it could be possible so they’re going back — they’re going back.” One of his favorite performances was to read the lyrics to a song called "The Snake," which he saw as a parable for immigrants and refugees turning on the Americans who generously "took them in." He brought that back as a greatest hit at CPAC last year: From the beginning of his campaign, he spoke of mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, citing (without naming it) the grotesque "Operation Wetback" from the 1950s as his model. In one Republican primary debate, he explained: Let me just tell you that Dwight Eisenhower, good president, great president, people liked him. I like Ike, right? The expression. "I like Ike." Moved a million and a half illegal immigrants out of this country, moved them just beyond the border. They came back. Moved them again, beyond the border, they came back. Didn’t like it. Moved them way south. They never came back. Dwight Eisenhower. You don’t get nicer, you don’t get friendlier. He told the press that he would create a "deportation force" that would "humanely" remove these millions of citizens. Advertisement: In other words, he has formerly claimed that the first African American president of the United States was really a foreigner and he's been talking about "sending back" immigrants and refugees for years. So this latest salvo isn't original, although it's the first time he has combined claiming that a black American is an illegitimate citizen with calls for the person to "go back to where they came from." So in that respect he's taken the demagoguery up a notch. But his fans are just following the familiar grooves of his call-and-response chants by using words they've heard a hundred times before. When he said at his North Carolina rally that Ilhan Omar has "contempt for hard-working Americans," they knew exactly what to do. Trump danced around the "Send her back" chant when asked about it on Thursday, saying he "disagreed with it" and claiming that he tried to stop it. (He didn't disagree with it and he didn't try to stop it.) This is par for the course with Trump. He throws out the red meat to his crowds and then pretends he doesn't like the fact that they gobbled it up like a school of red-bellied piranhas. But he doesn't keep up the pretense for long. Advertisement: You will recall that when the eventually ubiquitous "Lock her up" chants first started he disavowed them, telling the media during a press conference: When I started talking about Hillary Clinton, the veterans who saw her 24 hours before started screaming, “Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!” They also screamed that, as you know, during the speech I made. The big speech. And I said, “Don’t do that.” Now, I didn’t do that for any reason. I really — I didn’t like it. And they stopped. Not one reporter said that I said that. They all said — they started screaming “Lock her up! Lock her up!” I said, “Don’t do that.” I think it’s a shame that they said it, but a lot of people would say that should happen.” It wasn't long before he told his people that he was going to stop being so nice and when the chants started he began puffing out his chest and strutting around the stage like Il Duce. During the presidential debates, he famously told Clinton that if he were president, “you’d be in jail.” The chants continue to this day. I have every expectation that he will do the same with "Send her back" or any other chant his fans come up with over the course of the next year and a half. He believes that pushing this odious demagoguery is how he will win because it's how he won before. In any case, he doesn't know how to do anything else.

www.salon.com

left

XmpjWB3kYGUhBoVu

test

8feL78fa6NG0gelL

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/09/Ted-Cruz-Tests-Waters-Meets-with-Iowa-Grassroots-Leaders

Ted Cruz Tests Waters, Meets With Iowa Grassroots Leaders

2014-08-09

Tony Lee

Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) met with some of the most influential grassroots conservative leaders and activists in Iowa on Saturday as he tested the waters for a potential 2016 run . Cruz spoke at the Iowa State Fair and the Family Leadership Summit . According to Steve Deace , the conservative Iowa talk radio host , Cruz met with various grassroots leaders who would be needed to win the nation ’ s first-in-the-nation caucuses . Deace told ███ that many Iowans think Cruz would be the perfect presidential candidate , frequently telling him that they want a “ fighter ” like Cruz who is unafraid to take on Democrats and the GOP establishment . Deace compared Cruz to Clint Eastwood — after candidates who were “ nice ” did nothing to stop America ’ s decline , the country , especially conservative primary voters , may want a vigilante sheriff like Cruz . At the Family Leadership Summit , Cruz discussed some of the many brawls he has been in on behalf of conservatives and some of the victories conservatives have had on Second Amendment and religious liberty issues . He vowed to repeal “ every word ” of Obamacare and abolish the IRS , while denouncing Common Core . He emphasized that the House ’ s border bill , which prevented President Barack Obama from using federal funds to enact more executive amnesty , is a deterrent against more illegal immigration . As he said at the state fair , Cruz blasted Obama ’ s foreign policy by talking about the “ the Obama diet ” that he said is popular in D.C . “ It ’ s very simple , ” he said . “ You just let Putin eat your lunch every day . ” After Cruz spoke at the Des Moines Register soapbox event , he reportedly called Obama “ an absentee president ” for not visiting the border when Obama was in Texas fundraising and said he should stop playing golf during various crises . “ I think the president should actually stand up and do his job as commander in chief , should spend less time on the golf course and more time doing the job to which he was elected , ” Cruz said , according to ABC News . At the fair , Cruz was wowed by the famous butter cow , showed his support for Republican Senate candidate Joni Ernst , and enjoyed a pork chop on a stick . The Iowa State Fair , he said , is one place where “ pork doesn ’ t bankrupt America . ” Other potential presidential candidates like Rand Paul , Rick Perry , Rick Santorum and even Ben Carson will be playing in the so-called invisible primary in Iowa this month . Meeting w grassroots leaders from across the State of Iowa before speaking at The Family Leadership Summit # FLS2014 pic.twitter.com/2XNzAb6tju — Team Cruz ( @ TeamTedCruz ) August 9 , 2014 Wow , a cow made of butter . My girls would love it . In fact , the first sentence Caroline ever said was “ I like butter ” pic.twitter.com/TzBZJmVFKT — Ted Cruz ( @ tedcruz ) August 9 , 2014 Just cast my kernel for @ JoniErnst at the Iowa State Fair . Iowa , we need Joni in the US Senate ! pic.twitter.com/zwNYuwWkVZ — Ted Cruz ( @ tedcruz ) August 9 , 2014

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) met with some of the most influential grassroots conservative leaders and activists in Iowa on Saturday as he tested the waters for a potential 2016 run. Cruz spoke at the Iowa State Fair and the Family Leadership Summit. According to Steve Deace, the conservative Iowa talk radio host, Cruz met with various grassroots leaders who would be needed to win the nation’s first-in-the-nation caucuses. Deace told Breitbart News that many Iowans think Cruz would be the perfect presidential candidate, frequently telling him that they want a “fighter” like Cruz who is unafraid to take on Democrats and the GOP establishment. Deace compared Cruz to Clint Eastwood — after candidates who were “nice” did nothing to stop America’s decline, the country, especially conservative primary voters, may want a vigilante sheriff like Cruz. At the Family Leadership Summit, Cruz discussed some of the many brawls he has been in on behalf of conservatives and some of the victories conservatives have had on Second Amendment and religious liberty issues. He vowed to repeal “every word” of Obamacare and abolish the IRS, while denouncing Common Core. He emphasized that the House’s border bill, which prevented President Barack Obama from using federal funds to enact more executive amnesty, is a deterrent against more illegal immigration. As he said at the state fair, Cruz blasted Obama’s foreign policy by talking about the “the Obama diet” that he said is popular in D.C. “It’s very simple,” he said. “You just let Putin eat your lunch every day.” After Cruz spoke at the Des Moines Register soapbox event, he reportedly called Obama “an absentee president” for not visiting the border when Obama was in Texas fundraising and said he should stop playing golf during various crises. “I think the president should actually stand up and do his job as commander in chief, should spend less time on the golf course and more time doing the job to which he was elected,” Cruz said, according to ABC News. At the fair, Cruz was wowed by the famous butter cow, showed his support for Republican Senate candidate Joni Ernst, and enjoyed a pork chop on a stick. The Iowa State Fair, he said, is one place where “pork doesn’t bankrupt America.” Other potential presidential candidates like Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and even Ben Carson will be playing in the so-called invisible primary in Iowa this month. Meeting w grassroots leaders from across the State of Iowa before speaking at The Family Leadership Summit #FLS2014 pic.twitter.com/2XNzAb6tju — Team Cruz (@TeamTedCruz) August 9, 2014 Wow, a cow made of butter. My girls would love it. In fact, the first sentence Caroline ever said was “I like butter” pic.twitter.com/TzBZJmVFKT — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) August 9, 2014 Just cast my kernel for @JoniErnst at the Iowa State Fair. Iowa, we need Joni in the US Senate! pic.twitter.com/zwNYuwWkVZ — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) August 9, 2014

www.breitbart.com

right

8feL78fa6NG0gelL

test

M4OBFpu6aZIiv4dW

banking_and_finance

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/b9ae754f44d27671ec63d85542c468f8

A flood of business bankruptcies likely in coming months

2020-04-26

Joyce M. Rosenberg

FILE - In this April 2 , 2020 file photo , `` For Sale By Owner '' and `` Closed Due to Virus '' signs are displayed in the window of a store in Grosse Pointe Woods , Mich. Business filings under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy law rose sharply in March , and attorneys who work with struggling companies are seeing signs that more owners are contemplating the possibility of bankruptcy . Government aid my simply be too little too late . ( AP Photo/Paul Sancya , File ) FILE - In this April 2 , 2020 file photo , `` For Sale By Owner '' and `` Closed Due to Virus '' signs are displayed in the window of a store in Grosse Pointe Woods , Mich. Business filings under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy law rose sharply in March , and attorneys who work with struggling companies are seeing signs that more owners are contemplating the possibility of bankruptcy . Government aid my simply be too little too late . ( AP Photo/Paul Sancya , File ) NEW YORK ( AP ) — The billions of dollars in coronavirus relief targeted at small businesses may not prevent many of them from ending up in bankruptcy court . Business filings under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy law rose sharply in March , and attorneys who work with struggling companies are seeing signs that more owners are contemplating the possibility of bankruptcy . Companies forced to close or curtail business due to government attempts to stop the virus ’ s spread have mounting debts and uncertain prospects for returning to normal operations . Even those owners receiving emergency loans and grants aren ’ t sure that help will be enough . The most vulnerable companies include the thousands of restaurants and retailers that shut down , many of them more than a month ago . Some restaurants have managed to bring in a bit of revenue by serving meals for takeout and delivery , but even they are struggling financially . Small and independent retailers , including those with online stores . are similarly at risk ; clothing retailers have the added problem of winter inventory that they are unlikely to sell with spring here and summer approaching . Independent oil companies whose revenue was slammed by the collapse in energy prices also are strapped , as are other companies that were already burdened with high debt levels before the virus struck . Jennifer Bennett , who closed one of her San Francisco restaurants on Wednesday , was still waiting for the financial aid she sought from the federal , state and city governments . Even with the money , she doesn ’ t know if the revenue will cover the bills when she ’ s finally able to reopen Zazie — especially if she ’ s required to space tables six feet apart for social distancing . “ Our occupancy is going to be cut 60 % to 65 % , ” Bennett says . “ I fear bankruptcy is a possibility . ” Other small companies have similar anxieties , says Paul Singerman , a bankruptcy attorney with Berger Singerman in Miami . “ There is no reliable visibility into when business operations will be able to resume the pre-COVID normal , ” Singerman says . Even larger companies are in trouble , including already struggling retailers who had to shut their stores . The jeans company True Religion filed for Chapter 11 earlier this month , saying extended closures of its stores in the pandemic have hurt its business . Recent reports say department store chains Neiman Marcus and J.C. Penney , which has struggled for years with slumping sales , could soon file for bankruptcy protection . The number of Chapter 11 filings rose 18 percent in March from a year earlier , a dramatic swing from the 20 percent decrease in February , according to the American Bankruptcy Institute , a trade organization for attorneys and other professionals involved in bankruptcy proceedings . The numbers don ’ t break out filings by company size , but given that the vast majority of companies are small to mid-size , it does give an indication that smaller companies are struggling . The federal government has already approved or given out more than 2 million loans and grants to small businesses totaling nearly $ 360 billion ; another $ 310 billion is on the way to one of the programs . Still , the money may be at best a stopgap for companies with little to no revenue coming in . And the new funds are expected to go so quickly that thousands of owners won ’ t get loans . There ’ s no way to predict how many companies will file for bankruptcy . There were over 160,000 bankruptcy filings from 2008 to 2010 , during the Great Recession and its aftermath , according to statistics compiled by the federal court system . The numbers don ’ t break out filings by company size . The majority were for liquidations . although some companies restructured their debt and continued operating under Chapter 11 . Many companies , however , just shut their doors , and that ’ s likely to be the case again , Singerman says . According to some estimates , 170,000 companies failed during the recession . But the Small Business Reorganization Act , which took effect in February , may encourage more companies to seek Chapter 11 . The law is aimed at allowing owners to retain their ownership rather than lose their companies to their creditors ; that is generally what happens in Chapter 11 . The law also streamlines the reorganization process so a company is not wiped out by attorneys ’ fees , says Edward Janger , a professor at Brooklyn Law School in New York whose expertise includes bankruptcy law . Another change under the law is that a bankruptcy judge can approve the reorganization over creditors ’ objections , Janger says . Business owners will try to avoid bankruptcy by seeking leniency from landlords , lenders and vendors , bankruptcy attorney David Wander says . But with their companies ’ financial troubles beyond their control because of the virus outbreak , many will file for Chapter 11 because the stigma that bankruptcy has long held will be gone , says Wander , a partner at Davidoff Hutcher & Citron in New York . “ The tsunami is going to happen in the coming months and it ’ s going to be ongoing , ” Wander says .

FILE - In this April 2, 2020 file photo, "For Sale By Owner" and "Closed Due to Virus" signs are displayed in the window of a store in Grosse Pointe Woods, Mich. Business filings under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy law rose sharply in March, and attorneys who work with struggling companies are seeing signs that more owners are contemplating the possibility of bankruptcy. Government aid my simply be too little too late. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya, File) FILE - In this April 2, 2020 file photo, "For Sale By Owner" and "Closed Due to Virus" signs are displayed in the window of a store in Grosse Pointe Woods, Mich. Business filings under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy law rose sharply in March, and attorneys who work with struggling companies are seeing signs that more owners are contemplating the possibility of bankruptcy. Government aid my simply be too little too late. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya, File) NEW YORK (AP) — The billions of dollars in coronavirus relief targeted at small businesses may not prevent many of them from ending up in bankruptcy court. Business filings under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy law rose sharply in March, and attorneys who work with struggling companies are seeing signs that more owners are contemplating the possibility of bankruptcy. Companies forced to close or curtail business due to government attempts to stop the virus’s spread have mounting debts and uncertain prospects for returning to normal operations. Even those owners receiving emergency loans and grants aren’t sure that help will be enough. The most vulnerable companies include the thousands of restaurants and retailers that shut down, many of them more than a month ago. Some restaurants have managed to bring in a bit of revenue by serving meals for takeout and delivery, but even they are struggling financially. Small and independent retailers, including those with online stores. are similarly at risk; clothing retailers have the added problem of winter inventory that they are unlikely to sell with spring here and summer approaching. Independent oil companies whose revenue was slammed by the collapse in energy prices also are strapped, as are other companies that were already burdened with high debt levels before the virus struck. Jennifer Bennett, who closed one of her San Francisco restaurants on Wednesday, was still waiting for the financial aid she sought from the federal, state and city governments. Even with the money, she doesn’t know if the revenue will cover the bills when she’s finally able to reopen Zazie — especially if she’s required to space tables six feet apart for social distancing. “Our occupancy is going to be cut 60% to 65%,” Bennett says. “I fear bankruptcy is a possibility.” Other small companies have similar anxieties, says Paul Singerman, a bankruptcy attorney with Berger Singerman in Miami. “There is no reliable visibility into when business operations will be able to resume the pre-COVID normal,” Singerman says. Even larger companies are in trouble, including already struggling retailers who had to shut their stores. The jeans company True Religion filed for Chapter 11 earlier this month, saying extended closures of its stores in the pandemic have hurt its business. Recent reports say department store chains Neiman Marcus and J.C. Penney, which has struggled for years with slumping sales, could soon file for bankruptcy protection. The number of Chapter 11 filings rose 18 percent in March from a year earlier, a dramatic swing from the 20 percent decrease in February, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute, a trade organization for attorneys and other professionals involved in bankruptcy proceedings. The numbers don’t break out filings by company size, but given that the vast majority of companies are small to mid-size, it does give an indication that smaller companies are struggling. The federal government has already approved or given out more than 2 million loans and grants to small businesses totaling nearly $360 billion; another $310 billion is on the way to one of the programs. Still, the money may be at best a stopgap for companies with little to no revenue coming in. And the new funds are expected to go so quickly that thousands of owners won’t get loans. There’s no way to predict how many companies will file for bankruptcy. There were over 160,000 bankruptcy filings from 2008 to 2010, during the Great Recession and its aftermath, according to statistics compiled by the federal court system. The numbers don’t break out filings by company size. The majority were for liquidations. although some companies restructured their debt and continued operating under Chapter 11. Many companies, however, just shut their doors, and that’s likely to be the case again, Singerman says. According to some estimates, 170,000 companies failed during the recession. But the Small Business Reorganization Act, which took effect in February, may encourage more companies to seek Chapter 11. The law is aimed at allowing owners to retain their ownership rather than lose their companies to their creditors; that is generally what happens in Chapter 11. The law also streamlines the reorganization process so a company is not wiped out by attorneys’ fees, says Edward Janger, a professor at Brooklyn Law School in New York whose expertise includes bankruptcy law. Another change under the law is that a bankruptcy judge can approve the reorganization over creditors’ objections, Janger says. Business owners will try to avoid bankruptcy by seeking leniency from landlords, lenders and vendors, bankruptcy attorney David Wander says. But with their companies’ financial troubles beyond their control because of the virus outbreak, many will file for Chapter 11 because the stigma that bankruptcy has long held will be gone, says Wander, a partner at Davidoff Hutcher & Citron in New York. “The tsunami is going to happen in the coming months and it’s going to be ongoing,” Wander says.

www.apnews.com

center

M4OBFpu6aZIiv4dW

test

EiYAVumdqmHT0o3b

education

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/828ca75b5cfe98252f2d68266f0cbc1f

Johns Hopkins sues to block rule on international students

2020-07-11

BALTIMORE ( AP ) — Johns Hopkins University has filed a lawsuit seeking to block the Trump administration ’ s decision to make international students leave the U.S. if they intend to take classes entirely online starting this fall . The Baltimore private institution filed the lawsuit Friday against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in federal court in the District of Columbia , the Baltimore Sun reported . It argues that the agency ’ s decision “ completely upended ” the university ’ s reopening plans for the upcoming semester . ICE notified colleges Monday that international students will be forced to leave the U.S. or transfer to another college if their schools operate entirely online this fall . New visas will not be issued to students at those schools , and others at universities offering a mix of online and in-person classes will be barred from taking all of their classes online . The guidance says international students won ’ t be exempt even if an outbreak forces their schools online during the fall term . Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have also filed a lawsuit to prevent federal immigration authorities from enforcing the rule . Neither school plans to offer in-person classes this fall . The school has plans for hybrid semesters with a mix of in-person and online classes . It also intends to shift to online-only classes after the Thanksgiving break . The lawsuit characterizes the Trump administration ’ s decision as “ arbitrary and capricious ” and argues it puts the university in the “ untenable dilemma ” of either following its reopening plans or attempting to offer in-person instruction to allow international students to remain enrolled . “ The adverse consequences of this sudden displacement are devastating financially and personally , ” according to the complaint . ICE did not respond to a request for comment from the newspaper . In a statement earlier this week , the U.S. State Department said international students are welcome in the U.S. , but the policy “ provides greater flexibility for nonimmigrant students to continue their education in the United States , while also allowing for proper social distancing on open and operating campuses across America . ”

BALTIMORE (AP) — Johns Hopkins University has filed a lawsuit seeking to block the Trump administration’s decision to make international students leave the U.S. if they intend to take classes entirely online starting this fall. The Baltimore private institution filed the lawsuit Friday against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in federal court in the District of Columbia, the Baltimore Sun reported . It argues that the agency’s decision “completely upended” the university’s reopening plans for the upcoming semester. ADVERTISEMENT ICE notified colleges Monday that international students will be forced to leave the U.S. or transfer to another college if their schools operate entirely online this fall. New visas will not be issued to students at those schools, and others at universities offering a mix of online and in-person classes will be barred from taking all of their classes online. The guidance says international students won’t be exempt even if an outbreak forces their schools online during the fall term. Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have also filed a lawsuit to prevent federal immigration authorities from enforcing the rule. Neither school plans to offer in-person classes this fall. About 5,000 international students are enrolled at Johns Hopkins. The school has plans for hybrid semesters with a mix of in-person and online classes. It also intends to shift to online-only classes after the Thanksgiving break. The lawsuit characterizes the Trump administration’s decision as “arbitrary and capricious” and argues it puts the university in the “untenable dilemma” of either following its reopening plans or attempting to offer in-person instruction to allow international students to remain enrolled. “The adverse consequences of this sudden displacement are devastating financially and personally,” according to the complaint. ICE did not respond to a request for comment from the newspaper. In a statement earlier this week, the U.S. State Department said international students are welcome in the U.S., but the policy “provides greater flexibility for nonimmigrant students to continue their education in the United States, while also allowing for proper social distancing on open and operating campuses across America.”

www.apnews.com

center

EiYAVumdqmHT0o3b

test

YaWWsusk6yeaNx6z

us_military

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/70626747d0b9ee4dec98042119efff98

US, Taliban set peace signing for America’s longest war

2020-02-28

Matthew Lee

In this Feb. 26 , 2020 photo , President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at the Brady press briefing room of the White House in Washington . America 's longest war may finally be nearing an end , after nearly two decades that outlasted two commanders in chief and is now helmed by a third . More than 18 years since the conflict began in response to the September 11 , 2001 , attacks , the United States and the Islamists it toppled from power in Afghanistan are poised to sign a peace deal on Saturday . ( AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta ) In this Feb. 26 , 2020 photo , President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at the Brady press briefing room of the White House in Washington . America 's longest war may finally be nearing an end , after nearly two decades that outlasted two commanders in chief and is now helmed by a third . More than 18 years since the conflict began in response to the September 11 , 2001 , attacks , the United States and the Islamists it toppled from power in Afghanistan are poised to sign a peace deal on Saturday . ( AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — America ’ s longest war may finally be nearing an end . The United States and the Islamists it toppled from power in Afghanistan are poised to sign a peace deal Saturday after a conflict that outlasted two U.S. commanders in chief and is now led by a third eager to fulfill a campaign promise to extricate America from “ endless wars . ” More than 18 years since President George W. Bush ordered bombing in response to the Sept. 11 , 2001 , attacks , the agreement will set the stage for the withdrawal of U.S. troops , some of whom were not yet born when the World Trade Center collapsed on that crisp , sunny morning that changed how Americans see the world . Saturday ’ s ceremony also signals the potential end of a tremendous investment of blood and treasure . The U.S. spent more than $ 750 billion , and on all sides the war cost tens of thousands of lives lost , permanently scarred and indelibly interrupted . Yet it ’ s also a conflict that is frequently ignored by U.S. politicians and the American public . In the Qatari capital of Doha , America ’ s top diplomat will stand with leaders of the Taliban , Afghanistan ’ s former rulers who harbored Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network as they plotted , and then celebrated , the hijackings of four airliners that were crashed into lower Manhattan , the Pentagon and a field in western Pennsylvania , killing almost 3,000 people . It will likely be an uncomfortable appearance for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , who privately told a conference of U.S. ambassadors at the State Department this week that he was going only because President Donald Trump had insisted on his participation , according to two people present . A statement from Trump on Friday said Pompeo will “ witness ” the signing of the agreement , leaving unclear if he will personally sign it on behalf of the United States , or if he will shake hands with Taliban representatives . U.S. troops are to be withdrawn to 8,600 from about 13,000 in the weeks following Saturday ’ s signing . Further drawdowns are to depend on the Taliban meeting certain counter-terrorism conditions , compliance that will be assessed by the United States . But officials say soldiers will be coming home . Trump , as he seeks re-election this year , is looking to make good on his campaign promise to bring troops home from the Middle East . Still , he has approached the Taliban agreement cautiously , steering clear of the crowing surrounding other major foreign policy actions , such as his talks with North Korea . Last September , on short notice , he called off what was to be a signing ceremony with the Taliban at Camp David after a series of new Taliban attacks . But he has since been supportive of the talks led by his special envoy , Zalmay Khalilzad . In a statement released by the White House , Trump said Friday that if the Taliban and Afghan governments live up to the commitments in the agreement , “ we will have a powerful path forward to end the war in Afghanistan and bring our troops home , ” “ These commitments represent an important step to a lasting peace in a new Afghanistan , free from al-Qaida , ISIS and any other terrorist group that would seek to bring us harm , ” Trump said . Under the agreement , the Taliban promise not to let extremists use the country as a staging ground for attacking the U.S. or its allies . But U.S. officials are loath to trust the Taliban to fulfill their obligations . Pompeo did not mention the Afghan agreement as he touted Trump administration foreign policy achievements in a speech to a conservative group Friday . He has expressed doubts about the prospects . Yet , he will give his imprimatur to an agreement which he also has said represents “ a historic opportunity for peace ” after years and pain and suffering . “ We are now on the cusp of having an opportunity which may not succeed , but an opportunity for the first time to let the Afghan peoples ’ voices be heard , ” he told reporters this week . If the agreement is successful , Afghanistan , the “ graveyard of empires ” that has repeatedly repelled foreign invaders from imperial Britain and Russia to the Soviet Union , will have once again successfully turned away a world power from its landlocked borders . But prospects for Afghanistan ’ s future are uncertain . The agreement sets the stage for peace talks involving Afghani factions , which are likely to be complicated . Under the agreement , 5,000 Taliban are to be released from Afghan-run jails , but it ’ s not known if the Afghan government will do that . There are also questions about whether Taliban fighters loyal to various warlords will be willing to disarm . It ’ s not clear what will become of gains made in women ’ s rights since the toppling of the Taliban , which had repressed women and girls under a strict brand of Sharia law . Women ’ s rights in Afghanistan had been a top concern of both the Bush and Obama administration . In a sign of “ the international community ’ s commitment to Afghanistan , ” a separate ceremony will be held Saturday in the Afghan capital of Kabul , with U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg , said Sediq Sediqqui , spokesman for Afghanistan ’ s President Ashraf Ghani . Already , some U.S. lawmakers and veterans of the conflict have raised red flags about any agreement with the Taliban . Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming led 21 Republican legislators in demanding that the administration not concede anything to the Taliban that would allow them to once again harbor those who seek to harm U.S. citizens and interests . Cheney , the daughter of former President Bush ’ s vice president , Dick Cheney , urged Pompeo and Esper in a letter to reject any commitment to a full withdrawal of American troops . Pompeo said , “ We ’ re proud of our gains , but our generals have determined that this war is unlikely to be won militarily without tremendous additional resources . All sides are tired of fighting . ” On this , he is in rare agreement with Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts , who said this week in a Democratic presidential debate that the government has “ a sacred responsibility to ” American soldiers . “ That is not to use our military to solve problems that can not be solved militarily . We are not winning in Afghanistan . We are not winning in the Middle East , ” she said .

In this Feb. 26, 2020 photo, President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at the Brady press briefing room of the White House in Washington. America's longest war may finally be nearing an end, after nearly two decades that outlasted two commanders in chief and is now helmed by a third. More than 18 years since the conflict began in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks, the United States and the Islamists it toppled from power in Afghanistan are poised to sign a peace deal on Saturday.(AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta) In this Feb. 26, 2020 photo, President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at the Brady press briefing room of the White House in Washington. America's longest war may finally be nearing an end, after nearly two decades that outlasted two commanders in chief and is now helmed by a third. More than 18 years since the conflict began in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks, the United States and the Islamists it toppled from power in Afghanistan are poised to sign a peace deal on Saturday.(AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta) WASHINGTON (AP) — America’s longest war may finally be nearing an end. The United States and the Islamists it toppled from power in Afghanistan are poised to sign a peace deal Saturday after a conflict that outlasted two U.S. commanders in chief and is now led by a third eager to fulfill a campaign promise to extricate America from “endless wars.” More than 18 years since President George W. Bush ordered bombing in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the agreement will set the stage for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, some of whom were not yet born when the World Trade Center collapsed on that crisp, sunny morning that changed how Americans see the world. Saturday’s ceremony also signals the potential end of a tremendous investment of blood and treasure. The U.S. spent more than $750 billion, and on all sides the war cost tens of thousands of lives lost, permanently scarred and indelibly interrupted. Yet it’s also a conflict that is frequently ignored by U.S. politicians and the American public. In the Qatari capital of Doha, America’s top diplomat will stand with leaders of the Taliban, Afghanistan’s former rulers who harbored Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network as they plotted, and then celebrated, the hijackings of four airliners that were crashed into lower Manhattan, the Pentagon and a field in western Pennsylvania, killing almost 3,000 people. It will likely be an uncomfortable appearance for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who privately told a conference of U.S. ambassadors at the State Department this week that he was going only because President Donald Trump had insisted on his participation, according to two people present. A statement from Trump on Friday said Pompeo will “witness” the signing of the agreement, leaving unclear if he will personally sign it on behalf of the United States, or if he will shake hands with Taliban representatives. U.S. troops are to be withdrawn to 8,600 from about 13,000 in the weeks following Saturday’s signing. Further drawdowns are to depend on the Taliban meeting certain counter-terrorism conditions, compliance that will be assessed by the United States. But officials say soldiers will be coming home. Trump, as he seeks re-election this year, is looking to make good on his campaign promise to bring troops home from the Middle East. Still, he has approached the Taliban agreement cautiously, steering clear of the crowing surrounding other major foreign policy actions, such as his talks with North Korea. Last September, on short notice, he called off what was to be a signing ceremony with the Taliban at Camp David after a series of new Taliban attacks. But he has since been supportive of the talks led by his special envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad. In a statement released by the White House, Trump said Friday that if the Taliban and Afghan governments live up to the commitments in the agreement, “we will have a powerful path forward to end the war in Afghanistan and bring our troops home,” “These commitments represent an important step to a lasting peace in a new Afghanistan, free from al-Qaida, ISIS and any other terrorist group that would seek to bring us harm,” Trump said. Under the agreement, the Taliban promise not to let extremists use the country as a staging ground for attacking the U.S. or its allies. But U.S. officials are loath to trust the Taliban to fulfill their obligations. Pompeo did not mention the Afghan agreement as he touted Trump administration foreign policy achievements in a speech to a conservative group Friday. He has expressed doubts about the prospects. Yet, he will give his imprimatur to an agreement which he also has said represents “a historic opportunity for peace” after years and pain and suffering. “We are now on the cusp of having an opportunity which may not succeed, but an opportunity for the first time to let the Afghan peoples’ voices be heard,” he told reporters this week. If the agreement is successful, Afghanistan, the “graveyard of empires” that has repeatedly repelled foreign invaders from imperial Britain and Russia to the Soviet Union, will have once again successfully turned away a world power from its landlocked borders. But prospects for Afghanistan’s future are uncertain. The agreement sets the stage for peace talks involving Afghani factions, which are likely to be complicated . Under the agreement, 5,000 Taliban are to be released from Afghan-run jails, but it’s not known if the Afghan government will do that. There are also questions about whether Taliban fighters loyal to various warlords will be willing to disarm. It’s not clear what will become of gains made in women’s rights since the toppling of the Taliban, which had repressed women and girls under a strict brand of Sharia law. Women’s rights in Afghanistan had been a top concern of both the Bush and Obama administration. In a sign of “the international community’s commitment to Afghanistan,” a separate ceremony will be held Saturday in the Afghan capital of Kabul, with U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, said Sediq Sediqqui, spokesman for Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani. Already, some U.S. lawmakers and veterans of the conflict have raised red flags about any agreement with the Taliban. Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming led 21 Republican legislators in demanding that the administration not concede anything to the Taliban that would allow them to once again harbor those who seek to harm U.S. citizens and interests. Cheney, the daughter of former President Bush’s vice president, Dick Cheney, urged Pompeo and Esper in a letter to reject any commitment to a full withdrawal of American troops. Pompeo said, “We’re proud of our gains, but our generals have determined that this war is unlikely to be won militarily without tremendous additional resources. All sides are tired of fighting.” On this, he is in rare agreement with Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who said this week in a Democratic presidential debate that the government has “a sacred responsibility to” American soldiers. “That is not to use our military to solve problems that cannot be solved militarily. We are not winning in Afghanistan. We are not winning in the Middle East,” she said.

www.apnews.com

center

YaWWsusk6yeaNx6z

test

7xcDyu9QsClqelhV

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/27/polls-obama-holds-upper-hand-over-budget-cuts/?hpt=po_c1

Polls: Obama holds upper hand over budget cuts

2013-02-27

Washington ( CNN ) - As the deadline for forced federal spending cuts closes fast , new polling indicates that as of now President Barack Obama has the upper hand over congressional Republicans in the political battle over where blame will fall if the cuts are triggered . But the surveys also suggest that while the president might be winning the spending argument right now , his poll numbers on the issue are nothing to brag about . According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Wednesday morning , two-thirds of the public disapprove of how congressional Republicans are handling the issue of federal spending , with only 26 % giving them a thumbs-up . A slight majority ( 52 % ) also disapprove of how Obama is handling the issue but his 43 % approval rating on federal spending is 17 points higher than that of congressional Republicans . And if no deal is reached by Friday and the forced spending cuts , known inside the Beltway as the sequester , start taking affect this weekend , more fingers will be pointed at GOP lawmakers . Forty-five percent of those questioned in a Pew Research Center/Washington Post survey released earlier this week said congressional Republicans should take more blame , with 32 % saying they 'd place more blame with the president , and 13 % saying both sides should be blamed equally . Here 's another way to illustrate the point : An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from Tuesday indicates that Americans are divided over whether Obama is emphasizing unifying the country or taking a partisan approach . But by a 3-1 margin , they say that congressional Republicans are putting partisanship over unity , according to the survey . `` It looks like this could turn into a `` lose-lose '' scenario for both sides , although the Republicans appear to have more to lose than Obama , '' CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said . `` It 's likely that the GOP will get most of the blame if the forced spending cuts actually take effect , but there 's a lot of blame to go around , and if a majority disapprove of how Obama is handling this issue , it 's unlikely he will escape any blowback from the sequester . '' While Democrats are overwhelmingly united in their support of how the president 's handling the federal spending , the ABC/Washington Post poll indicates that Republicans are divided ( 44 % -51 % ) on how GOP lawmakers are dealing with the issue . Obama has the upper hand on this ongoing fiscal fight , but it appears his advantage is diminished from the battle just two months ago over the fiscal cliff . The president 's 13-point advantage over the GOP in Congress for blame on the sequester is half of the 26-point advantage over them during December 's fight over the fiscal cliff .

7 years ago Washington (CNN) - As the deadline for forced federal spending cuts closes fast, new polling indicates that as of now President Barack Obama has the upper hand over congressional Republicans in the political battle over where blame will fall if the cuts are triggered. But the surveys also suggest that while the president might be winning the spending argument right now, his poll numbers on the issue are nothing to brag about. Follow @politicalticker Follow @psteinhausercnn According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Wednesday morning, two-thirds of the public disapprove of how congressional Republicans are handling the issue of federal spending, with only 26% giving them a thumbs-up. A slight majority (52%) also disapprove of how Obama is handling the issue but his 43% approval rating on federal spending is 17 points higher than that of congressional Republicans. And if no deal is reached by Friday and the forced spending cuts, known inside the Beltway as the sequester, start taking affect this weekend, more fingers will be pointed at GOP lawmakers. Forty-five percent of those questioned in a Pew Research Center/Washington Post survey released earlier this week said congressional Republicans should take more blame, with 32% saying they'd place more blame with the president, and 13% saying both sides should be blamed equally. Here's another way to illustrate the point: An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from Tuesday indicates that Americans are divided over whether Obama is emphasizing unifying the country or taking a partisan approach. But by a 3-1 margin, they say that congressional Republicans are putting partisanship over unity, according to the survey. "It looks like this could turn into a "lose-lose" scenario for both sides, although the Republicans appear to have more to lose than Obama," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "It's likely that the GOP will get most of the blame if the forced spending cuts actually take effect, but there's a lot of blame to go around, and if a majority disapprove of how Obama is handling this issue, it's unlikely he will escape any blowback from the sequester." While Democrats are overwhelmingly united in their support of how the president's handling the federal spending, the ABC/Washington Post poll indicates that Republicans are divided (44%-51%) on how GOP lawmakers are dealing with the issue. Obama has the upper hand on this ongoing fiscal fight, but it appears his advantage is diminished from the battle just two months ago over the fiscal cliff. The president's 13-point advantage over the GOP in Congress for blame on the sequester is half of the 26-point advantage over them during December's fight over the fiscal cliff.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

7xcDyu9QsClqelhV

test

Ln25JDDZNhRy7Z5h

media_bias

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2020/06/15/white-house-reporters-hailed-as-information-heroes/

White House Reporters Hailed as ‘Information Heroes’

2020-06-15

Paris ( AFP ) – A watchdog has hailed the White House press corps as “ information heroes ” alongside 30 journalists , whistleblowers and media outlets struggling against the odds to get the truth out about the coronavirus pandemic . Reporters Without Frontiers praised the correspondents for their persistence in grilling U.S. President Donald Trump in a roll of honour that included Li Wenliang , the 34-year-old doctor from Wuhan Central Hospital who was questioned by police for “ spreading false rumours ” when he raised the alarm about the virus , and who later died from it . The Paris-based organisation , known by its French initials RSF , picked out Weijia Jiang and Paula Reid of CBS , Peter Alexander of NBC and Kristin Fisher of Fox News for particular praise for their “ integrity and competence ” faced with sarcasm , scorn and insults from Trump and his aides . It said they “ have continued week after week to question the way the president and his administration are handling the pandemic ” . The Wuhan blogger Fang Fang , who chronicled the lockdown there in her “ Dispatches from a Quarantined City ” , was also lauded as were several journalists across the world who have been jailed , arrested , beaten , harassed and prosecuted for their revelations . Bangladeshi cartoonist Ahmed Kabir Kishore is facing a life sentence under what the RSF called the country ’ s “ Kafkaesque Digital Security Act ” for “ spreading rumours and misinformation about the coronavirus situation ” in the country . His fellow countryman Salim Akash was locked up in Jordan for trying to report on the fate of Bangladeshi migrant workers there during the epidemic . The watchdog also picked out the cases of New York Times reporter Chris Buckley who was forced to leave China last month for incurring the wrath of the authorities after spending 76 days in Wuhan at the height of the outbreak . The Beijing-based outlet Caixin was also praised for “ defying harassment and censorship by the authorities in order to publish reports questioning their handling of the coronavirus crisis ” . One of Equatorial Guinea ’ s most popular television programmes , “ Buenos dias Guinea ” , was suspended last month after criticising soldiers beating people in the street to enforce the lockdown . Reporter Eugene Dube was forced to flee to neighbouring South Africa when he was roughed up by police in Eswatini ( formerly Swaziland ) for his reporting and warned he would be tried for “ high treason ” against King Mswati . “ Some people have taken such big risks to report the reality of the pandemic that they have died as a result , while others have disappeared or have been jailed , ” said RSF director Christophe Deloire . Thirteen journalists have died from the virus in the Ecuadorean economic capital Guayaquil alone , he said . “ Prosecuted , attacked , insulted — many have paid a high price for defending the right to information and for combatting the rumours and disinformation that aggravate the consequences of this public health crisis , ” Deloire added .

Paris (AFP) – A watchdog has hailed the White House press corps as “information heroes” alongside 30 journalists, whistleblowers and media outlets struggling against the odds to get the truth out about the coronavirus pandemic. Reporters Without Frontiers praised the correspondents for their persistence in grilling U.S. President Donald Trump in a roll of honour that included Li Wenliang, the 34-year-old doctor from Wuhan Central Hospital who was questioned by police for “spreading false rumours” when he raised the alarm about the virus, and who later died from it. The Paris-based organisation, known by its French initials RSF, picked out Weijia Jiang and Paula Reid of CBS, Peter Alexander of NBC and Kristin Fisher of Fox News for particular praise for their “integrity and competence” faced with sarcasm, scorn and insults from Trump and his aides. It said they “have continued week after week to question the way the president and his administration are handling the pandemic”. The Wuhan blogger Fang Fang, who chronicled the lockdown there in her “Dispatches from a Quarantined City”, was also lauded as were several journalists across the world who have been jailed, arrested, beaten, harassed and prosecuted for their revelations. Bangladeshi cartoonist Ahmed Kabir Kishore is facing a life sentence under what the RSF called the country’s “Kafkaesque Digital Security Act” for “spreading rumours and misinformation about the coronavirus situation” in the country. ‘High treason’ His fellow countryman Salim Akash was locked up in Jordan for trying to report on the fate of Bangladeshi migrant workers there during the epidemic. The watchdog also picked out the cases of New York Times reporter Chris Buckley who was forced to leave China last month for incurring the wrath of the authorities after spending 76 days in Wuhan at the height of the outbreak. The Beijing-based outlet Caixin was also praised for “defying harassment and censorship by the authorities in order to publish reports questioning their handling of the coronavirus crisis”. One of Equatorial Guinea’s most popular television programmes, “Buenos dias Guinea”, was suspended last month after criticising soldiers beating people in the street to enforce the lockdown. Reporter Eugene Dube was forced to flee to neighbouring South Africa when he was roughed up by police in Eswatini (formerly Swaziland) for his reporting and warned he would be tried for “high treason” against King Mswati. “Some people have taken such big risks to report the reality of the pandemic that they have died as a result, while others have disappeared or have been jailed,” said RSF director Christophe Deloire. Thirteen journalists have died from the virus in the Ecuadorean economic capital Guayaquil alone, he said. “Prosecuted, attacked, insulted — many have paid a high price for defending the right to information and for combatting the rumours and disinformation that aggravate the consequences of this public health crisis,” Deloire added.

www.breitbart.com

right

Ln25JDDZNhRy7Z5h

test

RKwMh2qZIIXqSpt8

politics

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/irs-obama-fundraisers-immigration-stories-care-politics-week/story?id=19303438#.UaoUepzYH3I

IRS, Obama Fundraisers, Immigration: Five Stories You'll Care About in Politics Next Week

Michael Falcone

intro : The past week offered a brief respite from many of the battles that have gripped Washington over the last few weeks , and gave the Obama administration , in particular , a chance to catch its breath after getting clobbered by a trio of scandals . President Obama started the week surveying the post-Superstorm Sandy rebuilding efforts along the Jersey shore with Gov . Chris Christie by his side . The president ended it Friday with a pre-emptive strike at House Republicans ahead of a July 1 deadline to prevent student loan interest rates from doubling . In the meantime , conservative firebrand Rep. Michele Bachmann announced she would not be seeking re-election to Congress in 2014 and Rhode Island Gov . Lincoln Chafee informed the political world about a transition of his own -- a party switch from independent to Democrat . With those sideshows in the rearview mirror , members of Congress return from a week-long recess this Monday for the main event . The ███ Political Unit will be tracking Congressional efforts to keep the heat on the Internal Revenue Service over its targeting of conservative groups as well as several other stories that will be in the headlines next week : quicklist : 1 title : Inquiring Minds text : On Monday , a House Appropriations subcommittee will hear from IRS Acting Commissioner Danny Werfel about what steps the agency has already taken to address the IRS 's controversial practices and to hold those responsible accountable . Also at the witness table will be J. Russell George , the Treasury Department 's Inspector General . The House Ways and Means committee will hold a hearing on Tuesday featuring representatives from conservative organizations that were targeted by the IRS ( some of those groups filed a joint lawsuit against the agency this week ) . And that 's not all . On Thursday , J. Russell George returns to Capitol Hill to appear before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform `` about a newly released audit uncovering information about excessive spending at IRS conferences . '' quicklist : 2 title : Top Brass to Testify text : Top U.S. military officials , including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey and Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno , will appear before a Senate panel on Tuesday to testify about sexual assault in the military . The Senate Armed Services Committee will begin considering legislation on the issue next week . Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz. , is one of the senators leading the charge to address military sexual assault with a package of bills that could be included in the National Defense Authorization Act , scheduled for a vote on June 12 . Also appearing at Tuesday 's hearing are : Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert , Chief of Naval Operations ; Gen. James F. Amos , Commandant of the Marine Corps ; Gen. Mark A. Welsh III , Chief of Staff of the Air Force ; and Admiral Robert J. Papp , Jr. , Commandant of the Coast Guard , among others . quicklist : 3 title : Pacific Time text : President Obama heads west next week for a series of fundraisers to benefit the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic National Committee – part of his aggressive push to boost his party 's prospects heading into the 2014 midterm election cycle . But his most important event will be a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping – the first one-on-one sit-down between the two world leaders since the president 's re-election last November . As the AP notes in a preview of the meeting , which will take place at the private Sunnylands estate in Rancho Mirage , Calif. , Obama and Xi are trying to develop the `` kind of personal chemistry that has eluded their predecessors for the past several decades . '' Topics likely on the agenda : Cybersecurity , including recent reports of Chinese hacking of U.S. military assets , the threat posed by North Korea , Iran and Syria , and trade issues . media : 19297257 quicklist : 4 title : Immigration Invisible text : Most of the action on immigration reform will take place behind the scenes next week . The bi-partisan group of reformers in the House will be hammering out the remaining details of their proposal and could introduce a bill as early as next week , but Capitol Hill insiders say we might have to wait a little longer to see the complete House version . House negotiators will hear from Sen. Marco Rubio , R-Fla. , a member of the Senate 's `` Gang of Eight , '' who plans to address a meeting of the Republican Study Committee next Wednesday . Reform advocates like Rubio will also be busy working behind closed doors to stir up support for the Senate version of the immigration bill , which is expected to head to the floor the week of June 10 . All of this work comes as the American people remain pessimistic about the prospects for reform . According to the results of a Quinnipiac University poll released on Friday , 71 percent of voters say Democrats and Republican in Congress will not be able to pass an immigration bill compared to just 24 percent who predict it will happen . Support for Legal Status Holds ; So Do Sizable Partisan Divisions quicklist : 5 title : Grab Bag text : There are primary elections for governor of New Jersey next Tuesday , but the results are a foregone conclusion . Gov . Chris Christie will officially capture the Republican nomination and State Sen. Barbara Buono will get the Democratic nod when voters go to the polls in the Garden State . And while the outcome of next week 's contests are not in doubt , it symbolically marks the start of the general election campaign that , by all accounts , Christie should win easily . ( Notably , that has n't stopped Christie from spending big bucks to run television ads on the New Jersey airwaves touting his accomplishments and attacking Buono ) . Meanwhile , in Utah Mitt Romney , who in an interview with the Wall Street Journal this week , says he plans to take a more public role to `` help shape national priorities '' is hosting a gathering in Park City . Next week 's conference will include Sen. Rand Paul , Rep. Paul Ryan , Gov . Chris Christie , business leaders and even some Democrats like outgoing Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and David Axelrod . Speaking of 2012 memories , the Gallup polling organization on Tuesday is set to release the results of its internal review of what went wrong with its surveys in the run up to Election Day 2012 . Gallup 's polls consistently showed Romney leading Obama in the month before the election . Christie Pounds the Airwaves Against Opponent , Despite Huge Lead in Gubernatorial Campaign quicklist : 6 title : Quote of the Week text : `` I do n't want to go home '' – Vice President Joe Biden in Brasilia , Brazil on Friday at the end of his six-day , three-country trip to South America . media : 19147002

intro: The past week offered a brief respite from many of the battles that have gripped Washington over the last few weeks, and gave the Obama administration, in particular, a chance to catch its breath after getting clobbered by a trio of scandals. President Obama started the week surveying the post-Superstorm Sandy rebuilding efforts along the Jersey shore with Gov. Chris Christie by his side. The president ended it Friday with a pre-emptive strike at House Republicans ahead of a July 1 deadline to prevent student loan interest rates from doubling. In the meantime, conservative firebrand Rep. Michele Bachmann announced she would not be seeking re-election to Congress in 2014 and Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee informed the political world about a transition of his own -- a party switch from independent to Democrat. With those sideshows in the rearview mirror, members of Congress return from a week-long recess this Monday for the main event. The ABC News Political Unit will be tracking Congressional efforts to keep the heat on the Internal Revenue Service over its targeting of conservative groups as well as several other stories that will be in the headlines next week: quicklist: 1 title: Inquiring Minds text: On Monday, a House Appropriations subcommittee will hear from IRS Acting Commissioner Danny Werfel about what steps the agency has already taken to address the IRS's controversial practices and to hold those responsible accountable. Also at the witness table will be J. Russell George, the Treasury Department's Inspector General. The House Ways and Means committee will hold a hearing on Tuesday featuring representatives from conservative organizations that were targeted by the IRS (some of those groups filed a joint lawsuit against the agency this week). And that's not all. On Thursday, J. Russell George returns to Capitol Hill to appear before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform "about a newly released audit uncovering information about excessive spending at IRS conferences." 25 Tea Party Groups File Suit Against the IRS media: 19281779 quicklist: 2 title: Top Brass to Testify text: Top U.S. military officials, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey and Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno, will appear before a Senate panel on Tuesday to testify about sexual assault in the military. The Senate Armed Services Committee will begin considering legislation on the issue next week. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is one of the senators leading the charge to address military sexual assault with a package of bills that could be included in the National Defense Authorization Act, scheduled for a vote on June 12. Also appearing at Tuesday's hearing are: Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations; Gen. James F. Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps; Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, Chief of Staff of the Air Force; and Admiral Robert J. Papp, Jr., Commandant of the Coast Guard, among others. Military 'Ashamed' Of Sexual Assaults, Obama Says media: 17047351 quicklist: 3 title: Pacific Time text: President Obama heads west next week for a series of fundraisers to benefit the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic National Committee – part of his aggressive push to boost his party's prospects heading into the 2014 midterm election cycle. But his most important event will be a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping – the first one-on-one sit-down between the two world leaders since the president's re-election last November. As the AP notes in a preview of the meeting, which will take place at the private Sunnylands estate in Rancho Mirage, Calif., Obama and Xi are trying to develop the "kind of personal chemistry that has eluded their predecessors for the past several decades." Topics likely on the agenda: Cybersecurity, including recent reports of Chinese hacking of U.S. military assets, the threat posed by North Korea, Iran and Syria, and trade issues. media: 19297257 quicklist: 4 title: Immigration Invisible text: Most of the action on immigration reform will take place behind the scenes next week. The bi-partisan group of reformers in the House will be hammering out the remaining details of their proposal and could introduce a bill as early as next week, but Capitol Hill insiders say we might have to wait a little longer to see the complete House version. House negotiators will hear from Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a member of the Senate's "Gang of Eight," who plans to address a meeting of the Republican Study Committee next Wednesday. Reform advocates like Rubio will also be busy working behind closed doors to stir up support for the Senate version of the immigration bill, which is expected to head to the floor the week of June 10. All of this work comes as the American people remain pessimistic about the prospects for reform. According to the results of a Quinnipiac University poll released on Friday, 71 percent of voters say Democrats and Republican in Congress will not be able to pass an immigration bill compared to just 24 percent who predict it will happen. Support for Legal Status Holds; So Do Sizable Partisan Divisions media: 19136417 quicklist: 5 title: Grab Bag text: There are primary elections for governor of New Jersey next Tuesday, but the results are a foregone conclusion. Gov. Chris Christie will officially capture the Republican nomination and State Sen. Barbara Buono will get the Democratic nod when voters go to the polls in the Garden State. And while the outcome of next week's contests are not in doubt, it symbolically marks the start of the general election campaign that, by all accounts, Christie should win easily. (Notably, that hasn't stopped Christie from spending big bucks to run television ads on the New Jersey airwaves touting his accomplishments and attacking Buono). Meanwhile, in Utah Mitt Romney, who in an interview with the Wall Street Journal this week, says he plans to take a more public role to "help shape national priorities" is hosting a gathering in Park City. Next week's conference will include Sen. Rand Paul, Rep. Paul Ryan, Gov. Chris Christie, business leaders and even some Democrats like outgoing Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and David Axelrod. Speaking of 2012 memories, the Gallup polling organization on Tuesday is set to release the results of its internal review of what went wrong with its surveys in the run up to Election Day 2012. Gallup's polls consistently showed Romney leading Obama in the month before the election. Christie Pounds the Airwaves Against Opponent, Despite Huge Lead in Gubernatorial Campaign media: 19300242 quicklist: 6 title: Quote of the Week text: "I don't want to go home" – Vice President Joe Biden in Brasilia, Brazil on Friday at the end of his six-day, three-country trip to South America. media: 19147002

www.abcnews.go.com

left

RKwMh2qZIIXqSpt8

test

nRdYwnvNHAnezpjg

media_bias

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2017/august/media-not-letting-up-on-trump-over-charlottesville-response

Media Not Letting Up on Trump Over Charlottesville Response

2017-08-15

President Donald Trump fielded questions in a combative news conference Tuesday afternoon that was suppose to cover new infrastructure initiatives for America . When asked why he did n't identify the violence as `` white supremacy '' in his original statement , Trump explained that details have to come from investigations before specific motives can be identified . `` I do n't want to go make a statement for the sake of making a political statement , I want to know the facts . '' Trump continued to received similar questions and responded by vehemently condemning both sides as violent , citing images of the left also rushing with weapons . `` What about the alt-left who came charging at the alt-right . Do they have any semblance of guilt ? What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands swinging ? '' Trump took a similar stance as former President Obama . In 2015 Dylan Roof shot and killed 9 black individuals in a historic church in Charleston , South Carolina . While Obama did make an immediate statement condemning the violence , he refused to call it terrorism because the motive of Roof was n't immediately clear . Terrorism is often used as hyperbole when it actually carries a specific definition , specific to a political agenda . Both presidents took immediate action in vehemently speaking out against the violence but waited for a formal identity of the type of crime until the investigation revealed details . Trump also referenced who should have the authority to take down historic confederate statues . `` I would say that should be up to the local government…local communities . '' Trump did talk about the nation 's infrastructure before things got out of control . He presented numbers on the current economic status in America , followed by a description of his recently signed executive order . Trump described the current status as poor . Trump continued to show optimism for what was to come . `` We will create millions of job and make many American 's dreams come true . '' The purpose of this particular executive order is to expedite the permit process for constructing roads , waterways , bridges , and other infrastructure-related developments . Trump continued to reference the billions of dollars that are spent during the red-tape process and acknowledged that safety upgrades are also put on hold pending permits , something that costs the American people their safety and welfare . Multi-agency projects will be required to select one agency as the lead to streamline the permit process , according to the executive order .

President Donald Trump fielded questions in a combative news conference Tuesday afternoon that was suppose to cover new infrastructure initiatives for America. When asked why he didn't identify the violence as "white supremacy" in his original statement, Trump explained that details have to come from investigations before specific motives can be identified. "I don't want to go make a statement for the sake of making a political statement, I want to know the facts." Trump continued to received similar questions and responded by vehemently condemning both sides as violent, citing images of the left also rushing with weapons. "What about the alt-left who came charging at the alt-right. Do they have any semblance of guilt? What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands swinging?" Trump took a similar stance as former President Obama. In 2015 Dylan Roof shot and killed 9 black individuals in a historic church in Charleston, South Carolina. While Obama did make an immediate statement condemning the violence, he refused to call it terrorism because the motive of Roof wasn't immediately clear. Terrorism is often used as hyperbole when it actually carries a specific definition, specific to a political agenda. Both presidents took immediate action in vehemently speaking out against the violence but waited for a formal identity of the type of crime until the investigation revealed details. Trump also referenced who should have the authority to take down historic confederate statues. "I would say that should be up to the local government…local communities." Infrastructure: The Original Topic of the News Conference Trump did talk about the nation's infrastructure before things got out of control. He presented numbers on the current economic status in America, followed by a description of his recently signed executive order. Trump described the current status as poor. "We're literally like a third-world country." Trump continued to show optimism for what was to come. "We will create millions of job and make many American's dreams come true." The purpose of this particular executive order is to expedite the permit process for constructing roads, waterways, bridges, and other infrastructure-related developments. Trump continued to reference the billions of dollars that are spent during the red-tape process and acknowledged that safety upgrades are also put on hold pending permits, something that costs the American people their safety and welfare. Multi-agency projects will be required to select one agency as the lead to streamline the permit process, according to the executive order.

www1.cbn.com

right

nRdYwnvNHAnezpjg

test

teD5lQ731Rqr4J2o

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/23/robert-mueller-impartiality-trump-russia-investigation

Trump questions impartiality of Russia investigation chief Robert Mueller

2017-06-23

Trump says Mueller , a former FBI director , is ‘ good friends ’ with James Comey and that his Russia investigation staff ‘ are all Hillary Clinton supporters ’ Donald Trump has questioned the impartiality of special counsel Robert Mueller , who is leading the investigation into Russia ’ s meddling in the US election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign . In an interview with Fox News aired Friday morning , Trump argued that Mueller , a former FBI director , is “ good friends ” with James Comey , Mueller ’ s successor at the spy agency whom Trump fired on 9 May . Trump later acknowledged he took this step with the Russia investigation in mind . What does Robert Mueller 's team tell us about the Russia investigation ? Read more When George W Bush was president , Mueller and Comey worked together – Mueller as FBI director and Comey as deputy attorney general . Trump also said that some of the staffers that Mueller has hired for his investigation “ are all Hillary Clinton supporters ” . US news reports say some of these staffers have made campaign contributions to Democratic candidates . Asked point blank if Mueller should recuse himself from the Russia investigation , Trump said : “ Well , he ’ s very , very good friends with Comey , which is very bothersome . But he ’ s also – we ’ re going to have to see . ” Trump added : “ I mean we ’ re going to have to see in terms – look , there has been no obstruction . There has been no collusion . There has been leaking by Comey . ” Trump did say , however , that Mueller is an “ honorable man ” . Trump also claimed he had always told a “ straight story ” about whether he recorded his private conversations with Comey . He repeated his statement from Thursday that he had never made “ tapes ” of their conversations – despite an earlier menacing tweet and comments suggesting he might have – but added that when Comey “ found out that I , you know , that there may be tapes out there , whether it ’ s governmental tapes or anything else , and who knows , I think his story may have changed ” . Asked separately on Fox News whether Trump was trying to intimidate Comey with the May tweet , White House spokesman Sean Spicer said : “ No , quite the opposite . I think the president made it very clear that he wanted the truth to come out , he wanted everyone to be honest about this and he wanted to get to the bottom of it and I think he succeeded in doing that . ” He added : “ The reality is that he wanted to make sure that the truth came out and by talking about something like tapes made people have to – made Comey in particular think to himself , ‘ I better be honest , I better tell the truth about the circumstances regarding the situation . ’ ” Trump has disputed Comey ’ s assertion that Trump asked the FBI director for a pledge of loyalty during a meeting . When news of Comey ’ s account broke , Trump tweeted that Comey “ better hope that there are no ‘ tapes ’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press ! ”

Trump says Mueller, a former FBI director, is ‘good friends’ with James Comey and that his Russia investigation staff ‘are all Hillary Clinton supporters’ Donald Trump has questioned the impartiality of special counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading the investigation into Russia’s meddling in the US election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign. In an interview with Fox News aired Friday morning, Trump argued that Mueller, a former FBI director, is “good friends” with James Comey, Mueller’s successor at the spy agency whom Trump fired on 9 May. Trump later acknowledged he took this step with the Russia investigation in mind. What does Robert Mueller's team tell us about the Russia investigation? Read more When George W Bush was president, Mueller and Comey worked together – Mueller as FBI director and Comey as deputy attorney general. Trump also said that some of the staffers that Mueller has hired for his investigation “are all Hillary Clinton supporters”. US news reports say some of these staffers have made campaign contributions to Democratic candidates. Asked point blank if Mueller should recuse himself from the Russia investigation, Trump said: “Well, he’s very, very good friends with Comey, which is very bothersome. But he’s also – we’re going to have to see.” Trump added: “I mean we’re going to have to see in terms – look, there has been no obstruction. There has been no collusion. There has been leaking by Comey.” Trump did say, however, that Mueller is an “honorable man”. Trump also claimed he had always told a “straight story” about whether he recorded his private conversations with Comey. He repeated his statement from Thursday that he had never made “tapes” of their conversations – despite an earlier menacing tweet and comments suggesting he might have – but added that when Comey “found out that I, you know, that there may be tapes out there, whether it’s governmental tapes or anything else, and who knows, I think his story may have changed”. Asked separately on Fox News whether Trump was trying to intimidate Comey with the May tweet, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said: “No, quite the opposite. I think the president made it very clear that he wanted the truth to come out, he wanted everyone to be honest about this and he wanted to get to the bottom of it and I think he succeeded in doing that.” He added: “The reality is that he wanted to make sure that the truth came out and by talking about something like tapes made people have to – made Comey in particular think to himself, ‘I better be honest, I better tell the truth about the circumstances regarding the situation.’” Trump has disputed Comey’s assertion that Trump asked the FBI director for a pledge of loyalty during a meeting. When news of Comey’s account broke, Trump tweeted that Comey “better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!” AFP and the Associated Press contributed to this report Sign up for the Minute email. Catch up on today’s US politics news in 60 seconds

www.theguardian.com

left

teD5lQ731Rqr4J2o

test

qcZa2HqTKUchKigG

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2018/08/23/the-unindicted-co-conspirator-in-the-ova

The Unindicted Co-Conspirator in the Oval Office

2018-08-23

Steve Chapman, Zuri Davis, Christian Britschgi, Josh Blackman, Cosmo Wenman, Joe Setyon

`` Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit ; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit . `` —Matthew 7:17 There is one apparent ███ the president of the United States was not indicted Tuesday in the same case that yielded a guilty plea from his longtime personal lawyer . It 's not because prosecutors think he is innocent . It 's because he is president . The U.S. Justice Department has long taken the position that a sitting president is exempt from indictment . Only after he leaves office are prosecutors free to pursue criminal charges against him . Unless that policy changes , Donald Trump will serve the remainder of his time in office under the specter of prison . Let that sink in a moment . Prosecutors may postpone his indictment . Congress may refuse to impeach him or convict him . But Americans will be living under the administration of someone who has been implicated in a crime by a close associate—and who they may eventually learn is guilty of one or more felonies . The nation is being governed by an unindicted co-conspirator . Trump 's defenders deprecate the importance of the campaign finance violations that Michael Cohen admitted . They make much of the absence of any connection to Russia . They take vindication from a jury 's failure to convict Paul Manafort on 10 of the 18 charges that he faced . It 's tempting to call such defenders slavish . But slaves were often unenthusiastic and slow in performing their assigned tasks . Trump 's defenders need no whips to motivate them . They are better described as cultlike in their fervent willingness to believe whatever they have to believe to remain faithful . They would rather eat the foul fruit than recognize the nature of the tree . If we know nothing else about Trump , we know that he finds the company of criminals as warm and inviting as a Jacuzzi . No president in history has shown such a fondness for employing people of felonious character . So far , five of his associates have been convicted of crimes or pleaded guilty . It is people of firm probity who make Trump uncomfortable—James Comey , who would n't agree to `` go easy '' on one of those confessed felons ( Michael Flynn ) ; Robert Mueller , who has served his country as a decorated Marine , federal prosecutor , and FBI director , all without a hint of scandal ; Rod Rosenstein , who has refused to fire Mueller as special counsel ; and a host of journalists whose sole sin is to report unflattering facts about Trump . Let 's not forget his deep animus for Barack Obama , who served two terms without any credible allegation of corruption against him or anyone in his circle of aides or associates . The closest thing to a major criminal case in that White House involved CIA Director David Petraeus , who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of giving classified documents to his biographer . It is not impossible that Cohen committed his campaign finance crimes—paying hush money to keep two women from making public their claims of having sex with Trump , to help him win the election—without the knowledge or approval of his boss . But Trump has n't earned the benefit of any doubt . At every stage , he has told lies that were later exposed and acknowledged . The president denied that he knew of the payment to Stormy Daniels , only to later admit it . He also had to admit that he personally reimbursed Cohen , who originally insisted that he bore the cost . Speaking of people willing to make financial sacrifices out of their devotion to Trump , his former campaign manager was convicted on eight felony counts Tuesday . Trump said the convictions `` had nothing to do with Russian collusion , '' but Manafort had extensive ties to a Russian oligarch and Russian businesses—and owed them millions of dollars . At the time he took the job with Trump , his defense lawyers admitted during the trial , Manafort had no income . Yet Trump was happy to let him run the campaign . Did Trump not know that his unpaid campaign manager was in financial trouble that gave pro-Russian foreign interests leverage over him ? Or did he not think to wonder why Manafort was so eager to work for nothing ? Manafort is just one of the noxious products of a corrupt tree . Tuesday was a bad day for the president and the country . But our experience with Trump suggests that the worst is yet to come .

"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit."—Matthew 7:17 There is one apparent reason the president of the United States was not indicted Tuesday in the same case that yielded a guilty plea from his longtime personal lawyer. It's not because prosecutors think he is innocent. It's because he is president. The U.S. Justice Department has long taken the position that a sitting president is exempt from indictment. Only after he leaves office are prosecutors free to pursue criminal charges against him. Unless that policy changes, Donald Trump will serve the remainder of his time in office under the specter of prison. Let that sink in a moment. Prosecutors may postpone his indictment. Congress may refuse to impeach him or convict him. But Americans will be living under the administration of someone who has been implicated in a crime by a close associate—and who they may eventually learn is guilty of one or more felonies. The nation is being governed by an unindicted co-conspirator. Trump's defenders deprecate the importance of the campaign finance violations that Michael Cohen admitted. They make much of the absence of any connection to Russia. They take vindication from a jury's failure to convict Paul Manafort on 10 of the 18 charges that he faced. It's tempting to call such defenders slavish. But slaves were often unenthusiastic and slow in performing their assigned tasks. Trump's defenders need no whips to motivate them. They are better described as cultlike in their fervent willingness to believe whatever they have to believe to remain faithful. They would rather eat the foul fruit than recognize the nature of the tree. If we know nothing else about Trump, we know that he finds the company of criminals as warm and inviting as a Jacuzzi. No president in history has shown such a fondness for employing people of felonious character. So far, five of his associates have been convicted of crimes or pleaded guilty. It is people of firm probity who make Trump uncomfortable—James Comey, who wouldn't agree to "go easy" on one of those confessed felons (Michael Flynn); Robert Mueller, who has served his country as a decorated Marine, federal prosecutor, and FBI director, all without a hint of scandal; Rod Rosenstein, who has refused to fire Mueller as special counsel; and a host of journalists whose sole sin is to report unflattering facts about Trump. Let's not forget his deep animus for Barack Obama, who served two terms without any credible allegation of corruption against him or anyone in his circle of aides or associates. The closest thing to a major criminal case in that White House involved CIA Director David Petraeus, who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of giving classified documents to his biographer. It is not impossible that Cohen committed his campaign finance crimes—paying hush money to keep two women from making public their claims of having sex with Trump, to help him win the election—without the knowledge or approval of his boss. But Trump hasn't earned the benefit of any doubt. At every stage, he has told lies that were later exposed and acknowledged. The president denied that he knew of the payment to Stormy Daniels, only to later admit it. He also had to admit that he personally reimbursed Cohen, who originally insisted that he bore the cost. Speaking of people willing to make financial sacrifices out of their devotion to Trump, his former campaign manager was convicted on eight felony counts Tuesday. Trump said the convictions "had nothing to do with Russian collusion," but Manafort had extensive ties to a Russian oligarch and Russian businesses—and owed them millions of dollars. At the time he took the job with Trump, his defense lawyers admitted during the trial, Manafort had no income. Yet Trump was happy to let him run the campaign. Did Trump not know that his unpaid campaign manager was in financial trouble that gave pro-Russian foreign interests leverage over him? Or did he not think to wonder why Manafort was so eager to work for nothing? Manafort is just one of the noxious products of a corrupt tree. Tuesday was a bad day for the president and the country. But our experience with Trump suggests that the worst is yet to come.

www.reason.com

right

qcZa2HqTKUchKigG

test

t4lNX9mHqxneSyDf

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/welcome-to-the-party-of-trump/

Welcome to the Party of Trump

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

I stirred up some controversy last week , when I told a conference of several dozen House Republicans that the GOP is now officially a Trump working class party . For better or worse , I said at the gathering inside the Capitol Dome the baton has now officially been passed from the Reagan era to the new Trump era . The members didn ’ t quite faint over my apostasy , but the shock was palpable . I emphasized that Republicans must prioritize delivering jobs and economic development to the regions of the country like the industrial Midwest — states like Michigan , Pennsylvania , Ohio , Indiana , Wisconsin , Iowa , and Missouri . These are places that , for the most part , never felt the meager Obama recovery and where blue-collar Reagan Democrats took a leap of faith and came back to the Republican Party for the first time since 1984 . The GOP will be judged in 2018 and 2020 as to whether it delivers results for this part of the country and for the forgotten middle-class men and women ( “ the deplorables ” ) who Democrats abandoned economically and culturally . This is all simply a political truism . What caught the ire of some of my conservative friends was my statement that “ just as Reagan converted the GOP into a conservative party , with his victory this year , Trump has converted the GOP into a populist America First party . ” One friend lamented that I must have been drunk when I said this . No . I meant exactly what I said , but I will clarify . First , let me lay to rest the idea that this was a backhanded slam against Reagan ’ s legacy . Hardly . I worked for the Gipper . He rebuilt the American economy and caused a quarter century-long boom in wealth creation and prosperity nearly unrivaled in American history . He won the Cold War and vanquished the Evil Empire of the Soviet Union . He belongs on Mount Rushmore . But this is 2016 , not 1986 . The world is a different place . The concerns and priorities of the American people are different today than 30 years ago . The voters spoke with a thunder clap . Trump squashed his 16 GOP rivals — a field touted as the most talented field of wannabes in modern history — as if they were bugs crashing into his windshield . GOP voters opted for his new breed of economic populism . Republicans who were Never Trumpers and who insisted with absolute certainly that Trump could never win the primary let alone the general election can pretend that a political sonic boom didn ’ t happen . Guess what ? It did . A realignment occurred while all the high falutin ’ intellectuals and political consultants were napping . So yes , this means we have awoken to a new party that will be a lot tougher on illegal immigration . A lot more skeptical of lopsided trade deals . A lot more wary of foreign entanglements . More prone to spend money on infrastructure . ‎I don ’ t approve of all of these shifts , but they are what the voters voted for . Trump was hardly ambiguous about what he intended to do . Trade and immigration are unambiguously good for the country — but it will have to be done in ways that are supported by the American people , not shoved down our throats by the elites . In this way , I am more of a populist . The elites in both parties have never understood Trumpism and often are contemptuous of the intellect and lifestyles of the Trump loyalists . Conservatives should go back and read Jude Wanniski ’ s classic The Way the World Works . Jude reminds us over and over the lesson of history that there is great collective wisdom in the decisions made by the American voters . ‎It ’ s not often wise to second guess them but rather to listen to what they are saying . A lot of good things come with the Trump package . Probably three conservative justices on the Supreme Court , the biggest tax cut and assault against regulatory overreach since the Reagan era , spending cuts , Obamacare repeal , enterprise zones for inner cities , vouchers for kids in failing schools , and so on . But it ’ s a package deal , folks . If you want purity , vote for Ron Paul for president again , and see where that gets you . I have always tried not to oversell Donald Trump to voters because I ’ ve been so bitterly disappointed by politicians time and again . ‎You never know how it will turn out , and it ’ s folly to render a verdict on a President-elect Trump who hasn ’ t yet notched a single policy victory on his belt . Maybe I ’ m guilty of jumping the gun . But it is a new Republican Party , and a new political and policy era has begun . What Donald Trump achieved on election night was to topple the legacies of three family dynasties all at once : the Clintons , the Bushes , and the Obamas . They were the troika of big losers in 2016 . Trump didn ’ t topple the Reagan legacy of growth , optimism , and peace through strength . If the Age of Trump is to be a success , he will build on and modernize that legacy .

I stirred up some controversy last week, when I told a conference of several dozen House Republicans that the GOP is now officially a Trump working class party. For better or worse, I said at the gathering inside the Capitol Dome the baton has now officially been passed from the Reagan era to the new Trump era. The members didn’t quite faint over my apostasy, but the shock was palpable. I emphasized that Republicans must prioritize delivering jobs and economic development to the regions of the country like the industrial Midwest — states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Missouri. These are places that, for the most part, never felt the meager Obama recovery and where blue-collar Reagan Democrats took a leap of faith and came back to the Republican Party for the first time since 1984. The GOP will be judged in 2018 and 2020 as to whether it delivers results for this part of the country and for the forgotten middle-class men and women (“the deplorables”) who Democrats abandoned economically and culturally. This is all simply a political truism. What caught the ire of some of my conservative friends was my statement that “just as Reagan converted the GOP into a conservative party, with his victory this year, Trump has converted the GOP into a populist America First party.” One friend lamented that I must have been drunk when I said this. No. I meant exactly what I said, but I will clarify. First, let me lay to rest the idea that this was a backhanded slam against Reagan’s legacy. Hardly. I worked for the Gipper. He rebuilt the American economy and caused a quarter century-long boom in wealth creation and prosperity nearly unrivaled in American history. He won the Cold War and vanquished the Evil Empire of the Soviet Union. He belongs on Mount Rushmore. But this is 2016, not 1986. The world is a different place. The concerns and priorities of the American people are different today than 30 years ago. The voters spoke with a thunder clap. Trump squashed his 16 GOP rivals — a field touted as the most talented field of wannabes in modern history — as if they were bugs crashing into his windshield. GOP voters opted for his new breed of economic populism. Republicans who were Never Trumpers and who insisted with absolute certainly that Trump could never win the primary let alone the general election can pretend that a political sonic boom didn’t happen. Guess what? It did. A realignment occurred while all the high falutin’ intellectuals and political consultants were napping. So yes, this means we have awoken to a new party that will be a lot tougher on illegal immigration. A lot more skeptical of lopsided trade deals. A lot more wary of foreign entanglements. More prone to spend money on infrastructure. ‎I don’t approve of all of these shifts, but they are what the voters voted for. Trump was hardly ambiguous about what he intended to do. Trade and immigration are unambiguously good for the country — but it will have to be done in ways that are supported by the American people, not shoved down our throats by the elites. In this way, I am more of a populist. The elites in both parties have never understood Trumpism and often are contemptuous of the intellect and lifestyles of the Trump loyalists. Conservatives should go back and read Jude Wanniski’s classic The Way the World Works. Jude reminds us over and over the lesson of history that there is great collective wisdom in the decisions made by the American voters. ‎It’s not often wise to second guess them but rather to listen to what they are saying. A lot of good things come with the Trump package. Probably three conservative justices on the Supreme Court, the biggest tax cut and assault against regulatory overreach since the Reagan era, spending cuts, Obamacare repeal, enterprise zones for inner cities, vouchers for kids in failing schools, and so on. But it’s a package deal, folks. If you want purity, vote for Ron Paul for president again, and see where that gets you. I have always tried not to oversell Donald Trump to voters because I’ve been so bitterly disappointed by politicians time and again. ‎You never know how it will turn out, and it’s folly to render a verdict on a President-elect Trump who hasn’t yet notched a single policy victory on his belt. Maybe I’m guilty of jumping the gun. But it is a new Republican Party, and a new political and policy era has begun. What Donald Trump achieved on election night was to topple the legacies of three family dynasties all at once: the Clintons, the Bushes, and the Obamas. They were the troika of big losers in 2016. Trump didn’t topple the Reagan legacy of growth, optimism, and peace through strength. If the Age of Trump is to be a success, he will build on and modernize that legacy.

www.spectator.org

right

t4lNX9mHqxneSyDf

test

9JQvFK2PMcCBcexE

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/21/rand-paul-federal-government-has-become-enormous-monster-with-tentacles-into-every-aspect-of-your-life/

Rand Paul: Federal Government Has Become "Enormous Monster With Tentacles into Every Aspect of Your Life"

2015-02-21

Matthew Boyle

MONTGOMERY , Alabama — Sen. Rand Paul ( R-KY ) , a likely 2016 Republican presidential candidate , fired up a nearly two-thousand-strong crowd with a keynote speech to the Alabama Republican Party ’ s Winter Dinner on Friday night , right before the White House hopeful makes a swing through South Florida . Paul was met with several standing ovations throughout the speech , including at the end , in an address filled with many of the major themes he ’ s likely to pursue assuming he makes a bid for the White House . “ I have good news and bad news : The good news is your government is open , ” Paul said . “ The bad news is your government is open . You remember there was this shutdown about a year ago and in Washington everyone was clamoring , everyone was worried . I went home to Kentucky and you know what they said : ‘ Why in the hell did you open it back up ? ’ ” Paul shifted into discussing how different Washington is from the rest of America . “ When I was first elected , I proposed that we cut $ 500 billion in spending , and everybody in Washington said ‘ Oh my goodness , this guy is crazy—he wants to really cut spending , he wants to really balance the budget , ’ ” Paul said . “ I got home back in Kentucky , and you know what they said ? They said that ’ s a good start . They said now what are you going to do about the $ 18 trillion in debt ? They ’ re not even concerned just with the deficit . In the real world , the people want us to balance the budget every year and actually do something about the $ 18 trillion debt . ” Paul noted the difference in culture is largely due to the liberal media on Capitol Hill and throughout D.C . “ The thing is is that the media , the liberal media , the people who call us flyover country America , know nothing about us , ” Paul said . “ They don ’ t represent us . They don ’ t have our values . And the thing is is that somehow Washington gets distracted into thinking this is what America is really about . Raise your hand if you ’ ve spent more than you bring in chronically for the last 10 , 20 or 30 years . ” “ Nobody does that , ” Paul said . “ Everyone balances their family budget . They think we ’ re extremists . Somebody said ‘ oh this is extreme. ’ And I said , ‘ to balance the budget , to only spend what comes in , is extreme ? ’ ” Paul had opened his speech by quoting President Abraham Lincoln when it comes to matters of justice—using it to transition into an example of local police officers in Tarrant , Alabama , doing something terrific for a woman in need right before Christmas . “ Abraham Lincoln wrote that ‘ I find that mercy bears richer fruit than strict justice , ’ ” Paul said . “ As a Christian , I think about that our religion talks about redemption and that maybe the law should give people second chances . I think about : ‘ What is justice ? Should justice mean just punishment ? Is it rehabilitation ? ’ Ultimately I think that justice is about discernment and discretion . Just before Christmas this year , there was a great story that I read . This story came on the heels of stories that weren ’ t so good—that made it seem as if ‘ oh my goodness , we have to worry about the police not acting correctly. ’ But this story was heartwarming and I think it represents more of what the police do than the exceptions to the rule . ” The story Paul was discussing was of Helen Johnson . “ In this story , just before Christmas , Helen Johnson went to get some eggs in Tarrant , Alabama , just north of Birmingham , ” Paul said . “ Her kids had been at home with her and her kids ’ kids had been at home with her and they hadn ’ t eaten in two days . She got to the store and she had $ 1.25 and was 50 cents short of buying her eggs . She made a fateful decision that day . She decided to steal the eggs . She put them in her pocket but she was caught before she left the store . ” “ The Tarrant police officer arrived on the scene , though , and something extraordinary happened . The Tarrant police office , I think , used discretion . He told her stealing was wrong , that she shouldn ’ t steal , and then he bought the eggs for her , ” he explained . “ Then in the next days and weeks , the Tarrant police force went to take food to her house . When people talk about community policing , this is the kind of stuff that doesn ’ t get reported . We do have to have police to stop violent criminals but we have to have some discretion and some discernment and some help . Every day , somewhere , some police are helping someone in a house with needs , or helping someone without food . But all we hear are the bad stories . I invited as my guests today two Tarrant police officers , chief Dennis Reno and Lieutenant Larry Rice . I ’ d like to recognize them . ” The crowd gave a standing ovation for the two police officers Paul honored for their department ’ s charity and good will . When Paul shifted back into discussing the government shutdown in October 2013 , he noted how the Obama administration sent federal employees to the scenic overpass overlooking Mount Rushmore to put orange cones out—more effort than if they just let it be—and did the same to try to close the open-air World War II memorial . “ My favorite scene of the government shutdown was this : They decided to wrap the World War II monument , remember this ? ” Paul asked the crowd . They sent hundreds of workers out there and you have to believe they paid them overtime , right ? These people hadn ’ t worked in years probably , but they sent them out there to close the World War II monument . There is no entrance and there is no exit to the World War II monument . They had to send hundreds of people out there to wrap it with barricades . But I tell people when you want to remember the shutdown , if you want to remember an image of the shutdown , remember this : World War II veterans getting off their bus , cutting down the barricades and throwing them on the lawn at the White House . ” Paul said that what should be one of the positives that came out of the government shutdown was that full lists of “ unessential ” federal employees were drafted among Capitol Hill offices and across various agencies of the executive branch . “ During the shutdown , they sent us a note . I ’ m sure Sen. [ Richard ] Shelby [ Alabama ’ s senior senator , who introduced Paul ] got the same note , ” Paul said . “ The note said : ‘ Which of your employees are essential and which of your employees are unessential ? ’ I said , my goodness , something good is going to come out of this . We ’ re going to have a lesson . We ’ re going to learn what part of government is essential and what part is unessential . ” “ So I said , call the IRS—I want to see what the IRS says on their list : 90 percent unessential , ” he continued . “ I said , man we ’ re going to learn something here : What about the EPA ? 95 percent unessential . I said my goodness we ’ re going to finally discover that most of the government could disappear and no one would notice but then I figured out the truth . Nothing in Washington is as it seems . It turns out that if you are unessential , you don ’ t have to come to work but you still get paid . It turns out there are almost 100,000 federal workers who get paid over $ 100,000 a year and almost all of them are unessential . But here ’ s the sad truth to this : the government is so dysfunctional that it cost money to close it down . It costs more money to close your government than to keep it open . This is a sad state of affairs . My friends , it can ’ t go on forever . We ’ re borrowing a million dollars a minute . ” Paul detailed how even with the several congressional investigations after the shutdown revealed there ’ s widespread waste in government—and with scandals like the Veterans Administration scandal—there ’ s no way for any government officials to get fired in Washington . “ During the shutdown though they did some investigations and one of the House committees brought forward some EPA employees—they found one woman who hired 17 relatives paying them to be interns , they found another woman selling cosmetics and vitamins from her computer , and they found another guy at the EPA watching porn six hours a day , ” Paul said . “ And you ’ re like , this is good right ? They found them and they fired them , right ? Come on . These are federal employees . You think you can fire a federal employee ? They all still work at the EPA . You remember the VA scandal ? People were dying while waiting in line and someone at the VA was changing the numbers to make it look as if no one was waiting in line but meanwhile people were dying . You think we fired them ? You can ’ t fire these people . Your government is so broken you can ’ t fire people who steal from you , and you can ’ t fire people who lie to you . You can ’ t fire people who are making up numbers while people are dying waiting in line . So we did pass a law—we had to pass a law to fire the people at the VA . ” “ But this is the problem with your government . Your government has gotten so out of control that we ’ re not in charge , ” he said . “ The executive branch has become this enormous monster with tentacles into every aspect of your life and we can ’ t stop it . Even when we vote to stop it , the president continues in a lawless way . ” Paul specifically pointed to the story of John Beale , an EPA employee who hadn ’ t been to work for six months but was still getting paid—someone the agency misled Congress about when approached about him . Beale is getting 32 months in federal prison for his crimes , but only was caught after an in-depth investigation that agency leadership officials didn ’ t cooperate with . “ When they were looking through the EPA rolls , though , the guy that is my favorite story—the guy they found was named John Beale , ” Paul said . “ John Beale hadn ’ t been at work in six months . They looked and they found out he works at the EPA and he ’ s the right hand man to Gina McCarthy . You know what his specialty is ? Global warming . He hadn ’ t been at work in six months but he keeps getting these promotions and he keeps getting these great performance reviews . So they [ Congress ] asked his boss , they did something extraordinary by actually deciding to investigation , they asked his boss what about this John Beale—he never shows up for work ? They were like : ‘ He works for the CIA , also. ’ And they ’ re like , ‘ Really ? The CIA and the EPA ? What a combination , I ’ ve never heard of that . ’ ” “ But then they did something extraordinary . They called the CIA and they said : ‘ John who ? Never heard of him. ’ They finally did catch this guy . He owes you about a million bucks , good luck getting it back . But they want to get it back and he is going to go to jail , ” Paul explained . “ But after they caught him , Gina McCarthy—the head of the EPA—said she assumed he had left but nobody checked on it . Then he said he wanted retirement and he didn ’ t want to be fired , and she said that ’ s the compassionate thing to do because he ’ s only been stealing from us for about 11 years . So we ’ ll let him retire and not dishonor him . Then you know what , seven months later , know what they discovered ? He was still on the payroll . They had forgotten to force him into retirement . He was still collecting a check and he said he changed his mind and said ‘ oh I think I ’ m not going to retire now. ’ He thought it could go on forever . This is the state of affairs of your government . It is absolutely and utterly out of control . ” Paul then ripped Obama—and likely 2016 Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—for their misdeeds . With Obama ’ s executive overreach—a creeping trend that Paul said started over a hundred years ago in the country as the executive branch has slowly but surely attained more power than the legislative or judicial branches of the federal government—Paul said it ’ s “ one thing after another . ” “ It ’ s Obamacare , he just decided to amend it on his own , ” Paul said . “ It ’ s immigration law . He just decided to amend that on his own . It ’ s war powers—we ’ ve been at war now for six months again in the Middle East but Congress never voted on it . The Constitution is specific : Only Congress can declare war , only Congress can initiate war . George Bush had us in two wars , but we voted on both times in going to war . President Obama ? Oh , Democracy is kind of messy . I ’ m not messing with that Democracy stuff . I ’ ve got a pen , I ’ ve got a phone . If Congress won ’ t do what I want , I ’ ll do what I please . That isn ’ t the American way . That ’ s not what our Founding Fathers had for us . We have a Constitution not to restrain the people , but to restrain the government . This is a fundamental principle what we are losing that we have to do something about . ” Paul listed off a series of Obama scandals , specifically noting Operation Fast and Furious , the IRS , the Veterans Administration , and the tapping of phones by the Justice Department . He compared the hodgepodge of scandal that ’ s torn the Obama administration apart to a nursery rhyme . “ I sort of think of the Old MacDonald rhyme , here a scandal there a scandal everywhere a scandal , ” Paul said . “ But the one that really hits me the hardest , when I really think what is really the thing that I ’ m most concerned about—which is the scandal that goes to the bedrock of what we stand for and what the country should do ? It ’ s got to be the scandal of Benghazi . ” The crowd applauded loudly yet again before laid out his case of why Benghazi is the biggest scandal of the Obama administration—and Clinton ’ s political career . “ Benghazi is not about the talking points , ” Paul said . “ It ’ s not even about the response that night . The true story of Benghazi is about the nine months leading up to Benghazi . It ’ s about in February , six special forces people were being brought home . It ’ s about March , six more special forces people were being brought home . It ’ s about April , six more special forces being brought home . Why ? We don ’ t want the Libyans seeing any soldiers in uniforms with any guns . It ’ s not politically correct to think that we have to have defense of our personnel , because gosh the Freedom Fighters won in Libya so we should just walk around and let the freedom fighters just control the country . ” “ We get to April , and Ambassador [ Christopher ] Stevens puts in a formal request for a DC-3 . It ’ s a 50-year-old plane , but they wanted a plane to be able to fly around the country in case of an emergency , ” he explained . “ Hillary Clinton ’ s State Department denied . About three days after Hillary Clinton ’ s State Department denied the plane , you know what they approved ? They approved an electrical charging station for the embassy in Vienna . It appears they have a fleet of electrical cars there and they want to make sure the Europeans know how green we are so we are greening up the embassy . But then they discovered the plugs didn ’ t fit in the socket , so they had to spend another hundred grand on an electrical charging station but we don ’ t have enough money for a DC-3 for Libya ? ” Paul walked through how the rest of the summer leading up to the Sept. 11 , 2012 , terrorist attacks in Benghazi , Clinton ’ s State Department spent another “ hundred grand sending three comedians to India for the ‘ Make Chai , Not War ’ tour , ” another approximately $ 650,000 on Facebook ads , $ 5 million on “ crystal glassware and ball ware for the embassies . ” “ We get to August and now Ambassador Stevens is pleading for help , pleading again and again for help—there ’ s a sixteen-personnel team , security team , that ’ s all that ’ s left , ” Paul said . “ That ’ s all that ’ s between them and the jihadists . Col. [ Andy ] Wood is the leader of this . They [ the Americans in Libya , led by Stevens ] sent missive after missive , cable after cable to Hillary Clinton . They were ignored . When she came before my committee , I asked her : ‘ Secretary Clinton , did you read the cables ? ’ She kind of brushed me off as if ‘ who am I ? You think I would read the cables ? ’ Well , maybe . It ’ s one of the five most dangerous countries in the world and you ’ re not reading the cables where the ambassador is directly appealing for help ? She never had time . ” Paul noted there has been no consequences as of yet for Clinton or any of her subordinates for their role in what happened in Benghazi—but Americans can stop her from becoming president now . “ No one was ever punished for this , ” Paul said . “ Four state department [ officials ] were transferred to other jobs . We kept calling them trying to get one of them to answer the phone but of course they were probably ‘ unessential ’ —getting paid [ while being ] somewhere else . [ Secretary of State John ] Kerry finally forgave them all . No one was punished for Benghazi . For nine months security was requested and denied . What I say to Hillary Clinton I ’ ll say again tonight : If you ’ re not going to defend the troops , if you ’ re not going to defend our embassies , if you have shown that you are derelict in your duty to provide security for the United States , you should forever preclude yourself from running for the presidency . ”

MONTGOMERY, Alabama — Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), a likely 2016 Republican presidential candidate, fired up a nearly two-thousand-strong crowd with a keynote speech to the Alabama Republican Party’s Winter Dinner on Friday night, right before the White House hopeful makes a swing through South Florida. Paul was met with several standing ovations throughout the speech, including at the end, in an address filled with many of the major themes he’s likely to pursue assuming he makes a bid for the White House. “I have good news and bad news: The good news is your government is open,” Paul said. “The bad news is your government is open. You remember there was this shutdown about a year ago and in Washington everyone was clamoring, everyone was worried. I went home to Kentucky and you know what they said: ‘Why in the hell did you open it back up?’” Paul shifted into discussing how different Washington is from the rest of America. “When I was first elected, I proposed that we cut $500 billion in spending, and everybody in Washington said ‘Oh my goodness, this guy is crazy—he wants to really cut spending, he wants to really balance the budget,’” Paul said. “I got home back in Kentucky, and you know what they said? They said that’s a good start. They said now what are you going to do about the $18 trillion in debt? They’re not even concerned just with the deficit. In the real world, the people want us to balance the budget every year and actually do something about the $18 trillion debt.” Paul noted the difference in culture is largely due to the liberal media on Capitol Hill and throughout D.C. “The thing is is that the media, the liberal media, the people who call us flyover country America, know nothing about us,” Paul said. “They don’t represent us. They don’t have our values. And the thing is is that somehow Washington gets distracted into thinking this is what America is really about. Raise your hand if you’ve spent more than you bring in chronically for the last 10, 20 or 30 years.” No hands went up in the entire audience. “Nobody does that,” Paul said. “Everyone balances their family budget. They think we’re extremists. Somebody said ‘oh this is extreme.’ And I said, ‘to balance the budget, to only spend what comes in, is extreme?’” Paul had opened his speech by quoting President Abraham Lincoln when it comes to matters of justice—using it to transition into an example of local police officers in Tarrant, Alabama, doing something terrific for a woman in need right before Christmas. “Abraham Lincoln wrote that ‘I find that mercy bears richer fruit than strict justice,’” Paul said. “As a Christian, I think about that our religion talks about redemption and that maybe the law should give people second chances. I think about: ‘What is justice? Should justice mean just punishment? Is it rehabilitation?’ Ultimately I think that justice is about discernment and discretion. Just before Christmas this year, there was a great story that I read. This story came on the heels of stories that weren’t so good—that made it seem as if ‘oh my goodness, we have to worry about the police not acting correctly.’ But this story was heartwarming and I think it represents more of what the police do than the exceptions to the rule.” The story Paul was discussing was of Helen Johnson. “In this story, just before Christmas, Helen Johnson went to get some eggs in Tarrant, Alabama, just north of Birmingham,” Paul said. “Her kids had been at home with her and her kids’ kids had been at home with her and they hadn’t eaten in two days. She got to the store and she had $1.25 and was 50 cents short of buying her eggs. She made a fateful decision that day. She decided to steal the eggs. She put them in her pocket but she was caught before she left the store.” “The Tarrant police officer arrived on the scene, though, and something extraordinary happened. The Tarrant police office, I think, used discretion. He told her stealing was wrong, that she shouldn’t steal, and then he bought the eggs for her,” he explained. “Then in the next days and weeks, the Tarrant police force went to take food to her house. When people talk about community policing, this is the kind of stuff that doesn’t get reported. We do have to have police to stop violent criminals but we have to have some discretion and some discernment and some help. Every day, somewhere, some police are helping someone in a house with needs, or helping someone without food. But all we hear are the bad stories. I invited as my guests today two Tarrant police officers, chief Dennis Reno and Lieutenant Larry Rice. I’d like to recognize them.” The crowd gave a standing ovation for the two police officers Paul honored for their department’s charity and good will. When Paul shifted back into discussing the government shutdown in October 2013, he noted how the Obama administration sent federal employees to the scenic overpass overlooking Mount Rushmore to put orange cones out—more effort than if they just let it be—and did the same to try to close the open-air World War II memorial. “My favorite scene of the government shutdown was this: They decided to wrap the World War II monument, remember this?” Paul asked the crowd. They sent hundreds of workers out there and you have to believe they paid them overtime, right? These people hadn’t worked in years probably, but they sent them out there to close the World War II monument. There is no entrance and there is no exit to the World War II monument. They had to send hundreds of people out there to wrap it with barricades. But I tell people when you want to remember the shutdown, if you want to remember an image of the shutdown, remember this: World War II veterans getting off their bus, cutting down the barricades and throwing them on the lawn at the White House.” Paul said that what should be one of the positives that came out of the government shutdown was that full lists of “unessential” federal employees were drafted among Capitol Hill offices and across various agencies of the executive branch. “During the shutdown, they sent us a note. I’m sure Sen. [Richard] Shelby [Alabama’s senior senator, who introduced Paul] got the same note,” Paul said. “The note said: ‘Which of your employees are essential and which of your employees are unessential?’ I said, my goodness, something good is going to come out of this. We’re going to have a lesson. We’re going to learn what part of government is essential and what part is unessential.” “So I said, call the IRS—I want to see what the IRS says on their list: 90 percent unessential,” he continued. “I said, man we’re going to learn something here: What about the EPA? 95 percent unessential. I said my goodness we’re going to finally discover that most of the government could disappear and no one would notice but then I figured out the truth. Nothing in Washington is as it seems. It turns out that if you are unessential, you don’t have to come to work but you still get paid. It turns out there are almost 100,000 federal workers who get paid over $100,000 a year and almost all of them are unessential. But here’s the sad truth to this: the government is so dysfunctional that it cost money to close it down. It costs more money to close your government than to keep it open. This is a sad state of affairs. My friends, it can’t go on forever. We’re borrowing a million dollars a minute.” Paul detailed how even with the several congressional investigations after the shutdown revealed there’s widespread waste in government—and with scandals like the Veterans Administration scandal—there’s no way for any government officials to get fired in Washington. “During the shutdown though they did some investigations and one of the House committees brought forward some EPA employees—they found one woman who hired 17 relatives paying them to be interns, they found another woman selling cosmetics and vitamins from her computer, and they found another guy at the EPA watching porn six hours a day,” Paul said. “And you’re like, this is good right? They found them and they fired them, right? Come on. These are federal employees. You think you can fire a federal employee? They all still work at the EPA. You remember the VA scandal? People were dying while waiting in line and someone at the VA was changing the numbers to make it look as if no one was waiting in line but meanwhile people were dying. You think we fired them? You can’t fire these people. Your government is so broken you can’t fire people who steal from you, and you can’t fire people who lie to you. You can’t fire people who are making up numbers while people are dying waiting in line. So we did pass a law—we had to pass a law to fire the people at the VA.” “But this is the problem with your government. Your government has gotten so out of control that we’re not in charge,” he said. “The executive branch has become this enormous monster with tentacles into every aspect of your life and we can’t stop it. Even when we vote to stop it, the president continues in a lawless way.” Paul specifically pointed to the story of John Beale, an EPA employee who hadn’t been to work for six months but was still getting paid—someone the agency misled Congress about when approached about him. Beale is getting 32 months in federal prison for his crimes, but only was caught after an in-depth investigation that agency leadership officials didn’t cooperate with. “When they were looking through the EPA rolls, though, the guy that is my favorite story—the guy they found was named John Beale,” Paul said. “John Beale hadn’t been at work in six months. They looked and they found out he works at the EPA and he’s the right hand man to Gina McCarthy. You know what his specialty is? Global warming. He hadn’t been at work in six months but he keeps getting these promotions and he keeps getting these great performance reviews. So they [Congress] asked his boss, they did something extraordinary by actually deciding to investigation, they asked his boss what about this John Beale—he never shows up for work? They were like: ‘He works for the CIA, also.’ And they’re like, ‘Really? The CIA and the EPA? What a combination, I’ve never heard of that.’” “But then they did something extraordinary. They called the CIA and they said: ‘John who? Never heard of him.’ They finally did catch this guy. He owes you about a million bucks, good luck getting it back. But they want to get it back and he is going to go to jail,” Paul explained. “But after they caught him, Gina McCarthy—the head of the EPA—said she assumed he had left but nobody checked on it. Then he said he wanted retirement and he didn’t want to be fired, and she said that’s the compassionate thing to do because he’s only been stealing from us for about 11 years. So we’ll let him retire and not dishonor him. Then you know what, seven months later, know what they discovered? He was still on the payroll. They had forgotten to force him into retirement. He was still collecting a check and he said he changed his mind and said ‘oh I think I’m not going to retire now.’ He thought it could go on forever. This is the state of affairs of your government. It is absolutely and utterly out of control.” Paul then ripped Obama—and likely 2016 Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—for their misdeeds. With Obama’s executive overreach—a creeping trend that Paul said started over a hundred years ago in the country as the executive branch has slowly but surely attained more power than the legislative or judicial branches of the federal government—Paul said it’s “one thing after another.” “It’s Obamacare, he just decided to amend it on his own,” Paul said. “It’s immigration law. He just decided to amend that on his own. It’s war powers—we’ve been at war now for six months again in the Middle East but Congress never voted on it. The Constitution is specific: Only Congress can declare war, only Congress can initiate war. George Bush had us in two wars, but we voted on both times in going to war. President Obama? Oh, Democracy is kind of messy. I’m not messing with that Democracy stuff. I’ve got a pen, I’ve got a phone. If Congress won’t do what I want, I’ll do what I please. That isn’t the American way. That’s not what our Founding Fathers had for us. We have a Constitution not to restrain the people, but to restrain the government. This is a fundamental principle what we are losing that we have to do something about.” Paul listed off a series of Obama scandals, specifically noting Operation Fast and Furious, the IRS, the Veterans Administration, and the tapping of phones by the Justice Department. He compared the hodgepodge of scandal that’s torn the Obama administration apart to a nursery rhyme. “I sort of think of the Old MacDonald rhyme, here a scandal there a scandal everywhere a scandal,” Paul said. “But the one that really hits me the hardest, when I really think what is really the thing that I’m most concerned about—which is the scandal that goes to the bedrock of what we stand for and what the country should do? It’s got to be the scandal of Benghazi.” The crowd applauded loudly yet again before laid out his case of why Benghazi is the biggest scandal of the Obama administration—and Clinton’s political career. “Benghazi is not about the talking points,” Paul said. “It’s not even about the response that night. The true story of Benghazi is about the nine months leading up to Benghazi. It’s about in February, six special forces people were being brought home. It’s about March, six more special forces people were being brought home. It’s about April, six more special forces being brought home. Why? We don’t want the Libyans seeing any soldiers in uniforms with any guns. It’s not politically correct to think that we have to have defense of our personnel, because gosh the Freedom Fighters won in Libya so we should just walk around and let the freedom fighters just control the country.” “We get to April, and Ambassador [Christopher] Stevens puts in a formal request for a DC-3. It’s a 50-year-old plane, but they wanted a plane to be able to fly around the country in case of an emergency,” he explained. “Hillary Clinton’s State Department denied. About three days after Hillary Clinton’s State Department denied the plane, you know what they approved? They approved an electrical charging station for the embassy in Vienna. It appears they have a fleet of electrical cars there and they want to make sure the Europeans know how green we are so we are greening up the embassy. But then they discovered the plugs didn’t fit in the socket, so they had to spend another hundred grand on an electrical charging station but we don’t have enough money for a DC-3 for Libya?” Paul walked through how the rest of the summer leading up to the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Clinton’s State Department spent another “hundred grand sending three comedians to India for the ‘Make Chai, Not War’ tour,” another approximately $650,000 on Facebook ads, $5 million on “crystal glassware and ball ware for the embassies.” “We get to August and now Ambassador Stevens is pleading for help, pleading again and again for help—there’s a sixteen-personnel team, security team, that’s all that’s left,” Paul said. “That’s all that’s between them and the jihadists. Col. [Andy] Wood is the leader of this. They [the Americans in Libya, led by Stevens] sent missive after missive, cable after cable to Hillary Clinton. They were ignored. When she came before my committee, I asked her: ‘Secretary Clinton, did you read the cables?’ She kind of brushed me off as if ‘who am I? You think I would read the cables?’ Well, maybe. It’s one of the five most dangerous countries in the world and you’re not reading the cables where the ambassador is directly appealing for help? She never had time.” Paul noted there has been no consequences as of yet for Clinton or any of her subordinates for their role in what happened in Benghazi—but Americans can stop her from becoming president now. “No one was ever punished for this,” Paul said. “Four state department [officials] were transferred to other jobs. We kept calling them trying to get one of them to answer the phone but of course they were probably ‘unessential’—getting paid [while being] somewhere else. [Secretary of State John] Kerry finally forgave them all. No one was punished for Benghazi. For nine months security was requested and denied. What I say to Hillary Clinton I’ll say again tonight: If you’re not going to defend the troops, if you’re not going to defend our embassies, if you have shown that you are derelict in your duty to provide security for the United States, you should forever preclude yourself from running for the presidency.”

www.breitbart.com

right

9JQvFK2PMcCBcexE

test

G98mTsCZB0xQWM9h

lgbt_rights

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/december/bible-believing-tx-justice-of-the-peace-in-trouble-for-declining-to-perform-same-sex-marriages-nbsp

'Bible-Believing' TX Justice of the Peace in Trouble for Declining to Perform Same-Sex Marriages

2019-12-04

McLennan County Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley , a devout Christian , has received a public warning by Texas ' State Commission on Judicial Conduct for refusing to perform same-sex marriages . The Waco Tribune-Herald reports Hensley , who has been in office for the last five years , has said that , as a `` Bible-believing '' Christian , her conscience prohibited her from doing same-sex weddings so she was entitled to a `` religious exemption . '' Hensley said her office sometimes tells same-sex couples that the judge is not available and gives them a list of those who will perform same-sex weddings , including ministers and Precinct 3 JP David Pareya in West . The commission 's order says that for the last three years , the judge had performed opposite-sex weddings but has declined to perform same-sex ceremonies . A public warning is the second of six disciplinary measures that the commission can use . Other measures include suspension from office and requiring additional legal education , according to The Tribune-Herald . The Houston Chronicle reported the complaint was brought forward by the commission itself , not a member of the public . However , other McLennan County officials are speaking out on Hensley 's behalf . McLennan County Judge Scott Felton told The Tribune-Herald on Monday that , as an elected official , Hensley has the right to run her office the way she wants to . Waco attorney Mike Dixon , who represents the county , agreed with Felton saying elected officials can operate their offices as they wish , especially when it involves a duty , such as performing weddings , that they are not statutorily required to do . `` My advice when asked was that they should either do it for everyone or not do it at all , '' Dixon told the newspaper . `` My view is if you do it , you do it for everybody , but if you are not going to do it for everybody , you just do n't do it . '' Although judges can make thousands of dollars officiating at weddings in their spare time , some in Texas quit performing weddings following the Supreme Court decision in 2015 that legalized homosexual marriages . Hensley has 30 days to appeal the commission 's sanction by requesting three appellate judges to review her case , according to Fox News .

McLennan County Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley, a devout Christian, has received a public warning by Texas' State Commission on Judicial Conduct for refusing to perform same-sex marriages. The Waco Tribune-Herald reports Hensley, who has been in office for the last five years, has said that, as a "Bible-believing" Christian, her conscience prohibited her from doing same-sex weddings so she was entitled to a "religious exemption." Hensley said her office sometimes tells same-sex couples that the judge is not available and gives them a list of those who will perform same-sex weddings, including ministers and Precinct 3 JP David Pareya in West. The commission's order says that for the last three years, the judge had performed opposite-sex weddings but has declined to perform same-sex ceremonies. A public warning is the second of six disciplinary measures that the commission can use. Other measures include suspension from office and requiring additional legal education, according to The Tribune-Herald. The Houston Chronicle reported the complaint was brought forward by the commission itself, not a member of the public. However, other McLennan County officials are speaking out on Hensley's behalf. McLennan County Judge Scott Felton told The Tribune-Herald on Monday that, as an elected official, Hensley has the right to run her office the way she wants to. Waco attorney Mike Dixon, who represents the county, agreed with Felton saying elected officials can operate their offices as they wish, especially when it involves a duty, such as performing weddings, that they are not statutorily required to do. "My advice when asked was that they should either do it for everyone or not do it at all," Dixon told the newspaper. "My view is if you do it, you do it for everybody, but if you are not going to do it for everybody, you just don't do it." Although judges can make thousands of dollars officiating at weddings in their spare time, some in Texas quit performing weddings following the Supreme Court decision in 2015 that legalized homosexual marriages. Hensley has 30 days to appeal the commission's sanction by requesting three appellate judges to review her case, according to Fox News.

www1.cbn.com

right

G98mTsCZB0xQWM9h

test

rU43R6mNR7VyqEyn

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/22/jimmy-carter-north-korea-donald-trump

Jimmy Carter says he is willing to go to North Korea on peace mission

2017-10-22

Martin Pengelly

In an interview marked by conciliatory remarks regarding Donald Trump and his administration , Jimmy Carter said he was willing to travel to North Korea in an attempt to soften tensions between Washington and Pyongyang . North Korea : CIA director says regime nearly capable of nuclear attack Read more Speaking to the New York Times mostly about foreign policy , the 93-year-old former president also said Trump was not solely to blame for damage to America ’ s world image . “ The media have been harder on Trump than any other president certainly that I ’ ve known about , ” he said . “ I think they feel free to claim that Trump is mentally deranged and everything else without hesitation . ” Trump has engaged in a war of words with the North Korean leader , Kim Jong-un , often via Twitter and with liberal use of a mocking nickname , “ Little Rocket Man ” . The president has also undercut efforts by his secretary of state to talk to Pyongyang , repeatedly suggesting that only military action will work , and he used his maiden speech to the United Nations to threaten to “ totally destroy ” the country . Carter , president between 1977 and 1981 , spoke at his house in Plains , Georgia . On Saturday night , he joined the former presidents George HW Bush ( 1989-93 ) , Bill Clinton ( 1993-2001 ) , George W Bush ( 2001-2009 ) and Barack Obama ( 2009-2017 ) at a concert in College Station , Texas , to raise money for hurricane relief . The Democrat has been active on the world stage since leaving the White House , via the not-for-profit Carter Center . In 1994 , he went to Pyongyang and negotiated a short-lived deal to lessen tensions not resolved since the end of the Korean war in 1953 . He also travelled to North Korea in 2010 , to negotiate the release of an American held in the country , and again in 2011 . Asked by the Times if he would go again , he said : “ I would go , yes . ” He had spoken to the national security adviser , HR McMaster , he said , including at the funeral of his own such adviser , Zbigniew Brzezinski , in May . He “ told him that I was available if they ever need me ” but had not been asked to go , he said . Carter said he was “ afraid ” of nuclear conflict between the US and North Korea . “ They want to save their regime [ and have ] now got advanced nuclear weaponry that can destroy the Korean peninsula and Japan , and some of our outlying territories in the Pacific , maybe even our mainland. ” Carter had indicated a willingness to talk peace with North Korea last month , according to an academic at the University of Georgia . Trump has pressed China to help rein in Pyongyang but Carter said : “ We greatly overestimate China ’ s influence on North Korea . Particularly to Kim. ” The North Korean leader has “ never , so far as I know , been to China ” , Carter said . “ And they have no relationship . Kim Jong-il [ the current leader ’ s father ] did go to China and was very close to them . ” Asked if Trump was responsible for souring America ’ s image in the world , he said : “ He might be escalating it but I think that precedes Trump . The United States has been the dominant character in the whole world and now we ’ re not any more . And we ’ re not going to be . Russia ’ s coming back and India and China are coming forward . ” Play Video 2:15 Five former US presidents attend hurricane benefit - video In office , Carter presided over the 1978 Camp David peace accords between Israel and Egypt . Trump ’ s son-in-law , Jared Kushner , has been assigned the task of achieving lasting Middle East peace . Frederica Wilson seeks apology from Trump and says Niger is his Benghazi Read more Carter suggested that might not be so unlikely an idea as many think , as “ I ’ ve seen in the Arab world , including the Palestinian world , the high esteem that they pay to a member of one ’ s own family. ” He also criticised Barack Obama ’ s record in Middle East policy and said he did not think Israel would ever permit a two-state solution . Asked about investigations into Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election in Trump ’ s favour , Carter said : “ I don ’ t think there ’ s any evidence that what the Russians did changed enough votes , or any votes. ” His wife , Rosalynn , disagreed . Both voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary , Carter said . On other domestic matters , Carter was also conciliatory . Asked about debates over whether statues to Confederate leaders should come down and whether protesting black NFL players should stand for the national anthem , he agreed that Trump was “ exacerbating ” racial divisions . To Carter , as the descendant of southern troops who fought at Gettysburg , he said , the issue of tearing down Confederate statues was “ difficult … but I can understand African Americans ’ aversion to [ the statues ] and I sympathize with them . I don ’ t have any objection to them being labelled with explanatory labels or that sort of thing . ” NFL players protesting against racial injustice and police brutality by kneeling , he said , “ ought to find a different way to object , to demonstrate . I would rather see all the players stand during the American anthem . ”

In an interview marked by conciliatory remarks regarding Donald Trump and his administration, Jimmy Carter said he was willing to travel to North Korea in an attempt to soften tensions between Washington and Pyongyang. North Korea: CIA director says regime nearly capable of nuclear attack Read more Speaking to the New York Times mostly about foreign policy, the 93-year-old former president also said Trump was not solely to blame for damage to America’s world image. “The media have been harder on Trump than any other president certainly that I’ve known about,” he said. “I think they feel free to claim that Trump is mentally deranged and everything else without hesitation.” Trump has engaged in a war of words with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, often via Twitter and with liberal use of a mocking nickname, “Little Rocket Man”. The president has also undercut efforts by his secretary of state to talk to Pyongyang, repeatedly suggesting that only military action will work, and he used his maiden speech to the United Nations to threaten to “totally destroy” the country. Carter, president between 1977 and 1981, spoke at his house in Plains, Georgia. On Saturday night, he joined the former presidents George HW Bush (1989-93), Bill Clinton (1993-2001), George W Bush (2001-2009) and Barack Obama (2009-2017) at a concert in College Station, Texas, to raise money for hurricane relief. The Democrat has been active on the world stage since leaving the White House, via the not-for-profit Carter Center. In 1994, he went to Pyongyang and negotiated a short-lived deal to lessen tensions not resolved since the end of the Korean war in 1953. He also travelled to North Korea in 2010, to negotiate the release of an American held in the country, and again in 2011. Asked by the Times if he would go again, he said: “I would go, yes.” He had spoken to the national security adviser, HR McMaster, he said, including at the funeral of his own such adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in May. He “told him that I was available if they ever need me” but had not been asked to go, he said. Carter said he was “afraid” of nuclear conflict between the US and North Korea. “They want to save their regime [and have] now got advanced nuclear weaponry that can destroy the Korean peninsula and Japan, and some of our outlying territories in the Pacific, maybe even our mainland.” Carter had indicated a willingness to talk peace with North Korea last month, according to an academic at the University of Georgia. Trump has pressed China to help rein in Pyongyang but Carter said: “We greatly overestimate China’s influence on North Korea. Particularly to Kim.” The North Korean leader has “never, so far as I know, been to China”, Carter said. “And they have no relationship. Kim Jong-il [the current leader’s father] did go to China and was very close to them.” Asked if Trump was responsible for souring America’s image in the world, he said: “He might be escalating it but I think that precedes Trump. The United States has been the dominant character in the whole world and now we’re not any more. And we’re not going to be. Russia’s coming back and India and China are coming forward.” Play Video 2:15 Five former US presidents attend hurricane benefit - video In office, Carter presided over the 1978 Camp David peace accords between Israel and Egypt. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has been assigned the task of achieving lasting Middle East peace. Frederica Wilson seeks apology from Trump and says Niger is his Benghazi Read more Carter suggested that might not be so unlikely an idea as many think, as “I’ve seen in the Arab world, including the Palestinian world, the high esteem that they pay to a member of one’s own family.” He also criticised Barack Obama’s record in Middle East policy and said he did not think Israel would ever permit a two-state solution. Asked about investigations into Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election in Trump’s favour, Carter said: “I don’t think there’s any evidence that what the Russians did changed enough votes, or any votes.” His wife, Rosalynn, disagreed. Both voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary, Carter said. On other domestic matters, Carter was also conciliatory. Asked about debates over whether statues to Confederate leaders should come down and whether protesting black NFL players should stand for the national anthem, he agreed that Trump was “exacerbating” racial divisions. “But maybe not deliberately,” he said. To Carter, as the descendant of southern troops who fought at Gettysburg, he said, the issue of tearing down Confederate statues was “difficult … but I can understand African Americans’ aversion to [the statues] and I sympathize with them. I don’t have any objection to them being labelled with explanatory labels or that sort of thing.” NFL players protesting against racial injustice and police brutality by kneeling, he said, “ought to find a different way to object, to demonstrate. I would rather see all the players stand during the American anthem.”

www.theguardian.com

left

rU43R6mNR7VyqEyn

test

uWLO0KrtNspl0578

politics

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/04/biden-calls-on-african-leaders-in-fight-for-democracy-pledges-u-s-support/?hpt=po_c2

Biden calls on African leaders in fight for democracy, pledges U.S. support

2014-08-04

( CNN ) - Vice President Joe Biden laid the interests of the United States , and the world , alongside the success of African countries in a pledge to support regions of the continent where he says democracy is threatened . Citing an old African proverb , Biden encouraged the attendees to work with partners for a better future : “ 'If you want to go fast , go alone . If you want to go far , go together. ’ There is no time when that is more true than today . We ’ re prepared to go with you , if you want us to . ” In the first big event of African Leaders Summit held in Washington D.C. , Biden ’ s audience was made up of members of African non-profits and dignitaries gathered for a “ Civil Society Forum. ” He praised their courage in fighting for democracy in countries where activism is sometimes very dangerous . “ The future of Africa depends every bit of much on those of you who are part of the civil society as it does the leaders with whom the President and I will meet tomorrow , ” Biden said . “ No democracy can survive without the active and intense participation of its people . ” For Biden , that means giving women the opportunities to be heard and wield power where in the past they have not . “ Its wasting half the initiative , half the brain power , half the passion , of a nation , ” Biden said , also acknowledging that the obstacles to gender equality in Africa seem daunting . “ That ’ s where you come in .. ” Biden also described what he sees as the foundations of a successful democratic society – one that is guided by the will of the people . He described how corruption in government , court systems and law enforcement can thwart a genuine democracy and tasked his audience with rooting it out . “ It ’ s a cancer in Africa as well as around the world . Widespread corruption is an affront to the dignity of its people , and a direct threat to each of your nations ’ stability , ” said Biden . The Vice President used his own government as an example of how to defeat corruption – he described how the U.S. appoints permanent officials called Inspector Generals tasked with checking on the affairs of government organizations and investigating allegations of corruption . “ We ’ re not perfect , ” Biden admitted . “ We have these systems where we tend to find out where corruption lies and eventually get to it . So we ’ re prepared to work with you . ” “ In your hands , with your help , Africa can and will go so much further . You ’ re the fastest growing economies in the world and quite frankly the success of the rest of the world depends on part on your success , ” said Biden in closing . “ With people like you assembled in all of this room , as hard as it is , I ’ m confident that you will be successful . ”

5 years ago (CNN) - Vice President Joe Biden laid the interests of the United States, and the world, alongside the success of African countries in a pledge to support regions of the continent where he says democracy is threatened. Citing an old African proverb, Biden encouraged the attendees to work with partners for a better future: “'If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.’ There is no time when that is more true than today. We’re prepared to go with you, if you want us to.” Follow @politicaltickerFollow @CassieSpodak In the first big event of African Leaders Summit held in Washington D.C., Biden’s audience was made up of members of African non-profits and dignitaries gathered for a “Civil Society Forum.” He praised their courage in fighting for democracy in countries where activism is sometimes very dangerous. “The future of Africa depends every bit of much on those of you who are part of the civil society as it does the leaders with whom the President and I will meet tomorrow,” Biden said. “No democracy can survive without the active and intense participation of its people.” For Biden, that means giving women the opportunities to be heard and wield power where in the past they have not. “Its wasting half the initiative, half the brain power, half the passion, of a nation,” Biden said, also acknowledging that the obstacles to gender equality in Africa seem daunting. “That’s where you come in..” Biden also described what he sees as the foundations of a successful democratic society – one that is guided by the will of the people. He described how corruption in government, court systems and law enforcement can thwart a genuine democracy and tasked his audience with rooting it out. “It’s a cancer in Africa as well as around the world. Widespread corruption is an affront to the dignity of its people, and a direct threat to each of your nations’ stability,” said Biden. The Vice President used his own government as an example of how to defeat corruption – he described how the U.S. appoints permanent officials called Inspector Generals tasked with checking on the affairs of government organizations and investigating allegations of corruption. “We’re not perfect,” Biden admitted. “We have these systems where we tend to find out where corruption lies and eventually get to it. So we’re prepared to work with you.” “In your hands, with your help, Africa can and will go so much further. You’re the fastest growing economies in the world and quite frankly the success of the rest of the world depends on part on your success,” said Biden in closing. “With people like you assembled in all of this room, as hard as it is, I’m confident that you will be successful.”

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

uWLO0KrtNspl0578

test

YrVRqjp0E96PiNum

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/02/stop-pretending-the-smithsonian-national

Stop Pretending the Smithsonian, National Park Closures Are a Crisis

2019-01-02

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

`` In shutdown , national parks transform into Wild West—heavily populated and barely supervised , '' blares a headline from The Washington Post . `` It 's a free-for-all : shutdown brings turmoil to beloved US national parks , '' says The Guardian . `` National parks getting trashed during government shutdown , '' writes HuffPost . The Associated Press says : `` Garbage , feces take toll on national parks amid shutdown . '' And lest we forget about our beloved museums , the Post sighs , `` The Smithsonian and the National Gallery held on as long as they could . They 're closing . '' Sounds like a crisis ! But at most it 's an unfortunate nuisance . Some background : Parts of the federal government have been shut down since December 21 over President Donald Trump 's demands for border wall money . While Trump has already approved about $ 931 billion of the proposed $ 1.2 trillion in spending for the fiscal year , funding has lapsed for agencies that rely on the rest . This did n't automatically mean closures . Thanks to a contingency plan adopted by the National Park Service earlier this year , many national parks remained open for a time , just without the park rangers , maintenance workers , and other staff who 've been furloughed by the shutdown . But without those workers , trash has piled up and restrooms have gradually gotten dirtier . As a result , officials have opted to close down Sequoia , Kings Canyon , and Joshua Tree National Parks in California , as well as parts of Yosemite . In D.C. , meanwhile , the Smithsonian and the National Gallery of Art remained open using leftover funds that had been previously allocated . That money has since run out , and the Smithsonian announced today that its museums and the National Zoo would be closing . The National Gallery notes at the top of its website that its status after today `` is yet to be determined . '' It 's not hard to understand why some people are making a fuss over these closings . This is , after all , one of the more visible effects of the shutdown . That 's because the federal services and employees deemed `` essential '' —the parts of the government authorized to shoot you , for instance—are still functioning . National parks and the various historical and artistic institutions run by the federal government are classified as `` non-essential , '' and rightfully so . Without getting into whether these institutions should be privatized ( though there 's a good case for that ) , their current closures largely affect people 's leisure activities and nothing more . The closures are definitely unfortunate for tourists who planned trips around these parks and/or museums . But even then , there are plenty of privately run institutions that are n't affected by the government shutdown at all . In D.C. alone , there 's the Phillips Collection , the National Building Museum , and the Newseum . If you 're sad the National Zoo 's Panda Cam is turned off , you can head to YouTube for your fix . Plus , while California may have more national parks than any other state , it also has a sprawling state park system . Even the supposed `` trashing '' of the parks is n't cause for too much concern . The worry largely stems from issues involving litter , dirty bathrooms , and people relieving themselves in the wrong places . Disgusting problems , for sure , but ones that are not hard to remedy once furloughed employees are back on the clock . In the meantime , shutting the parks and not letting the trash pile up any further is the right thing to do .

"In shutdown, national parks transform into Wild West—heavily populated and barely supervised," blares a headline from The Washington Post. "It's a free-for-all: shutdown brings turmoil to beloved US national parks," says The Guardian. "National parks getting trashed during government shutdown," writes HuffPost. The Associated Press says: "Garbage, feces take toll on national parks amid shutdown." And lest we forget about our beloved museums, the Post sighs, "The Smithsonian and the National Gallery held on as long as they could. They're closing." Sounds like a crisis! But at most it's an unfortunate nuisance. Some background: Parts of the federal government have been shut down since December 21 over President Donald Trump's demands for border wall money. While Trump has already approved about $931 billion of the proposed $1.2 trillion in spending for the fiscal year, funding has lapsed for agencies that rely on the rest. This didn't automatically mean closures. Thanks to a contingency plan adopted by the National Park Service earlier this year, many national parks remained open for a time, just without the park rangers, maintenance workers, and other staff who've been furloughed by the shutdown. But without those workers, trash has piled up and restrooms have gradually gotten dirtier. As a result, officials have opted to close down Sequoia, Kings Canyon, and Joshua Tree National Parks in California, as well as parts of Yosemite. In D.C., meanwhile, the Smithsonian and the National Gallery of Art remained open using leftover funds that had been previously allocated. That money has since run out, and the Smithsonian announced today that its museums and the National Zoo would be closing. The National Gallery notes at the top of its website that its status after today "is yet to be determined." It's not hard to understand why some people are making a fuss over these closings. This is, after all, one of the more visible effects of the shutdown. That's because the federal services and employees deemed "essential"—the parts of the government authorized to shoot you, for instance—are still functioning. National parks and the various historical and artistic institutions run by the federal government are classified as "non-essential," and rightfully so. Without getting into whether these institutions should be privatized (though there's a good case for that), their current closures largely affect people's leisure activities and nothing more. The closures are definitely unfortunate for tourists who planned trips around these parks and/or museums. But even then, there are plenty of privately run institutions that aren't affected by the government shutdown at all. In D.C. alone, there's the Phillips Collection, the National Building Museum, and the Newseum. If you're sad the National Zoo's Panda Cam is turned off, you can head to YouTube for your fix. Plus, while California may have more national parks than any other state, it also has a sprawling state park system. Even the supposed "trashing" of the parks isn't cause for too much concern. The worry largely stems from issues involving litter, dirty bathrooms, and people relieving themselves in the wrong places. Disgusting problems, for sure, but ones that are not hard to remedy once furloughed employees are back on the clock. In the meantime, shutting the parks and not letting the trash pile up any further is the right thing to do.

www.reason.com

right

YrVRqjp0E96PiNum

test

4NvgiVUyCg4GaPam

education

Reason

https://reason.com/2019/10/22/seattle-math-oppressive-cultural-woke/

Seattle Public Schools Will Start Teaching That Math Is Oppressive

2019-10-22

David Post, Josh Blackman, Damon Root, Charles Oliver, Eric Boehm, Christian Britschgi, Peter Suderman, Lenore Skenazy

Math is a deeply frustrating subject for many elementary and high school students . But Seattle public schools are gearing up to accuse math of a litany of more serious crimes : imperialism , dehumanization , and oppression of marginalized persons . The district has proposed a new social justice-infused curriculum that would focus on `` power and oppression '' and `` history of resistance and liberation '' within the field of mathematics . The curriculum is n't mandatory , but provides a resource for teachers who want to introduce ethnic studies into the classroom vis a vis math . According to Education Week : Seattle 's four-page framework is still in the proposal stage . If adopted , its ideas will be included in existing math classes as part of the district 's broader effort to infuse ethnic studies into all subjects across the K-12 spectrum . Tracy Castro-Gill , Seattle 's ethnic studies director , said her team hopes to have frameworks completed in all subjects by June for board approval . If the frameworks are approved , teachers would be expected to incorporate those ideas and questions into the math they teach beginning next fall , Castro-Gill said . No districtwide—or mandated—math/ethnic studies curriculum is planned , but groups of teachers are working with representatives of local community organizations to write instructional units for teachers to use if they wish , she said . `` Seattle is definitely on the forefront with this , '' said Robert Q. Berry III , the president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics . `` What they 're doing follows the line of work we hope we can move forward as we think about the history of math and who contributes to that , and also about deepening students ' connection with identity and agency . '' The proposal has drawn fire from the right . The American Conservative 's Rod Dreher referred to it derisively as `` woke math , '' writing : The young people who are going to learn real math are those whose parents can afford to put them in private schools . The public school kids of all races are going to get dumber and dumber … and this is going to compel the wokesters in charge of Human Resources at institutions along life 's way to demand changing standards to fit political goals . Eventually , bridges are going to start falling down . That too will be the fault of Whiteness . That 's a hyperbolic statement . But having read over the proposed framework , I have to say that it does seem fairly terrible . It 's chock full of social justice jargon that sounds smart but is actually vapid . What does it mean to decode mathematical `` beauty '' or `` identify how the development of mathematics has been erased from learning in school ? '' ( Has it been erased ? That seems like a problem for history class . ) The guidance says it will `` re-humanize mathematics through experiential learning '' and facilitate learning `` independently and interdependently . '' That 's a fancy way of saying almost nothing at all . The guidance also includes some extremely political , simplistic talking points that might be popular among activist academics but are in reality somewhat dubious . This is verbatim from the proposal : Students will be able to `` identify the inherent inequities of the standardized testing system used to oppress and marginalize people and communities of color , '' `` explain how math has been used to exploit natural resources , '' and `` explain how math dictates economic oppression . '' Each of these statements are debatable , but they are not being presented as such . It would be one thing to hold a class discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of standardized testing , but what 's happening here is that students are being trained to reject standardized testing due to its `` inherent inequity , '' which is asserted as some kind of proven fact . If math is too daunting for students , a better option would be for schools to stop making it mandatory . Giving parents—and even students themselves—more choice and control over their own educational experience is always a plus , and few people actually need to understand higher mathematics to function in society . Infusing the existing math curriculum with a bunch of unfounded progressive assumptions about cultural appropriation is a silly approach .

Math is a deeply frustrating subject for many elementary and high school students. But Seattle public schools are gearing up to accuse math of a litany of more serious crimes: imperialism, dehumanization, and oppression of marginalized persons. The district has proposed a new social justice-infused curriculum that would focus on "power and oppression" and "history of resistance and liberation" within the field of mathematics. The curriculum isn't mandatory, but provides a resource for teachers who want to introduce ethnic studies into the classroom vis a vis math. According to Education Week: Seattle's four-page framework is still in the proposal stage. If adopted, its ideas will be included in existing math classes as part of the district's broader effort to infuse ethnic studies into all subjects across the K-12 spectrum. Tracy Castro-Gill, Seattle's ethnic studies director, said her team hopes to have frameworks completed in all subjects by June for board approval. If the frameworks are approved, teachers would be expected to incorporate those ideas and questions into the math they teach beginning next fall, Castro-Gill said. No districtwide—or mandated—math/ethnic studies curriculum is planned, but groups of teachers are working with representatives of local community organizations to write instructional units for teachers to use if they wish, she said. "Seattle is definitely on the forefront with this," said Robert Q. Berry III, the president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. "What they're doing follows the line of work we hope we can move forward as we think about the history of math and who contributes to that, and also about deepening students' connection with identity and agency." The proposal has drawn fire from the right. The American Conservative's Rod Dreher referred to it derisively as "woke math," writing: The young people who are going to learn real math are those whose parents can afford to put them in private schools. The public school kids of all races are going to get dumber and dumber … and this is going to compel the wokesters in charge of Human Resources at institutions along life's way to demand changing standards to fit political goals. Eventually, bridges are going to start falling down. That too will be the fault of Whiteness. That's a hyperbolic statement. But having read over the proposed framework, I have to say that it does seem fairly terrible. It's chock full of social justice jargon that sounds smart but is actually vapid. What does it mean to decode mathematical "beauty" or "identify how the development of mathematics has been erased from learning in school?" (Has it been erased? That seems like a problem for history class.) The guidance says it will "re-humanize mathematics through experiential learning" and facilitate learning "independently and interdependently." That's a fancy way of saying almost nothing at all. The guidance also includes some extremely political, simplistic talking points that might be popular among activist academics but are in reality somewhat dubious. This is verbatim from the proposal: Students will be able to "identify the inherent inequities of the standardized testing system used to oppress and marginalize people and communities of color," "explain how math has been used to exploit natural resources," and "explain how math dictates economic oppression." Each of these statements are debatable, but they are not being presented as such. It would be one thing to hold a class discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of standardized testing, but what's happening here is that students are being trained to reject standardized testing due to its "inherent inequity," which is asserted as some kind of proven fact. If math is too daunting for students, a better option would be for schools to stop making it mandatory. Giving parents—and even students themselves—more choice and control over their own educational experience is always a plus, and few people actually need to understand higher mathematics to function in society. Infusing the existing math curriculum with a bunch of unfounded progressive assumptions about cultural appropriation is a silly approach.

www.reason.com

right

4NvgiVUyCg4GaPam

test

BYXK47nD51T5SVQc

media_bias

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2019/may/white-house-launches-site-where-you-can-report-anti-conservative-bias-from-tech-giants

White House Launches Site Where You Can Report Anti-Conservative Bias from Tech Giants

2019-05-16

SAN FRANCISCO ( AP ) — On the heels of President Donald Trump 's repeated assertions claiming anti-conservative bias by tech companies , the White House has launched an online form asking people to share their experiences if they think political partisanship has led them to be silenced by social media sites . The White House 's official Twitter account tweeted a link to the form Wednesday , saying that `` The Trump Administration is fighting for free speech online . '' The tweet continues that `` no matter your views , if you suspect political bias has caused you to be censored or silenced online , we want to hear about it ! '' The Trump Administration is fighting for free speech online . No matter your views , if you suspect political bias has caused you to be censored or silenced online , we want to hear about it ! https : //t.co/9lc0cqUhuf pic.twitter.com/J8ICbx42dz — The White House ( @ WhiteHouse ) May 15 , 2019 On the first page , the bare-bones online form reads like a tweet from the president , saying that `` SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS should advance FREEDOM OF SPEECH . Yet too many Americans have seen their accounts suspended , banned , or fraudulently reported for unclear 'violations ' of user policies . '' Earlier this month , Trump sent out a series of tweets criticizing social media companies after Facebook banned several extremist figures , most of them prominent far right personalities such as conspiracy theorist Alex Jones . Trump tweeted on May 3 , for instance , that he is `` continuing to monitor the censorship of AMERICAN CITIZENS on social media platforms . This is the United States of America — and we have what 's known as FREEDOM OF SPEECH ! '' The questionnaire continues by asking people names , contact information , whether they are U.S. citizens or permanent residents and what happened to their social media accounts in question . It also asks if the respondent wants to sign up for the president 's email newsletters , `` so we can update you without relying on platforms like Facebook and Twitter . '' The query does not say how the information will be used . To ensure that the respondent is `` not a robot , '' as online forms routinely do , it asks what year the Declaration of Independence was signed . As some techies quickly noted on Twitter , this sort of verification is very easy for bots to game , unlike , say , trying to pick out blurry images of traffic lights from a photo . The form does not ask respondents their political affiliation . But it comes amid growing conservative criticism of tech platforms for their perceived political bias . While some tech company executives may lean liberal , they have long asserted that their products are without political bias . Twitter said Wednesday that it enforces its rules regardless of users ' background or political affiliation . Facebook and Google did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment . The tool was launched the same day the White House declined to sign a global pledge to step up efforts to keep internet platforms from being used to spread hate , organize extremist groups and broadcast attacks , citing respect for freedom of expression .

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — On the heels of President Donald Trump's repeated assertions claiming anti-conservative bias by tech companies, the White House has launched an online form asking people to share their experiences if they think political partisanship has led them to be silenced by social media sites. The White House's official Twitter account tweeted a link to the form Wednesday, saying that "The Trump Administration is fighting for free speech online." The tweet continues that "no matter your views, if you suspect political bias has caused you to be censored or silenced online, we want to hear about it!" The Trump Administration is fighting for free speech online. No matter your views, if you suspect political bias has caused you to be censored or silenced online, we want to hear about it! https://t.co/9lc0cqUhuf pic.twitter.com/J8ICbx42dz — The White House (@WhiteHouse) May 15, 2019 On the first page, the bare-bones online form reads like a tweet from the president, saying that "SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS should advance FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Yet too many Americans have seen their accounts suspended, banned, or fraudulently reported for unclear 'violations' of user policies." Earlier this month, Trump sent out a series of tweets criticizing social media companies after Facebook banned several extremist figures, most of them prominent far right personalities such as conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Trump tweeted on May 3, for instance, that he is "continuing to monitor the censorship of AMERICAN CITIZENS on social media platforms. This is the United States of America — and we have what's known as FREEDOM OF SPEECH!" The questionnaire continues by asking people names, contact information, whether they are U.S. citizens or permanent residents and what happened to their social media accounts in question. It also asks if the respondent wants to sign up for the president's email newsletters, "so we can update you without relying on platforms like Facebook and Twitter." The query does not say how the information will be used. To ensure that the respondent is "not a robot," as online forms routinely do, it asks what year the Declaration of Independence was signed. As some techies quickly noted on Twitter, this sort of verification is very easy for bots to game, unlike, say, trying to pick out blurry images of traffic lights from a photo. The form does not ask respondents their political affiliation. But it comes amid growing conservative criticism of tech platforms for their perceived political bias. While some tech company executives may lean liberal, they have long asserted that their products are without political bias. Twitter said Wednesday that it enforces its rules regardless of users' background or political affiliation. Facebook and Google did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. The tool was launched the same day the White House declined to sign a global pledge to step up efforts to keep internet platforms from being used to spread hate, organize extremist groups and broadcast attacks, citing respect for freedom of expression. Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

www1.cbn.com

right

BYXK47nD51T5SVQc

test

TPDeNhzkXPn4lUIf

fbi

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/20/fbi-director-comey-testify-trump-wiretapping-claim-russia-campaign-links

FBI director to testify on Trump wiretapping claim and Russia campaign links

2017-03-20

Julian Borger

The FBI director is due to appear on Monday morning before a congressional committee which will ask him whether Donald Trump was wiretapped and whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow . Russia hearing live : FBI director Comey says no information to confirm Trump 's wiretap claims Read more James Comey ’ s appearance in the House of Representatives , alongside intelligence chiefs past and present , will be a climactic moment in the investigation of Russia ’ s role in last year ’ s US presidential election , which has dogged the early weeks of the Trump administration . But it is unclear how many of the key unanswered questions will be resolved . One of the first questions Comey is likely to be asked is whether Trump or his campaign was subject to a wiretap , as the president has repeatedly claimed over the past fortnight , without providing evidence . Comey is reported to have told members of Congress in private that there is no grounds for that claim and ABC News predicted on Sunday he would say so officially in the first few minutes of his testimony . If so , it would be a striking repudiation of a sitting president ’ s claims by his own FBI director , coming on the heels of a heated denial from the British government and its electronic intelligence agency , GCHQ , that it had spied on Trump on the Obama administration ’ s behalf . That was a claim made by a Fox News commentator , which had been read out at a White House briefing by spokesman , Sean Spicer . “ I hope that we can put an end to this wild goose chase , because what the president said was just patently false , ” Adam Schiff , the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee , told the NBC ’ s Meet the Press . “ It ’ s continuing to grow in terms of damage , and he needs to put an end to this . ” In a series of early-morning tweets on Monday , Trump claimed that the idea that he “ colluded with Russia ” was “ FAKE NEWS and everyone knows it ” and said that the former director of national intelligence James Clapper had said there was no evidence of such collusion . ( Clapper has said he has seen no evidence but it “ could have unfolded or become available in the time after I left the government ” . ) Trump claimed that the Democrats had “ made up and pushed the Russian story as an excuse for running a terrible campaign ” . “ The real story that Congress , the FBI and all others should be looking into is the leaking of Classified information , ” he added . “ Must find leaker now ! ” Comey will be joined at Monday ’ s committee hearing by Clapper , plus director of the national security agency Adm Michael Rogers , and John Brennan , the Obama administration ’ s CIA director . The US intelligence community came to the conclusion in December that Vladimir Putin ’ s government had intervened in the election with the intention of skewing it in Trump ’ s favour . Comey and the intelligence chiefs will be questioned on Monday on the scope of that intervention and whether members of his campaign or any of his associates had colluded with Moscow . On that explosive issue , there are less likely to be definitive answers . Counterintelligence investigations can continue for months or years without leading to a public conclusion or any arrests . There is no question there were contacts between Trump aides and Russian officials , despite blanket denials of such contacts by the Trump camp . The administration ’ s first national security advisor , Michael Flynn , was forced to resign in mid-February over his communications with the Russian ambassador in Washington , Sergei Kislyak , and for failing to give an accurate account of them in public or to the vice-president , Mike Pence . The conversations were intercepted by US authorities and their contents leaked , demonstrating that they had discussed punitive measures imposed on Russia by the outgoing Obama administration , something Flynn had denied . Flynn is not due to appear before the committee , but the Flynn affair is certain to be covered . Another of the witnesses appearing on Monday will be Sally Yates , former acting attorney general , who is reported to have warned the White House in late December that Flynn was vulnerable to blackmail because of his contacts with Kislyak . Yates – who was fired for refusing to defend Trump ’ s travel ban – will be asked about those warnings , which if confirmed will raise questions over why Trump and his team ignored them until the story leaked to the press and whether Trump authorised Flynn ’ s contacts , something he has denied . The intelligence committee hearings will also provide an arena for a partisan clash between Schiff , who will seek to focus the hearing on potential Trump campaign collusion with Russia , and the intelligence committee ’ s Republican chairman , Devin Nunes , who wants to concentrate on the string of leaks from the intelligence agencies about the Trump camp ’ s Moscow contacts . “ That ’ s the only crime we know has been committed right now , ” Nunes said on Fox News Sunday . Schiff said that the congressional investigation into hacking had so far turned up “ circumstantial evidence of collusion ” and direct evidence that the Trump campaign aides had sought to cover up contacts with Russians . “ There is certainly enough for us to conduct an investigation , ” Schiff said . “ The American people have a right to know and in order to defend ourselves , we need to know whether the circumstantial evidence of collusion and direct evidence of deception is indicative of more . ”

The FBI director is due to appear on Monday morning before a congressional committee which will ask him whether Donald Trump was wiretapped and whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Russia hearing live: FBI director Comey says no information to confirm Trump's wiretap claims Read more James Comey’s appearance in the House of Representatives, alongside intelligence chiefs past and present, will be a climactic moment in the investigation of Russia’s role in last year’s US presidential election, which has dogged the early weeks of the Trump administration. But it is unclear how many of the key unanswered questions will be resolved. One of the first questions Comey is likely to be asked is whether Trump or his campaign was subject to a wiretap, as the president has repeatedly claimed over the past fortnight, without providing evidence. Comey is reported to have told members of Congress in private that there is no grounds for that claim and ABC News predicted on Sunday he would say so officially in the first few minutes of his testimony. If so, it would be a striking repudiation of a sitting president’s claims by his own FBI director, coming on the heels of a heated denial from the British government and its electronic intelligence agency, GCHQ, that it had spied on Trump on the Obama administration’s behalf. That was a claim made by a Fox News commentator, which had been read out at a White House briefing by spokesman, Sean Spicer. “I hope that we can put an end to this wild goose chase, because what the president said was just patently false,” Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, told the NBC’s Meet the Press. “It’s continuing to grow in terms of damage, and he needs to put an end to this.” In a series of early-morning tweets on Monday, Trump claimed that the idea that he “colluded with Russia” was “FAKE NEWS and everyone knows it” and said that the former director of national intelligence James Clapper had said there was no evidence of such collusion. (Clapper has said he has seen no evidence but it “could have unfolded or become available in the time after I left the government”.) Trump claimed that the Democrats had “made up and pushed the Russian story as an excuse for running a terrible campaign”. “The real story that Congress, the FBI and all others should be looking into is the leaking of Classified information,” he added. “Must find leaker now!” Comey will be joined at Monday’s committee hearing by Clapper, plus director of the national security agency Adm Michael Rogers, and John Brennan, the Obama administration’s CIA director. The US intelligence community came to the conclusion in December that Vladimir Putin’s government had intervened in the election with the intention of skewing it in Trump’s favour. Comey and the intelligence chiefs will be questioned on Monday on the scope of that intervention and whether members of his campaign or any of his associates had colluded with Moscow. On that explosive issue, there are less likely to be definitive answers. Counterintelligence investigations can continue for months or years without leading to a public conclusion or any arrests. There is no question there were contacts between Trump aides and Russian officials, despite blanket denials of such contacts by the Trump camp. The administration’s first national security advisor, Michael Flynn, was forced to resign in mid-February over his communications with the Russian ambassador in Washington, Sergei Kislyak, and for failing to give an accurate account of them in public or to the vice-president, Mike Pence. The conversations were intercepted by US authorities and their contents leaked, demonstrating that they had discussed punitive measures imposed on Russia by the outgoing Obama administration, something Flynn had denied. Flynn is not due to appear before the committee, but the Flynn affair is certain to be covered. Another of the witnesses appearing on Monday will be Sally Yates, former acting attorney general, who is reported to have warned the White House in late December that Flynn was vulnerable to blackmail because of his contacts with Kislyak. Yates – who was fired for refusing to defend Trump’s travel ban – will be asked about those warnings, which if confirmed will raise questions over why Trump and his team ignored them until the story leaked to the press and whether Trump authorised Flynn’s contacts, something he has denied. The intelligence committee hearings will also provide an arena for a partisan clash between Schiff, who will seek to focus the hearing on potential Trump campaign collusion with Russia, and the intelligence committee’s Republican chairman, Devin Nunes, who wants to concentrate on the string of leaks from the intelligence agencies about the Trump camp’s Moscow contacts. “That’s the only crime we know has been committed right now,” Nunes said on Fox News Sunday. Schiff said that the congressional investigation into hacking had so far turned up “circumstantial evidence of collusion” and direct evidence that the Trump campaign aides had sought to cover up contacts with Russians. “There is certainly enough for us to conduct an investigation,” Schiff said. “The American people have a right to know and in order to defend ourselves, we need to know whether the circumstantial evidence of collusion and direct evidence of deception is indicative of more.”

www.theguardian.com

left

TPDeNhzkXPn4lUIf

test

EnpbjloqlzJetcmd

cybersecurity

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/04/us-russia-criminal-charges-olympics-hacking

US charges seven Russian spies over cyber-hacking

2018-10-04

Sabrina Siddiqui

Four charged with targeting chemical weapons watchdog and all seven indicted on charges linked to Olympic drug-test data leak The US government has announced criminal charges against seven Russian intelligence officers , declaring a “ lengthy and wide-ranging conspiracy ” ordered by the Kremlin to hack into private computers and networks around the world that aimed at a wide range of targets . Russia accused of cyber-attacks on chemical weapons body and Porton Down Read more The announcement from the justice department ’ s national security division on Thursday comes after Dutch officials said they had disrupted a Russian cyberattack on the global chemical weapons watchdog . Four of the officers were charged with targeting the watchdog . All seven of the officers were indicted on cyber-hacking charges linked to the leaking of Olympic athletes ’ drug test data , in an alleged attempt to undermine efforts to tackle Russian doping . Russia ’ s GRU military intelligence was blamed for the failed operation in the Netherlands , which allegedly targeted the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and was thwarted by Dutch military intelligence with the help of the UK . The international organization was investigating the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the poisoning of former GRU officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter , Yulia , in the English city of Salisbury in March . Officials said the Russians had made unsuccessful attempts to carry out a remote attack on the Porton Down chemical weapons facility in April and on the UK foreign office in March . According to US officials , the Russians also targeted a nuclear power company based in Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , that supplied nuclear fuel to Ukraine . “ It is evident from the allegations in today ’ s indictment that the defendants believed that they could use their perceived anonymity to act with impunity , ” John Demers , the US assistant attorney general for national security , said at a press conference announcing the charges . “ In their own countries and on territories of other sovereign nations , to undermine international institutions and to distract from their government ’ s own wrongdoing . ” “ They were wrong . Working together with our partners in nations that share our values , we can expose the truth for the world to see . ” A grand jury in the western district of Pennsylvania indicted seven defendants , all officers in the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate ( GRU ) , a military intelligence agency of the general staff of the armed forces of the Russian Federation , for computer hacking , wire fraud , aggravated identity theft , and money laundering . The indictments were not directly related to the special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the US election , US officials said , but encompassed many of the same tactics that earlier this year led to charges against more than a dozen Russian nationals for penetrating Democratic party emails in 2016 . “ They evince some of the same methods of computer intrusion and the same overarching Russian strategic goal : to pursue its interests through illegal influence and disinformation operations aimed at muddying or altering perceptions of the truth , ” Demers said . Addressing reporters in Washington , justice department officials described how the Russians targeted athletes and anti-doping agencies as retaliation for Russia being banned from the 2018 Winter Olympics over its state-sponsored athlete doping program . Russian agents attempted to breach the personal information of approximately 250 athletes from 30 countries who supported the ban on Russian athletes or condemned the country ’ s doping program , US attorney Scott Brady said , as well as the systems of US and international anti-doping agencies . The defendants – all Russian nationals and residents – made efforts to remotely hack the desired networks , according to the indictment . When those efforts failed , the defendants and others from GRU ’ s technical unit traveled to where the targets were physically located . With the help of sophisticated equipment , the hackers were able to penetrate computer networks through wifi networks and transfer that access to conspirators in Russia . Top Russian officials dismissed the allegations as part of a coordinate effort to smear Moscow . Konstantin Kosachev , the head of the foreign affairs committee in the upper house of Russian parliament , said the hacking claims were false and designed to “ delegitimize Russia ” . . Maria Zakharova , the Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman , denounced the accusations as “ fantasies ” . The Dutch government expelled four Russian agents while detailing how its authorities worked with counterparts in the UK to thwart the attempted cyber-attack on the OPCW , the chemical weapons watchdog based in The Hague . In a joint statement , the British prime minister , Theresa May , and her Dutch counterpart , Mark Rutte , said : “ This attempt to access the secure systems of an international organisation working to rid the world of chemical weapons demonstrates the GRU ’ s disregard for the global values and rules than keep us all safe . “ Our action today reinforces the clear message from the international community : we will uphold the rules-based international system , and defend international institutions from those that seek to do them harm . ”

Four charged with targeting chemical weapons watchdog and all seven indicted on charges linked to Olympic drug-test data leak This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old The US government has announced criminal charges against seven Russian intelligence officers, declaring a “lengthy and wide-ranging conspiracy” ordered by the Kremlin to hack into private computers and networks around the world that aimed at a wide range of targets. Russia accused of cyber-attacks on chemical weapons body and Porton Down Read more The announcement from the justice department’s national security division on Thursday comes after Dutch officials said they had disrupted a Russian cyberattack on the global chemical weapons watchdog. Four of the officers were charged with targeting the watchdog. All seven of the officers were indicted on cyber-hacking charges linked to the leaking of Olympic athletes’ drug test data, in an alleged attempt to undermine efforts to tackle Russian doping. Russia’s GRU military intelligence was blamed for the failed operation in the Netherlands, which allegedly targeted the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and was thwarted by Dutch military intelligence with the help of the UK. The international organization was investigating the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the poisoning of former GRU officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, in the English city of Salisbury in March. Sign up for the US morning briefing Officials said the Russians had made unsuccessful attempts to carry out a remote attack on the Porton Down chemical weapons facility in April and on the UK foreign office in March. According to US officials, the Russians also targeted a nuclear power company based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, that supplied nuclear fuel to Ukraine. “It is evident from the allegations in today’s indictment that the defendants believed that they could use their perceived anonymity to act with impunity,” John Demers, the US assistant attorney general for national security, said at a press conference announcing the charges. “In their own countries and on territories of other sovereign nations, to undermine international institutions and to distract from their government’s own wrongdoing.” “They were wrong. Working together with our partners in nations that share our values, we can expose the truth for the world to see.” A grand jury in the western district of Pennsylvania indicted seven defendants, all officers in the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), a military intelligence agency of the general staff of the armed forces of the Russian Federation, for computer hacking, wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and money laundering. The indictments were not directly related to the special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the US election, US officials said, but encompassed many of the same tactics that earlier this year led to charges against more than a dozen Russian nationals for penetrating Democratic party emails in 2016. “They evince some of the same methods of computer intrusion and the same overarching Russian strategic goal: to pursue its interests through illegal influence and disinformation operations aimed at muddying or altering perceptions of the truth,” Demers said. Addressing reporters in Washington, justice department officials described how the Russians targeted athletes and anti-doping agencies as retaliation for Russia being banned from the 2018 Winter Olympics over its state-sponsored athlete doping program. Russian agents attempted to breach the personal information of approximately 250 athletes from 30 countries who supported the ban on Russian athletes or condemned the country’s doping program, US attorney Scott Brady said, as well as the systems of US and international anti-doping agencies. The defendants – all Russian nationals and residents – made efforts to remotely hack the desired networks, according to the indictment. When those efforts failed, the defendants and others from GRU’s technical unit traveled to where the targets were physically located. With the help of sophisticated equipment, the hackers were able to penetrate computer networks through wifi networks and transfer that access to conspirators in Russia. Top Russian officials dismissed the allegations as part of a coordinate effort to smear Moscow. Konstantin Kosachev, the head of the foreign affairs committee in the upper house of Russian parliament, said the hacking claims were false and designed to “delegitimize Russia”. . Maria Zakharova, the Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman, denounced the accusations as “fantasies”. The Dutch government expelled four Russian agents while detailing how its authorities worked with counterparts in the UK to thwart the attempted cyber-attack on the OPCW, the chemical weapons watchdog based in The Hague. In a joint statement, the British prime minister, Theresa May, and her Dutch counterpart, Mark Rutte, said: “This attempt to access the secure systems of an international organisation working to rid the world of chemical weapons demonstrates the GRU’s disregard for the global values and rules than keep us all safe. “Our action today reinforces the clear message from the international community: we will uphold the rules-based international system, and defend international institutions from those that seek to do them harm.”

www.theguardian.com

left

EnpbjloqlzJetcmd

test

Vn4LSvlaacBAY3Xc

race_and_racism

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-biden/biden-says-trumps-toxic-tongue-linked-to-u-s-mass-shootings-idUSKCN1UX12B

Biden says Trump's `toxic tongue' linked to U.S. mass shootings

2019-08-08

Tim Reid

LOS ANGELES/CHARLESTON , S.C. ( ███ ) - Democratic presidential front-runner Joe Biden on Wednesday accused Republican President Donald Trump of fueling the white supremacy beliefs blamed for several U.S. mass shootings , as Trump visited two cities where 31 people were killed in rampages last weekend . “ In both clear language and in code , this president has fanned the flames of white supremacy in this nation , ” Biden , the former vice president , said in a speech in Burlington , Iowa . Another contender for the Democratic presidential nomination , U.S . Senator Cory Booker , took up the themes of white nationalism and gun violence in a speech at the historically black South Carolina church where white supremacist Dylann Roof shot dead nine people in 2015 . “ These acts of hatred do not happen in a vacuum , ” Booker said at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston . “ They are harvested only once they have been planted . ” The weekend ’ s back-to-back mass shootings intensified criticism of what many say is incendiary rhetoric by Trump . The president , who has insisted he is not a racist , said Americans must “ condemn racism , bigotry and white supremacy ” in a speech on Monday . On Saturday , a gunman killed 22 people in El Paso , a Texas city on the border with Mexico . Law enforcement agencies say the suspected gunman was driven by hatred for Hispanics , citing an online manifesto apparently written by the shooter that was rife with anti-immigrant hatred . In the second mass shooting 13 hours later , a gunman in Dayton , Ohio , fatally shot nine people , including his sister , before he was killed by police . 2020 Democratic U.S. presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden speaks during a campaign stop in Burlington , Iowa , U.S. , August 7 , 2019 . ███/Scott Morgan Trump ’ s rhetoric , including calling Central Americans trying to enter the United States “ an invasion , ” and his hard-line immigration policies have exposed him to renewed condemnation following the El Paso shooting . “ How far is it from Trump ’ s saying this ‘ is an invasion ’ to the shooter in El Paso declaring ‘ his attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas ? ’ Not far at all , ” Biden said in a fiery address . Trump aides deny his rhetoric was a cause of the shootings . In his national address , the president proposed reforming mental health laws , working with social media to detect possible mass shooters and keeping guns away from people considered potentially violent . He stopped short of calling for major gun law reforms . Trump visited El Paso and Dayton on Wednesday , where he was greeted by protesters . Biden and Booker are among 24 candidates vying to become the nominee to take on Trump in the November 2020 election . Most of the Democrats have called for stricter gun laws , including universal background checks for purchases and banning assault-style weapons . Booker has also proposed requiring licenses to own firearms . Biden invoked the rhetoric of previous presidents of both parties , including Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Bill Clinton , who he said “ opposed hate . ” “ We have a president who has aligned himself with the darkest forces in the nation , ” Biden said in Iowa . “ We have a president with a toxic tongue who has publicly and unapologetically embraced a political strategy of hate , racism , and division . ” In his remarks , Booker rejected the debate over whether Trump is a racist , saying that what really matters is how people intend to address the problem . “ If the answer to the question , ‘ Do racism and white supremacy exist ? ’ is yes , then the real question isn ’ t who is or isn ’ t a racist - but who is and isn ’ t doing something about it , ” he said .

LOS ANGELES/CHARLESTON, S.C. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential front-runner Joe Biden on Wednesday accused Republican President Donald Trump of fueling the white supremacy beliefs blamed for several U.S. mass shootings, as Trump visited two cities where 31 people were killed in rampages last weekend. “In both clear language and in code, this president has fanned the flames of white supremacy in this nation,” Biden, the former vice president, said in a speech in Burlington, Iowa. Another contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, U.S. Senator Cory Booker, took up the themes of white nationalism and gun violence in a speech at the historically black South Carolina church where white supremacist Dylann Roof shot dead nine people in 2015. “These acts of hatred do not happen in a vacuum,” Booker said at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston. “They are harvested only once they have been planted.” The weekend’s back-to-back mass shootings intensified criticism of what many say is incendiary rhetoric by Trump. The president, who has insisted he is not a racist, said Americans must “condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy” in a speech on Monday. On Saturday, a gunman killed 22 people in El Paso, a Texas city on the border with Mexico. Law enforcement agencies say the suspected gunman was driven by hatred for Hispanics, citing an online manifesto apparently written by the shooter that was rife with anti-immigrant hatred. In the second mass shooting 13 hours later, a gunman in Dayton, Ohio, fatally shot nine people, including his sister, before he was killed by police. 2020 Democratic U.S. presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden speaks during a campaign stop in Burlington, Iowa, U.S., August 7, 2019. REUTERS/Scott Morgan Trump’s rhetoric, including calling Central Americans trying to enter the United States “an invasion,” and his hard-line immigration policies have exposed him to renewed condemnation following the El Paso shooting. “How far is it from Trump’s saying this ‘is an invasion’ to the shooter in El Paso declaring ‘his attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas?’ Not far at all,” Biden said in a fiery address. Trump aides deny his rhetoric was a cause of the shootings. In his national address, the president proposed reforming mental health laws, working with social media to detect possible mass shooters and keeping guns away from people considered potentially violent. He stopped short of calling for major gun law reforms. Trump visited El Paso and Dayton on Wednesday, where he was greeted by protesters. Biden and Booker are among 24 candidates vying to become the nominee to take on Trump in the November 2020 election. Most of the Democrats have called for stricter gun laws, including universal background checks for purchases and banning assault-style weapons. Booker has also proposed requiring licenses to own firearms. Biden invoked the rhetoric of previous presidents of both parties, including Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Bill Clinton, who he said “opposed hate.” “We have a president who has aligned himself with the darkest forces in the nation,” Biden said in Iowa. “We have a president with a toxic tongue who has publicly and unapologetically embraced a political strategy of hate, racism, and division.” Slideshow (10 Images) In his remarks, Booker rejected the debate over whether Trump is a racist, saying that what really matters is how people intend to address the problem. “If the answer to the question, ‘Do racism and white supremacy exist?’ is yes, then the real question isn’t who is or isn’t a racist - but who is and isn’t doing something about it,” he said.

www.reuters.com

center

Vn4LSvlaacBAY3Xc

test

swQqvYCP44OX6z1M

great_britain

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/09/24/boris-johnson-suspended-parliament-unlawfully-uk-supreme-court-finds/

Boris Johnson Suspended Parliament Unlawfully, UK Supreme Court Finds

2019-09-24

Oliver Jj Lane

The United Kingdom Supreme Court has ruled that Prime Minister Boris Johnson was acting unlawfully when he suspended Parliament in August for five weeks , a move which anti-Brexit campaigners claimed was intended to thwart their attempts to prevent Britain leaving the European Union . In a shock ruling which strongly went against the government on every count , the Supreme Court in London unanimously found Tuesday morning that Boris Johnson ’ s decision to suspend Parliament was not only unlawful but was null and void , meaning it legally did not take place . Parliament is now free to sit again as soon as desired by the speakers of both houses , the court explained . British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has now reacted , speaking to the BBC on a balcony of the United Nations building in New York , insisting that despite the court ruling against him this morning Brexit would still be going ahead at the end of October as planned . In remarks that have already angered remainers , the Prime Minister said he regretted the decision of the court but pointed out the coalition of anti-Brexit campaigners who have worked tirelessly to prevent Britain ’ s withdrawal from going ahead . As I say , I strongly disagree with this decision of the supreme court , I have the utmost respect for our judiciary , I don ’ think this was the right decision I think that the prerogative of prorogation has been used for centuries without this kind of challenge . It is perfectly usual to have Queen ’ s speech , that ’ s what we want to do . More importantly , let ’ s be in no doubt there are a lot of people who want to frustrate Brexit . There are a lot of people who want to stop this country coming out of the EU . We have a parliament that is unable to be prorogued , doesn ’ t want to have an election , and I think it is time we took things forward . …as the law currently stands , the UK leaves the EU on October the 31st come what may , but the interesting , exciting thing for us now is to get a good deal and that ’ s what we are working on . And I ’ ll be honest with you… it is not made much easier by this kind of stuff in Parliament and the courts . Obviously getting a deal is not made much easier against this background but we ’ ve got to get on and do it . …As the law stands we leave on October the 31st and I am very hopeful that we will get a deal , and I think what the people of the country want is to see Parliamentarians coming together , working in the national interest to get this thing done , and that is what we are going to do . A government spokesman has said the Prime Minister will not resign , and he will return to the United Kingdom tonight after his speech to the United Nations . Update 1305 : Farage calls Boris proroguing parliament “ worst political decision ever ” Brexit leader Nigel Farage has no sympathy for Boris Johnson ’ s unforced error and has said his chief advisor Dominic Cummings — who has frequently crossed swords with Farage & co in the past — should step down over the affair which he is widely thought to have engineered . Speaking to Breitbart London before the ruling was made , Mr Farage said : “ We have a Parliament that twice has stopped us from having a General Election and instead we have a Supreme Court making a decision as to whether Boris Johnson remains prime minister ; virtually , that ’ s how important the ruling is . “ I don ’ t like it one little bit and I think our whole constitution has been thrown completely up into the air by Speaker Bercow and others . ” Read that and the responses of other political figures at Breitbart London The Supreme Court was the creation of the Blair years of government , a time of enormous constitutional and political change in the United Kingdom . As Breitbart London ’ s James Delingpole has it , the court Blair created is now doing his bidding . Read more here Delingpole : Judicial Enemies of the People Sabotage Brexit Again https : //t.co/GwteWW9Wyz — Breitbart London ( @ BreitbartLondon ) September 24 , 2019 Commons speaker John Bercow has spoken to reporters outside Parliament , answering the questions over when Parliament would resume , given the Supreme Court has given it leave to do so whenever it wishes . The answer is Wednesday morning , with opportunities for members to make urgent questions , request emergency debates , and to hold ministers to account . Expect fireworks . BREAKING : Speaker Bercow : Parliament Will ‘ Resume ’ Wednesday After Supreme Court Nullification of Suspension https : //t.co/2kWH5SaOKa — Breitbart London ( @ BreitbartLondon ) September 24 , 2019 Anti-Brexit politicians have leapt upon the ruling as resembling a fatal blow against Boris Johnson , who it is claimed could be the shortest-serving Prime Minister in British history if he were ousted now . But what or who could replace Mr Johnson is not clear as no single party can command a majority in Parliament . Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn addressed his party ’ s annual conference in Brighton as the ruling was made , and told the delegates there that the Prime Minister should “ consider his position ” . Speaking outside the Supreme Court former Tory MP turned independent Anna Soubry also called on the Prime Minister to resign , saying it was time for what she unironically calls a government of national unity to take power . Presumably formed of a coalition of opposition parties , the purpose of the much-discussed “ unity ” government would be to overturn Brexit , it has been claimed — despite delivering Brexit being the majority position in the United Kingdom . The first question was whether the court even had the right to consider the question — a matter of jurisdiction . Some had argued the division of powers under the UK constitution meant it would not be proper for the unelected judiciary to make decisions on the acts of the executive — the government — but the court disagreed , stating they believed they had the right . In the words of Lady Brenda Hale who read out the unanimous decision of the 11 justices , the matter was “ judicable ” , and for for them to decide on . Lady Hale explained : “ …this was not an ordinary prorogation in the run-up to a Queen ’ s speech . It prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional role in five out of the possible eight weeks between the end of the summer recess and the exit day on the 31st of October . Proroguing Parliament is quite different from parliament going into recess . “ While Parliament is Prorogued , neither house can meet , debate , or pass legislation . Neither house can debate government policy . Nor may members ask written or oral questions of ministers , or meet and take evidence in committees . ” Of the decision to Prorogue itself , Lady Hale said : “ The decision to ask her majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing Parliament from carrying out its constitutional functions without justification . ” Mr Johnson had used a mechanism known in Westminster parlance as Prorogation to suspend Parliament , usually a normal and regular event in Parliamentary life , but one met this time with outrage by anti-Brexiteers . Normal Parliamentary sessions have lasted between one and two years , being regularly suspended to clear out old unfinished legislation and to allow new government programmes to be launched . But amid the endless Parliamentary discussion over whether to honour the result of the 2016 referendum which saw the British people vote by a margin of over one million votes — the largest democratic mandate given in British history — this Parliamentary session has rumbled on , becoming the longest since the infamous ‘ long Parliament ’ of the English Civil War . The government under Mr Johnson insisted given those circumstances , and the fact the UK government has not yet been able to introduce new domestic legislation , it was reasonable to suspend Parliament . Anti-Brexit activists claim the Prime Minister not only lied to the country , but lied to the Queen , as under the British constitutional system she has to be asked as a formality to suspend Parliament . The Associated Press has created this handy timeline of the most recent events leading up to today , to give some context for today ’ s ruling : July 24 , 2019 : Boris Johnson becomes prime minister after winning a party leadership contest to succeed Theresa May . He vows to leave the European Union on Oct. 31 , with or without a deal . August 28 : Johnson suspends Parliament for a five-week period ending Oct. 14 . Queen Elizabeth II approves his request , as she is required to do under Britain ’ s constitutional monarchy . He says it is a routine decision to set the stage for announcement of his new domestic agenda , but House of Commons Speaker John Bercow calls it a “ constitutional outrage . ” August 29 : Activist Gina Miller launches legal action against Johnson at the High Court in London . Her case is subsequently joined by former prime minister John Major and others . August 30 : In a separate case , a judge in Scotland refuses to grant an emergency measure blocking the suspension of Parliament but schedules a full hearing at a later date . September 4 : The Court of Session in Scotland rejects the bid to have the suspension declared unlawful . September 5 : The High Court in London hears Miller ’ s case against the suspension . Her lawyers argue the move was an “ unlawful abuse of power ” by the prime minister . September 6 : The High Court in London rejects Miller ’ s case . She vows to take it to the Supreme Court . September 11 : The Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland rules that the suspension was illegal and was intended to “ stymie ” Parliament ahead of the Brexit deadline . September 17 : A three-day hearing on both cases begins at the Supreme Court , with 11 justices presiding . September 24 : The Supreme Court is scheduled to announce its decision .

The United Kingdom Supreme Court has ruled that Prime Minister Boris Johnson was acting unlawfully when he suspended Parliament in August for five weeks, a move which anti-Brexit campaigners claimed was intended to thwart their attempts to prevent Britain leaving the European Union. In a shock ruling which strongly went against the government on every count, the Supreme Court in London unanimously found Tuesday morning that Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament was not only unlawful but was null and void, meaning it legally did not take place. Parliament is now free to sit again as soon as desired by the speakers of both houses, the court explained. Update 1330: Boris Johnson speaks British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has now reacted, speaking to the BBC on a balcony of the United Nations building in New York, insisting that despite the court ruling against him this morning Brexit would still be going ahead at the end of October as planned. In remarks that have already angered remainers, the Prime Minister said he regretted the decision of the court but pointed out the coalition of anti-Brexit campaigners who have worked tirelessly to prevent Britain’s withdrawal from going ahead. The Prime Minister told the BBC: As I say, I strongly disagree with this decision of the supreme court, I have the utmost respect for our judiciary, I don’ think this was the right decision I think that the prerogative of prorogation has been used for centuries without this kind of challenge. It is perfectly usual to have Queen’s speech, that’s what we want to do. More importantly, let’s be in no doubt there are a lot of people who want to frustrate Brexit. There are a lot of people who want to stop this country coming out of the EU. We have a parliament that is unable to be prorogued, doesn’t want to have an election, and I think it is time we took things forward. …as the law currently stands, the UK leaves the EU on October the 31st come what may, but the interesting, exciting thing for us now is to get a good deal and that’s what we are working on. And I’ll be honest with you… it is not made much easier by this kind of stuff in Parliament and the courts. Obviously getting a deal is not made much easier against this background but we’ve got to get on and do it. …As the law stands we leave on October the 31st and I am very hopeful that we will get a deal, and I think what the people of the country want is to see Parliamentarians coming together, working in the national interest to get this thing done, and that is what we are going to do. A government spokesman has said the Prime Minister will not resign, and he will return to the United Kingdom tonight after his speech to the United Nations. Update 1305: Farage calls Boris proroguing parliament “worst political decision ever” Brexit leader Nigel Farage has no sympathy for Boris Johnson’s unforced error and has said his chief advisor Dominic Cummings — who has frequently crossed swords with Farage & co in the past — should step down over the affair which he is widely thought to have engineered. Speaking to Breitbart London before the ruling was made, Mr Farage said: “We have a Parliament that twice has stopped us from having a General Election and instead we have a Supreme Court making a decision as to whether Boris Johnson remains prime minister; virtually, that’s how important the ruling is. “I don’t like it one little bit and I think our whole constitution has been thrown completely up into the air by Speaker Bercow and others.” Read that and the responses of other political figures at Breitbart London Update 1255: Tony Blair’s lingering influence on British politics The Supreme Court was the creation of the Blair years of government, a time of enormous constitutional and political change in the United Kingdom. As Breitbart London’s James Delingpole has it, the court Blair created is now doing his bidding. Read more here Delingpole: Judicial Enemies of the People Sabotage Brexit Again https://t.co/GwteWW9Wyz — Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) September 24, 2019 Update 1220: Parliament will resume session tomorrow Commons speaker John Bercow has spoken to reporters outside Parliament, answering the questions over when Parliament would resume, given the Supreme Court has given it leave to do so whenever it wishes. The answer is Wednesday morning, with opportunities for members to make urgent questions, request emergency debates, and to hold ministers to account. Expect fireworks. BREAKING: Speaker Bercow: Parliament Will ‘Resume’ Wednesday After Supreme Court Nullification of Suspension https://t.co/2kWH5SaOKa — Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) September 24, 2019 Update 1115: Calls for the Prime Minister to resign Anti-Brexit politicians have leapt upon the ruling as resembling a fatal blow against Boris Johnson, who it is claimed could be the shortest-serving Prime Minister in British history if he were ousted now. But what or who could replace Mr Johnson is not clear as no single party can command a majority in Parliament. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn addressed his party’s annual conference in Brighton as the ruling was made, and told the delegates there that the Prime Minister should “consider his position”. Speaking outside the Supreme Court former Tory MP turned independent Anna Soubry also called on the Prime Minister to resign, saying it was time for what she unironically calls a government of national unity to take power. Presumably formed of a coalition of opposition parties, the purpose of the much-discussed “unity” government would be to overturn Brexit, it has been claimed — despite delivering Brexit being the majority position in the United Kingdom. The original story continues below: The first question was whether the court even had the right to consider the question — a matter of jurisdiction. Some had argued the division of powers under the UK constitution meant it would not be proper for the unelected judiciary to make decisions on the acts of the executive — the government — but the court disagreed, stating they believed they had the right. In the words of Lady Brenda Hale who read out the unanimous decision of the 11 justices, the matter was “judicable”, and for for them to decide on. Lady Hale explained: “…this was not an ordinary prorogation in the run-up to a Queen’s speech. It prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional role in five out of the possible eight weeks between the end of the summer recess and the exit day on the 31st of October. Proroguing Parliament is quite different from parliament going into recess. “While Parliament is Prorogued, neither house can meet, debate, or pass legislation. Neither house can debate government policy. Nor may members ask written or oral questions of ministers, or meet and take evidence in committees.” Of the decision to Prorogue itself, Lady Hale said: “The decision to ask her majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing Parliament from carrying out its constitutional functions without justification.” Mr Johnson had used a mechanism known in Westminster parlance as Prorogation to suspend Parliament, usually a normal and regular event in Parliamentary life, but one met this time with outrage by anti-Brexiteers. Normal Parliamentary sessions have lasted between one and two years, being regularly suspended to clear out old unfinished legislation and to allow new government programmes to be launched. But amid the endless Parliamentary discussion over whether to honour the result of the 2016 referendum which saw the British people vote by a margin of over one million votes — the largest democratic mandate given in British history — this Parliamentary session has rumbled on, becoming the longest since the infamous ‘long Parliament’ of the English Civil War. The government under Mr Johnson insisted given those circumstances, and the fact the UK government has not yet been able to introduce new domestic legislation, it was reasonable to suspend Parliament. Anti-Brexit activists claim the Prime Minister not only lied to the country, but lied to the Queen, as under the British constitutional system she has to be asked as a formality to suspend Parliament. The Associated Press has created this handy timeline of the most recent events leading up to today, to give some context for today’s ruling: July 24, 2019: Boris Johnson becomes prime minister after winning a party leadership contest to succeed Theresa May. He vows to leave the European Union on Oct. 31, with or without a deal. August 28: Johnson suspends Parliament for a five-week period ending Oct. 14. Queen Elizabeth II approves his request, as she is required to do under Britain’s constitutional monarchy. He says it is a routine decision to set the stage for announcement of his new domestic agenda, but House of Commons Speaker John Bercow calls it a “constitutional outrage.” August 29: Activist Gina Miller launches legal action against Johnson at the High Court in London. Her case is subsequently joined by former prime minister John Major and others. August 30: In a separate case, a judge in Scotland refuses to grant an emergency measure blocking the suspension of Parliament but schedules a full hearing at a later date. September 4: The Court of Session in Scotland rejects the bid to have the suspension declared unlawful. September 5: The High Court in London hears Miller’s case against the suspension. Her lawyers argue the move was an “unlawful abuse of power” by the prime minister. September 6: The High Court in London rejects Miller’s case. She vows to take it to the Supreme Court. September 11: The Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland rules that the suspension was illegal and was intended to “stymie” Parliament ahead of the Brexit deadline. September 17: A three-day hearing on both cases begins at the Supreme Court, with 11 justices presiding. September 24: The Supreme Court is scheduled to announce its decision.

www.breitbart.com

right

swQqvYCP44OX6z1M

test

YKciubox3480YfxZ

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/16/donald_trump_is_about_to_prove_what_a_joke_the_republican_primary_is/

Donald Trump is about to prove what a joke the Republican Primary is

2015-06-16

Bob Cesca

Comedians and political writers everywhere are on the verge of enjoying a great big simultaneous orgasm . D-Day -- Donald Day -- is upon us and more than any other previous election cycle , it looks like Donald Trump might actually bestow upon us the comedy gift that 'll keep on giving for a way-too-brief six-to-eight months . According to The Washington Post , Trump is `` likely '' to announce his entry into the campaign for the 2016 Republican Party presidential nomination . One of the Post 's leading indicators is that Trump plans to publish a two-page financial document summarizing his $ 9 billion net worth immediately following his speech at Trump Tower in Manhattan ( here 's to hoping it 's outdoors , on the roof , and really windy ) . All that said , it 's entirely possible this is another Trump bait-and-switch publicity stunt . You might recall how he teased a possible presidential run for the 2012 GOP nomination . At one point , Trump quizzed his contestants on Celebrity Apprentice , asking Meat Loaf if he thought Trump should run , to which Meat Loaf replied with an enthusiastic , `` Absolutely ! '' By the way , that was a feature of the presidential election four years ago -- asking Meat Loaf for political advice -- and it 's actually grown far worse in the last four years . Indeed , today , if Meat Loaf himself decided to run as a Republican , he 'd probably poll better than half the field . With Trump officially joining the race , he vindicates the increasingly obvious analysis that the Republican Party , at the presidential level at least , is little more than a shell corporation for opportunists and careerists who are n't interested in governing or even winning . The addition of Trump is the would-be final brick in the effort to turn the GOP 's nominating process into a dysfunctional and menacingly ugly reality show competition in which the contestants each scramble to be the most flagrant panderer to the Tea Party base and , subsequently , augment their Q-scores within the lucrative conservative entertainment complex . That 's the real prize , and Trump , above all the others , is aiming to scoop up as much of that as he can . He wo n't win the nomination , but that 's not his goal , nor is it the goal of most of the field . The real race is for celebrity heft . According to RealClearPolitics , Trump is polling somewhere close to the middle of the field at around 3.6 percent . The fact that he 's ahead of Rick Perry , Rick Santorum , Carly Fiorina , Lindsey Graham , Bobby Jindal , and Ohio Gov . John Kasich speaks volumes about where Republican voters are right now . Specifically , they 're not completely ashamed to support a billionaire doofus like Trump . But they should be . ( Perhaps we should ask Meat Loaf if he 's not too ashamed to support Trump . ) It ought to be obvious to anyone paying attention that when Trump says he has a `` secret plan '' to defeat ISIS , but wo n't reveal it until he 's president , there 's clearly no plan and he 's making it up . If he really had a plan , he 'd at least talk about the bullet points to , at the very least , do his part to prevent another beheading . But he 'll just wait until Inauguration Day , 2017 , two years from now to spill the beans about his secret ISIS plan . He 's quite the humanitarian . The fact of the matter is that Trump is a circus sideshow attraction who 's incongruously being regarded as a somewhat serious contender , at least according to the polls . If the first debate were to be held tomorrow , Trump would be one of the top-tier candidates invited to participate . Again , fantastic for those of us who make a living tearing down cartoon characters like Trump , but it 's really bad news for American politics . If the Republican Party truly believes that there 's a serious set of crises facing America , and that they must be resolved or else , the party surely is n't telegraphing to the world that it 's interested in fielding candidates who are commensurate with the seriousness of the nation 's perils . Indeed , it 's exactly the opposite . The more the GOP screeches about how disastrous the Obama presidency has been -- deliberately killing babies , leading from behind , destroying jobs and leading us to the brink of a socialist dystopia ( no matter that none of that is true ) -- then name one serious GOP candidate who can do something to ameliorate all that . It 's definitely not Trump , who 's nothing more than a blowhard reality show hack who lucked and scammed his way into fame and fortune .

Comedians and political writers everywhere are on the verge of enjoying a great big simultaneous orgasm. D-Day -- Donald Day -- is upon us and more than any other previous election cycle, it looks like Donald Trump might actually bestow upon us the comedy gift that'll keep on giving for a way-too-brief six-to-eight months. According to The Washington Post, Trump is "likely" to announce his entry into the campaign for the 2016 Republican Party presidential nomination. One of the Post's leading indicators is that Trump plans to publish a two-page financial document summarizing his $9 billion net worth immediately following his speech at Trump Tower in Manhattan (here's to hoping it's outdoors, on the roof, and really windy). Advertisement: All that said, it's entirely possible this is another Trump bait-and-switch publicity stunt. You might recall how he teased a possible presidential run for the 2012 GOP nomination. At one point, Trump quizzed his contestants on Celebrity Apprentice, asking Meat Loaf if he thought Trump should run, to which Meat Loaf replied with an enthusiastic, "Absolutely!" By the way, that was a feature of the presidential election four years ago -- asking Meat Loaf for political advice -- and it's actually grown far worse in the last four years. Indeed, today, if Meat Loaf himself decided to run as a Republican, he'd probably poll better than half the field. With Trump officially joining the race, he vindicates the increasingly obvious analysis that the Republican Party, at the presidential level at least, is little more than a shell corporation for opportunists and careerists who aren't interested in governing or even winning. The addition of Trump is the would-be final brick in the effort to turn the GOP's nominating process into a dysfunctional and menacingly ugly reality show competition in which the contestants each scramble to be the most flagrant panderer to the Tea Party base and, subsequently, augment their Q-scores within the lucrative conservative entertainment complex. That's the real prize, and Trump, above all the others, is aiming to scoop up as much of that as he can. He won't win the nomination, but that's not his goal, nor is it the goal of most of the field. The real race is for celebrity heft. According to RealClearPolitics, Trump is polling somewhere close to the middle of the field at around 3.6 percent. The fact that he's ahead of Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich speaks volumes about where Republican voters are right now. Specifically, they're not completely ashamed to support a billionaire doofus like Trump. But they should be. (Perhaps we should ask Meat Loaf if he's not too ashamed to support Trump.) It ought to be obvious to anyone paying attention that when Trump says he has a "secret plan" to defeat ISIS, but won't reveal it until he's president, there's clearly no plan and he's making it up. If he really had a plan, he'd at least talk about the bullet points to, at the very least, do his part to prevent another beheading. But he'll just wait until Inauguration Day, 2017, two years from now to spill the beans about his secret ISIS plan. He's quite the humanitarian. Advertisement: The fact of the matter is that Trump is a circus sideshow attraction who's incongruously being regarded as a somewhat serious contender, at least according to the polls. If the first debate were to be held tomorrow, Trump would be one of the top-tier candidates invited to participate. Again, fantastic for those of us who make a living tearing down cartoon characters like Trump, but it's really bad news for American politics. If the Republican Party truly believes that there's a serious set of crises facing America, and that they must be resolved or else, the party surely isn't telegraphing to the world that it's interested in fielding candidates who are commensurate with the seriousness of the nation's perils. Indeed, it's exactly the opposite. The more the GOP screeches about how disastrous the Obama presidency has been -- deliberately killing babies, leading from behind, destroying jobs and leading us to the brink of a socialist dystopia (no matter that none of that is true) -- then name one serious GOP candidate who can do something to ameliorate all that. It's definitely not Trump, who's nothing more than a blowhard reality show hack who lucked and scammed his way into fame and fortune.

www.salon.com

left

YKciubox3480YfxZ

test

rhkk8IE4kPlKKC6D

media_bias

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/oops-the-media-got-the-caravan-wrong/

Oops! The Media Got the Caravan Wrong

Jeffrey Lord, Scott Mckay, Ed Morrow, Roger Kaplan

Over there at Breitbart and also at the New York Post , John Nolte and Rich Lowry have nailed it exactly . To wit : the media got the caravan thunderously , embarrassingly wrong . Fox ’ s Shepard Smith assured : “ There is no invasion , ” he said . “ There ’ s nothing at all to worry about. ” Nolte links to this ITV report — and there are the migrants storming the U.S. border , as here . Then there was , famously , CNN ’ s Jim Acosta at that showdown in the East Room with the President . Acosta lecturing the President that “ As you know , Mr. President , the caravan was not an invasion… . Your campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls and so on , but they ’ re not going to be doing that. ” Nolte links to this video put together by the Daily Caller ’ s Benny Johnson , in which Benny overlays the tape of Acosta insisting on all of this while showing the caravan members — yes indeed — storming the U.S. border and throwing rocks . Rich Lowry headlined the same story this way in the Post : Trump ’ s critics were dead wrong about the caravan after all It ’ s been about three weeks since CNN reporter Jim Acosta repeatedly told President Trump at a news conference that the migrant caravan is “ hundreds and hundreds of miles away ” and “ not an invasion. ” Acosta strenuously objected to a Trump ad that showed migrants climbing border walls : “ They ’ re not going to be doing that. ” Now , thousands of migrants from the caravan have arrived in the border city of Tijuana , Mexico . Over the weekend , hundreds of them stormed a border crossing , climbing the fence and throwing rocks . US border agents used tear gas to repel the mob . If the throng was too small to constitute an invasion , it certainly wasn ’ t a rules-bound group of asylum seekers . Lowry too included a link in his story , included above , which takes viewers to this headline in the Post : US agents fire tear gas at migrants in start of border clashes with Mexico US Border Patrol agents fired tear gas to repel rock-throwing migrants who tried to storm through a border fence separating California and Mexico on Sunday . Some of the migrants , part of the caravan that traveled to the border from Central America , threw “ projectiles ” at border agents as they approached the fence , officials said . Video appeared to show rocks being thrown . US Customs and Border Protection later tweeted that several agents were struck and tear gas was used “ to dispel the group because of the risk to agents ’ safety . ” The question , then , is why ? How on earth could anyone watching what has been going on with this caravan of people storming across borders , knocking down the gates separating Guatemala from Mexico — and possibly think this was not going to happen when these same people reached the U.S. border ? Fox ’ s Brit Hume tweeted out the obvious answer : “ TDS makes for bad politics and bad journalism . ” “ TDS , ” of course , is “ Trump Derangement Syndrome. ” And Hume , Nolte , and Lowry all got it exactly right . The fact that what was coming in terms of migrants storming the border — violently — was so starkly obvious , only to see smart journalists ( and Smith and Acosta were far from alone on this ) close their eyes and stoutly insist it would never happen is breathtaking in its wrongheadedness . Yes , yes . I understand they don ’ t like President Trump . But there ’ s a huge difference between honest political differences with a President ( or anyone else ) , and being so overcome with a foaming rage at the man that it blinds to a reality that should be obvious to your average five-year-old . Weeks ago the President , with a totally clear-eyed understanding of what was coming , started preparing — something Presidents are paid to do . Troops were dispatched to protect the border . Barbed wire barriers were installed to protect the border . Tear gas was at the ready . And when the tear gas was used against the mob of border storming , rock throwing invaders ? Ohhhh the horror ! Trump critics were furious . But there was something curious about the overwrought reaction from the likes of the ACLU , Human Rights Watch , and others . It seems that , well , President Obama did exactly the same thing . Here ’ s the headline from the Washington Times : Tear gas used once a month at border under Obama DHS data shows deployments dating back years The same tear-gas agent that the Trump administration is taking heat for deploying against a border mob this weekend is actually used fairly frequently — including more than once a month during the later years of President Barack Obama ’ s administration , according to Homeland Security data . U.S. Customs and Border Protection has used 2-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile , or CS , since 2010 , and deployed it 26 times in fiscal 2012 and 27 times in 2013 . The use dropped after that , but was still deployed three times in 2016 , Mr. Obama ’ s final full year in office . And where were the Trump critics then ? Silent as church mice . Which is to say , it was OK for Obama — but not for Trump . Yet again this is Trump Derangement Syndrome in action . And , one suspects , the only people to have their credibility damaged are those who let TDS so cloud their judgment that it blinds them to blatantly obvious reality .

Over there at Breitbart and also at the New York Post, John Nolte and Rich Lowry have nailed it exactly. To wit: the media got the caravan thunderously, embarrassingly wrong. Nolte points out the following. Fox’s Shepard Smith assured: “There is no invasion,” he said. “There’s nothing at all to worry about.” Nolte links to this ITV report — and there are the migrants storming the U.S. border, as here. Then there was, famously, CNN’s Jim Acosta at that showdown in the East Room with the President. Acosta lecturing the President that “As you know, Mr. President, the caravan was not an invasion…. Your campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls and so on, but they’re not going to be doing that.” Nolte links to this video put together by the Daily Caller’s Benny Johnson, in which Benny overlays the tape of Acosta insisting on all of this while showing the caravan members — yes indeed — storming the U.S. border and throwing rocks. Rich Lowry headlined the same story this way in the Post: Trump’s critics were dead wrong about the caravan after all Rich wrote in part: It’s been about three weeks since CNN reporter Jim Acosta repeatedly told President Trump at a news conference that the migrant caravan is “hundreds and hundreds of miles away” and “not an invasion.” Acosta strenuously objected to a Trump ad that showed migrants climbing border walls: “They’re not going to be doing that.” Now, thousands of migrants from the caravan have arrived in the border city of Tijuana, Mexico. Over the weekend, hundreds of them stormed a border crossing, climbing the fence and throwing rocks. US border agents used tear gas to repel the mob. If the throng was too small to constitute an invasion, it certainly wasn’t a rules-bound group of asylum seekers. Lowry too included a link in his story, included above, which takes viewers to this headline in the Post: US agents fire tear gas at migrants in start of border clashes with Mexico That Post story begins: US Border Patrol agents fired tear gas to repel rock-throwing migrants who tried to storm through a border fence separating California and Mexico on Sunday. Some of the migrants, part of the caravan that traveled to the border from Central America, threw “projectiles” at border agents as they approached the fence, officials said. Video appeared to show rocks being thrown. US Customs and Border Protection later tweeted that several agents were struck and tear gas was used “to dispel the group because of the risk to agents’ safety.” The question, then, is why? How on earth could anyone watching what has been going on with this caravan of people storming across borders, knocking down the gates separating Guatemala from Mexico — and possibly think this was not going to happen when these same people reached the U.S. border? Fox’s Brit Hume tweeted out the obvious answer: “TDS makes for bad politics and bad journalism.” “TDS,” of course, is “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” And Hume, Nolte, and Lowry all got it exactly right. The fact that what was coming in terms of migrants storming the border — violently — was so starkly obvious, only to see smart journalists (and Smith and Acosta were far from alone on this) close their eyes and stoutly insist it would never happen is breathtaking in its wrongheadedness. Yes, yes. I understand they don’t like President Trump. But there’s a huge difference between honest political differences with a President (or anyone else), and being so overcome with a foaming rage at the man that it blinds to a reality that should be obvious to your average five-year-old. Weeks ago the President, with a totally clear-eyed understanding of what was coming, started preparing — something Presidents are paid to do. Troops were dispatched to protect the border. Barbed wire barriers were installed to protect the border. Tear gas was at the ready. And when the tear gas was used against the mob of border storming, rock throwing invaders? Ohhhh the horror! Trump critics were furious. But there was something curious about the overwrought reaction from the likes of the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, and others. It seems that, well, President Obama did exactly the same thing. Here’s the headline from the Washington Times: Tear gas used once a month at border under Obama DHS data shows deployments dating back years This story begins: The same tear-gas agent that the Trump administration is taking heat for deploying against a border mob this weekend is actually used fairly frequently — including more than once a month during the later years of President Barack Obama’s administration, according to Homeland Security data. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has used 2-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile, or CS, since 2010, and deployed it 26 times in fiscal 2012 and 27 times in 2013. The use dropped after that, but was still deployed three times in 2016, Mr. Obama’s final full year in office. And where were the Trump critics then? Silent as church mice. Which is to say, it was OK for Obama — but not for Trump. Yet again this is Trump Derangement Syndrome in action. And, one suspects, the only people to have their credibility damaged are those who let TDS so cloud their judgment that it blinds them to blatantly obvious reality.

www.spectator.org

right

rhkk8IE4kPlKKC6D

test

v4b9bAzoVEAPD7So

lgbt_rights

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/02/04/iowa-caucus-voter-requests-vote-back-after-learning-pete-buttigieg-is-gay/

Iowa Caucus Voter Requests Vote Back After Learning Pete Buttigieg Is Gay

2020-02-04

Kyle Morris

An Iowa caucus voter has received a lot of attention after a video captured Monday night showed her requesting her vote back when she learned that Democrat presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg is gay . The video , which was shared on Twitter by Annabel Park , showed the woman in a conversation with Buttigieg ’ s caucus precinct captain Nikki van den Heever , who attempted to reason with her . The exchange occurred shortly after the woman signed a card in support of Buttigieg . # PeteButtigieg precinct captain in rural Iowa responds to a caucus-goer flipping out upon learning that he has a same-sex partner . It ’ s a masterclass in patience , persistence , and love . Bravo @ nikkiheever # IowaCaucuses # cresco # howardcountyiowa pic.twitter.com/PhX7vRFh8X — Annabel Park ( @ annabelpark ) February 4 , 2020 “ Are you saying that he has the same-sex partner ? ” the unnamed woman asked . “ Are you kidding ? Then I don ’ t want anybody like that in the White House . So can I have my card back ? ” Van den Heever attempted to diffuse any future escalation of the situation and suggested that the two of them could “ go ask ” if the voter could have her card back and pointed out that Buttigieg “ is just a human being ” and said that “ God doesn ’ t choose a political party . ” “ Well he better read the Bible , ” the voter said . “ Why does it say in the Bible that a man should marry a woman then ? ” “ How come this has never been brought out before , ” the woman inquired , before being told that Buttigieg being gay is “ common knowledge . ” Van den Heever then attempted to reason further with the woman and asked her to vote based on what she believes , rather than if someone is “ a woman or it ’ s a man or if they ’ re heterosexual. ” As for her prior beliefs of Buttigieg , the woman responded , “ it all just went down the toilet . ”

An Iowa caucus voter has received a lot of attention after a video captured Monday night showed her requesting her vote back when she learned that Democrat presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg is gay. The video, which was shared on Twitter by Annabel Park, showed the woman in a conversation with Buttigieg’s caucus precinct captain Nikki van den Heever, who attempted to reason with her. The exchange occurred shortly after the woman signed a card in support of Buttigieg. #PeteButtigieg precinct captain in rural Iowa responds to a caucus-goer flipping out upon learning that he has a same-sex partner. It’s a masterclass in patience, persistence, and love. Bravo @nikkiheever #IowaCaucuses #cresco #howardcountyiowa pic.twitter.com/PhX7vRFh8X — Annabel Park (@annabelpark) February 4, 2020 “Are you saying that he has the same-sex partner?” the unnamed woman asked. “Are you kidding? Then I don’t want anybody like that in the White House. So can I have my card back?” Van den Heever attempted to diffuse any future escalation of the situation and suggested that the two of them could “go ask” if the voter could have her card back and pointed out that Buttigieg “is just a human being” and said that “God doesn’t choose a political party.” “Well he better read the Bible,” the voter said. “Why does it say in the Bible that a man should marry a woman then?” “How come this has never been brought out before,” the woman inquired, before being told that Buttigieg being gay is “common knowledge.” Van den Heever then attempted to reason further with the woman and asked her to vote based on what she believes, rather than if someone is “a woman or it’s a man or if they’re heterosexual.” As for her prior beliefs of Buttigieg, the woman responded, “it all just went down the toilet.” Follow Kyle on Twitter @RealKyleMorris and Facebook.

www.breitbart.com

right

v4b9bAzoVEAPD7So

test

TfsbRh2z2dA0eEUg

supreme_court

Associated Press

https://www.apnews.com/cd658b2da9da44989ab585db559e4058

SUPREME COURT NOTEBOOK: Gender pronouns part of LGBT fight

2019-08-20

Mark Sherman, Jessica Gresko

FILE - In this Oct. 18 , 2018 file photo , the U.S. Supreme Court is seen at near sunset in Washington . Dozens of legal briefs supporting fired funeral director Aimee Stephens at the Supreme Court use “ she ” and “ her ” to refer to the transgender woman . So does the appeals court ruling in favor of Stephens that held that workplace discrimination against transgender people is illegal under federal civil rights law . But in more than 110 pages urging the Supreme Court to reverse that decision , the Trump administration and the funeral home where Stephens worked avoid those gender pronouns . ( AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta , File ) FILE - In this Oct. 18 , 2018 file photo , the U.S. Supreme Court is seen at near sunset in Washington . Dozens of legal briefs supporting fired funeral director Aimee Stephens at the Supreme Court use “ she ” and “ her ” to refer to the transgender woman . So does the appeals court ruling in favor of Stephens that held that workplace discrimination against transgender people is illegal under federal civil rights law . But in more than 110 pages urging the Supreme Court to reverse that decision , the Trump administration and the funeral home where Stephens worked avoid those gender pronouns . ( AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta , File ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — Dozens of legal briefs supporting fired funeral director Aimee Stephens at the Supreme Court use “ she ” and “ her ” to refer to the transgender woman . So does the appeals court ruling in favor of Stephens that held that workplace discrimination against transgender people is illegal under federal civil rights law . But in more than 110 pages urging the Supreme Court to reverse that decision , the Trump administration and the Michigan funeral home where Stephens worked avoid gender pronouns , repeatedly using Stephens ’ name . Stephens ’ case is one of two major fights over LGBT rights that will be argued at the high court on Oct. 8 . The other tests whether discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation also violates the provision of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 , known as Title 7 , that prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of sex . The cases are expected to be decided by next spring , during the presidential election campaign . Decisions about gender pronouns may seem minor , but they appear to reflect the larger issues involved in this high-stakes battle . John Bursch , the Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer who will argue on behalf of Harris Funeral Homes , wrote , “ Out of respect for Stephens and following this Court ’ s lead in Farmer v. Brennan ... Harris tries to avoid use of pronouns and sex-specific terms when referring to Stephens. ” Farmer v. Brennan was a 1994 decision that did not use gender pronouns to describe a transsexual prison inmate who had been assaulted by other inmates . The administration ’ s court filing arguing that Title 7 “ does not prohibit discrimination against transgender persons based on their transgender status ” offers no explanation for the absence of gender pronouns for Stephens . A Justice Department spokeswoman did not respond to an email seeking comment . “ It ’ s sad that neither the funeral home nor the Department of Justice can bring themselves to be minimally respectful of Aimee . But the real tragedy is that our government is urging the Supreme Court to rule that firing workers because they are transgender is perfectly legal , ” said James Esseks , director of the American Civil Liberties Union ’ s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & HIV Project . The ACLU represents Stephens at the Supreme Court . Many organizations , including The ███ , use the gender pronouns an individual prefers . That was the case when the 6th U.S . Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Stephens ’ favor . “ We refer to Stephens using female pronouns , in accordance with the preference she has expressed , ” Judge Karen Moore wrote . In a similar case that reached the Supreme Court just before the 2016 election , a Virginia county school board fought transgender high school student Gavin Grimm , initially identified only by his initials , over his desire to use the boys ’ bathroom . The court eventually dismissed the case when President Donald Trump was elected and withdrew Obama administration policy that favored transgender students . “ This petition uses ‘ he , ’ ‘ him , ’ and ‘ his ’ to respect G.G. ‘ s desire to be referred to with male pronouns . That choice does not concede anything on the legal question of what G.G. ‘ s ‘ sex ’ is for purposes of Title IX and its implementing regulation , ” conservative lawyer Kyle Duncan wrote in representing the school board at the Supreme Court . Duncan has since been named by Trump to the 5th U.S . Circuit Court of Appeals . The court ’ s long recess doesn ’ t end until October , but just as students get back to hitting the books with their return to school , Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch will be pitching them . Each has a book due out in September . Sotomayor ’ s 32-page children ’ s book , “ Just Ask ! : Be Different , Be Brave , Be You ” will be published on Sept. 3 . It ’ s about kids with life challenges such as diabetes , which Sotomayor was diagnosed with as a child . The book is her fourth in her 10 years on the court and , like the others , will be released in both English and Spanish . Gorsuch ’ s book , “ A Republic , If You Can Keep It , ” comes out a week later . The 352-page book is Gorsuch ’ s reflections , speeches and essays on the Constitution . The title comes from a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin at the end of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 . Gorsuch ’ s book is his first as a justice . He wrote “ The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia ” in 2006 . To promote his book , Gorsuch will speak at two presidential libraries in September : the Richard Nixon Library in California and the George W. Bush Presidential Center in Texas . He ’ ll also give a book talk at the National Archives in Washington . Sotomayor , meanwhile , will be making September appearances in suburban Atlanta and Chicago .

FILE - In this Oct. 18, 2018 file photo, the U.S. Supreme Court is seen at near sunset in Washington. Dozens of legal briefs supporting fired funeral director Aimee Stephens at the Supreme Court use “she” and “her” to refer to the transgender woman. So does the appeals court ruling in favor of Stephens that held that workplace discrimination against transgender people is illegal under federal civil rights law. But in more than 110 pages urging the Supreme Court to reverse that decision, the Trump administration and the funeral home where Stephens worked avoid those gender pronouns. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File) FILE - In this Oct. 18, 2018 file photo, the U.S. Supreme Court is seen at near sunset in Washington. Dozens of legal briefs supporting fired funeral director Aimee Stephens at the Supreme Court use “she” and “her” to refer to the transgender woman. So does the appeals court ruling in favor of Stephens that held that workplace discrimination against transgender people is illegal under federal civil rights law. But in more than 110 pages urging the Supreme Court to reverse that decision, the Trump administration and the funeral home where Stephens worked avoid those gender pronouns. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — Dozens of legal briefs supporting fired funeral director Aimee Stephens at the Supreme Court use “she” and “her” to refer to the transgender woman. So does the appeals court ruling in favor of Stephens that held that workplace discrimination against transgender people is illegal under federal civil rights law. But in more than 110 pages urging the Supreme Court to reverse that decision, the Trump administration and the Michigan funeral home where Stephens worked avoid gender pronouns, repeatedly using Stephens’ name. Stephens’ case is one of two major fights over LGBT rights that will be argued at the high court on Oct. 8. The other tests whether discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation also violates the provision of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, known as Title 7, that prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of sex. The cases are expected to be decided by next spring, during the presidential election campaign. Decisions about gender pronouns may seem minor, but they appear to reflect the larger issues involved in this high-stakes battle. John Bursch, the Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer who will argue on behalf of Harris Funeral Homes, wrote, “Out of respect for Stephens and following this Court’s lead in Farmer v. Brennan ... Harris tries to avoid use of pronouns and sex-specific terms when referring to Stephens.” Farmer v. Brennan was a 1994 decision that did not use gender pronouns to describe a transsexual prison inmate who had been assaulted by other inmates. The administration’s court filing arguing that Title 7 “does not prohibit discrimination against transgender persons based on their transgender status” offers no explanation for the absence of gender pronouns for Stephens. A Justice Department spokeswoman did not respond to an email seeking comment. “It’s sad that neither the funeral home nor the Department of Justice can bring themselves to be minimally respectful of Aimee. But the real tragedy is that our government is urging the Supreme Court to rule that firing workers because they are transgender is perfectly legal,” said James Esseks, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & HIV Project. The ACLU represents Stephens at the Supreme Court. Many organizations, including The Associated Press, use the gender pronouns an individual prefers. That was the case when the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Stephens’ favor. “We refer to Stephens using female pronouns, in accordance with the preference she has expressed,” Judge Karen Moore wrote. In a similar case that reached the Supreme Court just before the 2016 election, a Virginia county school board fought transgender high school student Gavin Grimm, initially identified only by his initials, over his desire to use the boys’ bathroom. The court eventually dismissed the case when President Donald Trump was elected and withdrew Obama administration policy that favored transgender students. “This petition uses ‘he,’ ‘him,’ and ‘his’ to respect G.G.‘s desire to be referred to with male pronouns. That choice does not concede anything on the legal question of what G.G.‘s ‘sex’ is for purposes of Title IX and its implementing regulation,” conservative lawyer Kyle Duncan wrote in representing the school board at the Supreme Court. Duncan has since been named by Trump to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. ___ The court’s long recess doesn’t end until October, but just as students get back to hitting the books with their return to school, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch will be pitching them. Each has a book due out in September. Sotomayor’s 32-page children’s book, “Just Ask!: Be Different, Be Brave, Be You” will be published on Sept. 3. It’s about kids with life challenges such as diabetes, which Sotomayor was diagnosed with as a child. The book is her fourth in her 10 years on the court and, like the others, will be released in both English and Spanish. Gorsuch’s book, “A Republic, If You Can Keep It,” comes out a week later. The 352-page book is Gorsuch’s reflections, speeches and essays on the Constitution. The title comes from a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin at the end of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Gorsuch’s book is his first as a justice. He wrote “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia” in 2006. To promote his book, Gorsuch will speak at two presidential libraries in September: the Richard Nixon Library in California and the George W. Bush Presidential Center in Texas. He’ll also give a book talk at the National Archives in Washington. Sotomayor, meanwhile, will be making September appearances in suburban Atlanta and Chicago.

www.apnews.com

center

TfsbRh2z2dA0eEUg

test

IVUAbG6O3QO0SxyH

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/the-american-lefts-downward-spiral/

OPINION: The American Left’s Downward Spiral

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jeffrey Lord, Debra J. Saunders, Brian Mcnicoll, Daniel Pipes, Paul Miller

I have returned ! From Europe that is , and I hope I met with no Russian undercover agents while there . The soi-disant Liberals are in a snit about the Russians . Apparently , Donald Trump Jr. and the mysterious Jared Kushner met with an undercover agent of the Kremlin in June of last year , and they did not report their meeting to The Powers That Be . Who are The Powers That Be ? Actually , I have no idea , but Trump and Kushner should have reported their exchange , which had something to do with adoption or adaption or possibly Hillary ’ s unwashed socks . You figure it out . The stalwarts of American left ( we no longer call them Liberals — it is inappropriate ) are in another of their tense moments with the Trumps , and , of course , it has something to do with the Trumps and the Russians . The left has developed an irrational fear of the Russians , about whom they are positively obsessive . I am not sure why this is . Perhaps it is because today the Russians are no longer communists , and the erstwhile Liberals had long admired certain aspects of the communist system . As I recall , they admired the Marxist-Leninist tax code , and its attendant slow-growth economy . Remember their great economists such as John Kenneth Galbraith and Lester Thurow , oohing and aahing over how prosperous Russia was in the 1980s , just before the crash of communism ? How did that crash come about , comrades ? Was it caused by something Ronald Reagan did ? Reagan was the Donald Trump of his era . Are our friends to the left still perplexed as to how a grade B movie actor contributed to the fall of communism ? Now what can they be expecting from a billionaire businessman ? The morbid preoccupations of the American left continue apace . Of course , there is their aforementioned paranoia over post-communist Russia . And there is the environment that is increasingly sickening them ; and the civil rights of public toilet users in certain red states ; and civil rights in general . The KKK is making a comeback and they are aided and abetted by the increasingly popular alt-right movement and the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy who object the expurgation of five years of American history back in the 19th century . Then there is the Resistance Movement that has been a theme with the American left ever since Hillary Clinton had her meltdown on election night . As David Gelernter pointed out last week in the Wall Street Journal , the American left has adopted “ resistance ” in response to Trump ’ s election in a free and democratic election . As Gelernter wrote : “ Democrats , in their role as opponents of President Trump , have taken to calling themselves ‘ the resistance. ’ ” They are co-opting the term “ resistance ” from the free French who in World War II were opposing , as Gelernter says , “ the Nazis in occupied France. ” In their delusions the members of the American left are modern-day Freedom Fighters and the Trumps are Nazis . Continuing the left ’ s fantasy , the American army and its allies will eventually be called in to liberate “ the resistance. ” And who will march down our Champs-Élysées , Hillary ? I saw my first member of the resistance at Brussels airport wearing his black tee shirt with “ Resistance ” boldly emblazoned across our hero ’ s chest . He was asleep . I did not want to awaken him with troubling news . His fly was halfway down . Since then I have seen black tee shirts everywhere in Washington bearing variations on the Resistance theme : “ The Resistance ; ” or simply “ Resist ; ” or , harkening back to Hillary , “ She Persists , You Resist. ” Nowhere is it reported that Donald Trump has taken any notice , to say nothing of ordering out his Brown Shirts . Is it possible that we shall endure such childishness into 2018 ? I believe it is . Comparing oneself to Freedom Fighters who faced torture and death while one lounges in the Brussels airport may seem like a leap into fantasy to normal Americans , but it is nothing to the American left . They have been inhabiting a fantasy world since the first Clinton Administration . Those were the years in which they beheld Bill Clinton as the Virgin President and Monica Lewinsky as The Stalker . Ever since then the left ’ s condition has worsened .

Washington I have returned! From Europe that is, and I hope I met with no Russian undercover agents while there. The soi-disant Liberals are in a snit about the Russians. Apparently, Donald Trump Jr. and the mysterious Jared Kushner met with an undercover agent of the Kremlin in June of last year, and they did not report their meeting to The Powers That Be. Who are The Powers That Be? Actually, I have no idea, but Trump and Kushner should have reported their exchange, which had something to do with adoption or adaption or possibly Hillary’s unwashed socks. You figure it out. The stalwarts of American left (we no longer call them Liberals — it is inappropriate) are in another of their tense moments with the Trumps, and, of course, it has something to do with the Trumps and the Russians. The left has developed an irrational fear of the Russians, about whom they are positively obsessive. I am not sure why this is. Perhaps it is because today the Russians are no longer communists, and the erstwhile Liberals had long admired certain aspects of the communist system. As I recall, they admired the Marxist-Leninist tax code, and its attendant slow-growth economy. Remember their great economists such as John Kenneth Galbraith and Lester Thurow, oohing and aahing over how prosperous Russia was in the 1980s, just before the crash of communism? How did that crash come about, comrades? Was it caused by something Ronald Reagan did? Reagan was the Donald Trump of his era. Are our friends to the left still perplexed as to how a grade B movie actor contributed to the fall of communism? Now what can they be expecting from a billionaire businessman? The morbid preoccupations of the American left continue apace. Of course, there is their aforementioned paranoia over post-communist Russia. And there is the environment that is increasingly sickening them; and the civil rights of public toilet users in certain red states; and civil rights in general. The KKK is making a comeback and they are aided and abetted by the increasingly popular alt-right movement and the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy who object the expurgation of five years of American history back in the 19th century. Then there is the Resistance Movement that has been a theme with the American left ever since Hillary Clinton had her meltdown on election night. As David Gelernter pointed out last week in the Wall Street Journal, the American left has adopted “resistance” in response to Trump’s election in a free and democratic election. As Gelernter wrote: “Democrats, in their role as opponents of President Trump, have taken to calling themselves ‘the resistance.’” They are co-opting the term “resistance” from the free French who in World War II were opposing, as Gelernter says, “the Nazis in occupied France.” In their delusions the members of the American left are modern-day Freedom Fighters and the Trumps are Nazis. Continuing the left’s fantasy, the American army and its allies will eventually be called in to liberate “the resistance.” And who will march down our Champs-Élysées, Hillary? I saw my first member of the resistance at Brussels airport wearing his black tee shirt with “Resistance” boldly emblazoned across our hero’s chest. He was asleep. I did not want to awaken him with troubling news. His fly was halfway down. Since then I have seen black tee shirts everywhere in Washington bearing variations on the Resistance theme: “The Resistance;” or simply “Resist;” or, harkening back to Hillary, “She Persists, You Resist.” Nowhere is it reported that Donald Trump has taken any notice, to say nothing of ordering out his Brown Shirts. Is it possible that we shall endure such childishness into 2018? I believe it is. Comparing oneself to Freedom Fighters who faced torture and death while one lounges in the Brussels airport may seem like a leap into fantasy to normal Americans, but it is nothing to the American left. They have been inhabiting a fantasy world since the first Clinton Administration. Those were the years in which they beheld Bill Clinton as the Virgin President and Monica Lewinsky as The Stalker. Ever since then the left’s condition has worsened.

www.spectator.org

right

IVUAbG6O3QO0SxyH

test

em3dDqcdfHEK9Epn

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/16/james-comey--donald-trump-morally-unfit-president-abc-interview

Comey says Trump 'morally unfit' to be president

2018-04-16

Tom Mccarthy, Richard Wolffe

In ABC TV interview , former FBI director says US president treats women like meat and was a ‘ stain ’ on everyone who worked for him James Comey has accused Donald Trump of being “ morally unfit ” to be president and treating women like “ meat ” in his first television interview in support of his new book , A Higher Loyalty . Comey further described Trump as a “ stain ” on everyone who worked for him , according to a transcript of a five-hour interview published by ABC and first obtained by the New York Times . Yet Comey said he does not wish for Trump ’ s impeachment because that “ would let the American people off the hook ” . ABC News ( @ ABC ) . @ GStephanopoulos : “ Is Donald Trump unfit to be president ? ” @ Comey : “ Yes , but not in the way I often hear people talk about it ... I do n't think he 's medically unfit to be president . I think he 's morally unfit to be president. ” https : //t.co/nzGYlTmLXf # Comey pic.twitter.com/4eag9flFZ2 “ People in this country need to stand up and go to the voting booth and vote their values , ” Comey said . “ And impeachment in a way would short-circuit that . ” A one-hour edited version of the interview with George Stephanopolous aired on ABC News on Sunday night . Five things we learned from the James Comey interview Read more “ Our president must embody respect and adhere to the values that are at the core of this country , ” Comey told Stephanopoulos . “ The most important being truth . This president is not able to do that . He is morally unfit to be president . ” Turning first to Trump ’ s defence of a white supremacists ’ march , he said : “ A person who sees moral equivalence in Charlottesville , who talks about and treats women like they ’ re pieces of meat , who lies constantly about matters big and small and insists the American people believe it , that person ’ s not fit to be president of the United States , on moral grounds . ” Replying to a question about whether Trump had committed an obstruction of justice , Comey said “ it ’ s possible ” . “ There ’ s certainly some evidence of obstruction of justice , ” Comey said . But for the president to follow through on threats to fire special counsel Robert Mueller , Comey said , would “ set off alarm bells that this is his most serious attack yet on the rule of law ” . In his book , Comey compares Trump to a mafia don and challenges the president ’ s character , honesty and commitment to public service . Sitting in his Virginia living room across from Stephanopolous , Comey answered questions about the Trump team ’ s response to Russian election tampering , about his handling of the Clinton emails investigation and his personal impressions of the president-elect . “ He had impressively coiffed hair that looks to be all his , ” Comey said . “ I confess I stared at it pretty closely … He looked slightly orange up close with small white half-moons under his eyes which I assume were from tanning goggles . ” Comey also described the “ really weird ” Trump Tower meeting in which he briefed the president-elect on the contents of an unverified intelligence document compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele , including allegations that Trump had been in a Moscow hotel room in 2013 with urinating Russian prostitutes . “ I did not go into the business about people peeing on each other ” in his briefing with Trump , Comey said . “ I just wanted to get it done and get out of there . ” It was “ unlikely ” but “ possible ” that Russians had material with which to blackmail or otherwise compromise Trump , Comey said . “ It is stunning , and I wish I wasn ’ t saying it , but it ’ s the truth . ” I did not go into the business about people peeing on each other .. I just wanted to get it done and get out of there James Comey Comey spoke for the first time about his immediate family ’ s disappointment at Hillary Clinton ’ s loss . He said his four daughters and his wife , Patrice Comey , all wanted Clinton to win , and as the ABC broadcast showed pictures of them protesting , Comey disclosed they attended the Women ’ s March in Washington a day after Trump ’ s inauguration . Comey responded to criticism by Clinton and others that he had cost her the election by making public a late-stage twist in an investigation of her emails . After the election , Comey said , he felt “ vaguely sick to my stomach , feeling beaten down . I felt that I was totally alone , that everybody hated me , and that there was no way out because it was the right thing to do ” . But Comey said he would make the same decision again , quoting verbatim from his book : “ Down that path lies the death of the FBI as an independent force in American life . ” Comey described his intense discomfort at his first meeting with the president , at a reception for law enforcement officials at the White House two days after the election . Comey tried to camouflage himself in the drapery but was spotted by Trump and called across the room , video of which moment has been widely circulated . Play Video 3:23 Trump and Comey ’ s hate-hate relationship – video explainer Patrice Comey called the look on his face in the video “ Jim ’ s Oh Shit face , ” Comey said . Comey also detailed a one-on-one dinner with Trump in the Green room of the White House at which he said Trump asked for his pledge of loyalty – an account Trump has denied . Trump made his pitch “ after the salad but before the shrimp scampi ” , Comey said . The former FBI director said – not wanting to give the president any signals and realizing the gravity of the moment – that he thought to himself : “ Don ’ t you dare move . ” Comey dismissed Trump ’ s denial of a different scene , in which Comey said Trump told him to “ let go ” of an investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn . “ The president says he didn ’ t say that , ” Stephanopoulos said . “ What am I gon na do ? He did , ” Comey replied with a shrug . Brisk pre-sales for the book , and the ambitious national tour Comey has planned beginning in New York City on Tuesday , have prompted criticism about the amount of money Comey seems to be making as he settles scores with the president . Yet Comey ’ s career as a government prosecutor speaks to the seriousness of his commitment to the public good , and whatever other motivations he may have for going in front of the cameras , Comey clearly sees Trump as a threat to the country and sees himself as capable of defending it . James Comey helped Trump win . Now he wants to undo his mistake | Richard Wolffe Read more Comey described his reaction to finding out on TV , during a trip to California , that he had been fired less than halfway through his 10-year term . “ That ’ s crazy , ” Comey remembered thinking . “ How could that be ? ” Then Comey got on the FBI plane for the long flight back to Washington . “ I drank red wine from a paper coffee cup and just looked out at the lights of the country I love so much as we flew home . ” The White House did not reply to a query about whether Trump planned to watch the Comey interview , which was taped earlier in the week . Trump did not tweet during the broadcast . However , Ronna McDaniel , Republican National Committee chairwoman , said on Twitter that Comey had “ no credibility ” and “ his true higher loyalty is to himself ” .

In ABC TV interview, former FBI director says US president treats women like meat and was a ‘stain’ on everyone who worked for him This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old James Comey has accused Donald Trump of being “morally unfit” to be president and treating women like “meat” in his first television interview in support of his new book, A Higher Loyalty. Comey further described Trump as a “stain” on everyone who worked for him, according to a transcript of a five-hour interview published by ABC and first obtained by the New York Times. Yet Comey said he does not wish for Trump’s impeachment because that “would let the American people off the hook”. ABC News (@ABC) .@GStephanopoulos: “Is Donald Trump unfit to be president?” @Comey: “Yes, but not in the way I often hear people talk about it...I don't think he's medically unfit to be president. I think he's morally unfit to be president.” https://t.co/nzGYlTmLXf #Comey pic.twitter.com/4eag9flFZ2 “People in this country need to stand up and go to the voting booth and vote their values,” Comey said. “And impeachment in a way would short-circuit that.” A one-hour edited version of the interview with George Stephanopolous aired on ABC News on Sunday night. Five things we learned from the James Comey interview Read more “Our president must embody respect and adhere to the values that are at the core of this country,” Comey told Stephanopoulos. “The most important being truth. This president is not able to do that. He is morally unfit to be president.” Turning first to Trump’s defence of a white supremacists’ march, he said: “A person who sees moral equivalence in Charlottesville, who talks about and treats women like they’re pieces of meat, who lies constantly about matters big and small and insists the American people believe it, that person’s not fit to be president of the United States, on moral grounds.” Replying to a question about whether Trump had committed an obstruction of justice, Comey said “it’s possible”. “There’s certainly some evidence of obstruction of justice,” Comey said. But for the president to follow through on threats to fire special counsel Robert Mueller, Comey said, would “set off alarm bells that this is his most serious attack yet on the rule of law”. In his book, Comey compares Trump to a mafia don and challenges the president’s character, honesty and commitment to public service. Sitting in his Virginia living room across from Stephanopolous, Comey answered questions about the Trump team’s response to Russian election tampering, about his handling of the Clinton emails investigation and his personal impressions of the president-elect. “He had impressively coiffed hair that looks to be all his,” Comey said. “I confess I stared at it pretty closely … He looked slightly orange up close with small white half-moons under his eyes which I assume were from tanning goggles.” Comey also described the “really weird” Trump Tower meeting in which he briefed the president-elect on the contents of an unverified intelligence document compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, including allegations that Trump had been in a Moscow hotel room in 2013 with urinating Russian prostitutes. “I did not go into the business about people peeing on each other” in his briefing with Trump, Comey said. “I just wanted to get it done and get out of there.” It was “unlikely” but “possible” that Russians had material with which to blackmail or otherwise compromise Trump, Comey said. “It is stunning, and I wish I wasn’t saying it, but it’s the truth.” I did not go into the business about people peeing on each other .. I just wanted to get it done and get out of there James Comey Comey spoke for the first time about his immediate family’s disappointment at Hillary Clinton’s loss. He said his four daughters and his wife, Patrice Comey, all wanted Clinton to win, and as the ABC broadcast showed pictures of them protesting, Comey disclosed they attended the Women’s March in Washington a day after Trump’s inauguration. Comey responded to criticism by Clinton and others that he had cost her the election by making public a late-stage twist in an investigation of her emails. “It sucked,” he said. After the election, Comey said, he felt “vaguely sick to my stomach, feeling beaten down. I felt that I was totally alone, that everybody hated me, and that there was no way out because it was the right thing to do”. But Comey said he would make the same decision again, quoting verbatim from his book: “Down that path lies the death of the FBI as an independent force in American life.” Comey described his intense discomfort at his first meeting with the president, at a reception for law enforcement officials at the White House two days after the election. Comey tried to camouflage himself in the drapery but was spotted by Trump and called across the room, video of which moment has been widely circulated. Play Video 3:23 Trump and Comey’s hate-hate relationship – video explainer Patrice Comey called the look on his face in the video “Jim’s Oh Shit face,” Comey said. Comey also detailed a one-on-one dinner with Trump in the Green room of the White House at which he said Trump asked for his pledge of loyalty – an account Trump has denied. Trump made his pitch “after the salad but before the shrimp scampi”, Comey said. The former FBI director said – not wanting to give the president any signals and realizing the gravity of the moment – that he thought to himself: “Don’t you dare move.” Comey dismissed Trump’s denial of a different scene, in which Comey said Trump told him to “let go” of an investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn. “The president says he didn’t say that,” Stephanopoulos said. “What am I gonna do? He did,” Comey replied with a shrug. Brisk pre-sales for the book, and the ambitious national tour Comey has planned beginning in New York City on Tuesday, have prompted criticism about the amount of money Comey seems to be making as he settles scores with the president. Yet Comey’s career as a government prosecutor speaks to the seriousness of his commitment to the public good, and whatever other motivations he may have for going in front of the cameras, Comey clearly sees Trump as a threat to the country and sees himself as capable of defending it. James Comey helped Trump win. Now he wants to undo his mistake | Richard Wolffe Read more Comey described his reaction to finding out on TV, during a trip to California, that he had been fired less than halfway through his 10-year term. “That’s crazy,” Comey remembered thinking. “How could that be?” Then Comey got on the FBI plane for the long flight back to Washington. “I drank red wine from a paper coffee cup and just looked out at the lights of the country I love so much as we flew home.” The White House did not reply to a query about whether Trump planned to watch the Comey interview, which was taped earlier in the week. Trump did not tweet during the broadcast. However, Ronna McDaniel, Republican National Committee chairwoman, said on Twitter that Comey had “no credibility” and “his true higher loyalty is to himself”.

www.theguardian.com

left

em3dDqcdfHEK9Epn

test

4s5ETwA7uiaLFI7R

fbi

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/hillary-urges-fbi-release/2016/10/28/id/755906/

Hillary Urges FBI to Release 'Full and Complete Facts' of Emails

2016-10-28

Cathy Burke

Hillary Clinton , her campaign torpedoed Friday by newly uncovered emails that may relate to her mishandling of classified information on her private server , said FBI Director James Comey owes voters the `` full and complete facts immediately '' – urging him , `` Let 's get it out . '' In a terse news conference hours after news of the newly discovered emails , a somber Clinton said she was `` confident '' the information , whatever it is , wo n't change the conclusion the FBI director reached in July . `` We are 11 days out from , perhaps , the most important national election of our lifetime , '' the Democratic nominee said . `` Voting is already underway in our country . So the American people deserve to get the full and complete facts immediately . '' She added that Comey `` has said he does n't know whether the emails … are significant or not . So , let 's get it out . '' `` I 'm confident , whatever they are , will not change the conclusion reached in July , '' she said , referring to Comey 's closure of the agency 's investigation — without recommendation prosecution — of her use of her private email server while she was secretary of state . Taking only three questions from the media afterward , Clinton said she was blindsided by the FBI 's announcement it was reviewing the newly discovered emails . `` We have not been contacted by anyone , '' she said , adding : `` So we do n't know the facts which is why we are calling on the FBI to release all the information that it has . Even Director Comey noted that this new information may not be significant . '' Clinton would n't confirm reports that the emails were linked to her top aide Huma Abedin and her estranged husband , former congressman Anthony Weiner , calling them `` rumors . '' `` We have heard these rumors . We do n't know what to believe , '' Clinton said . `` I 'm sure there will be even more rumors . That 's why it is incumbent upon the FBI to tell us what they 're talking about . … Because right now , you 're guess is as good as mine . And I do n't think that 's good enough . '' `` So we have made it very clear that if they 're going to be sending this kind of letter that is only going originally to Republican members of the House , that they need to share whatever facts they claim to have with the American people . And that 's what I expect to happen . '' Clinton also dismissed whether the revelation would fuel voters ' suspicions about whether she can be trusted . `` I think people a long time ago made up their minds about the emails , '' she said . `` I think that 's factored in to what people think and now they are choosing a president . ''

Hillary Clinton, her campaign torpedoed Friday by newly uncovered emails that may relate to her mishandling of classified information on her private server, said FBI Director James Comey owes voters the "full and complete facts immediately" – urging him, "Let's get it out." In a terse news conference hours after news of the newly discovered emails, a somber Clinton said she was "confident" the information, whatever it is, won't change the conclusion the FBI director reached in July. "We are 11 days out from, perhaps, the most important national election of our lifetime," the Democratic nominee said. "Voting is already underway in our country. So the American people deserve to get the full and complete facts immediately." She added that Comey "has said he doesn't know whether the emails … are significant or not. So, let's get it out." "I'm confident, whatever they are, will not change the conclusion reached in July," she said, referring to Comey's closure of the agency's investigation — without recommendation prosecution — of her use of her private email server while she was secretary of state. Taking only three questions from the media afterward, Clinton said she was blindsided by the FBI's announcement it was reviewing the newly discovered emails. "We have not been contacted by anyone," she said, adding: "So we don't know the facts which is why we are calling on the FBI to release all the information that it has. Even Director Comey noted that this new information may not be significant." Clinton wouldn't confirm reports that the emails were linked to her top aide Huma Abedin and her estranged husband, former congressman Anthony Weiner, calling them "rumors." "We have heard these rumors. We don't know what to believe," Clinton said. "I'm sure there will be even more rumors. That's why it is incumbent upon the FBI to tell us what they're talking about. … Because right now, you're guess is as good as mine. And I don't think that's good enough." "So we have made it very clear that if they're going to be sending this kind of letter that is only going originally to Republican members of the House, that they need to share whatever facts they claim to have with the American people. And that's what I expect to happen." Clinton also dismissed whether the revelation would fuel voters' suspicions about whether she can be trusted. "I think people a long time ago made up their minds about the emails," she said. "I think that's factored in to what people think and now they are choosing a president."

www.newsmax.com

right

4s5ETwA7uiaLFI7R

test

YhyIHEs2urEVqk9m

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/04/christies_sopranos_style_mess_why_more_and_more_stink_will_engulf_the_bridge_scandal/

Christie's Sopranos-style mess: Why more and more stink will engulf the bridge scandal

2014-02-04

Brian Beutler

For all the hype surrounding New Jersey 's vast experience with political corruption , the current batch of pros do n't seem to be very good at it . Nearly a month in , and the key question surrounding the George Washington Bridge lane-closure scandal is still whether Gov . Chris Christie genuinely did not know what his top advisers and confidants were up to , or whether he 's both implicated and a once-in-a-generation-size political liar . But the continuing disclosures , which have filled out the Bridgegate plot and its still-growing cast of characters , tell a story influenced in equal measure by the Sopranos and Keystone Cops . The warring antagonists in this story are , of course , Christie himself and his one-time representative at the Port Authority David Wildstein , who resigned in anticipation of disgrace ahead of the `` time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee '' disclosure . In a proper corruption drama , someone like Wildstein would be awash in hush money or lying in a ditch somewhere , depending on his importance , and relationship to key principals . But since the principal here is a governor with presidential ambitions , and not a private-sector goon of some kind , Wildstein is free to do whatever he wants to escape legal retribution , knowing that physical retribution is out of the question . And he 's made quite a spectacle of himself , trying to bribe an immunity deal out of federal prosecutors . That exact dynamic reveals how short-sighted Christie 's management of the scandal has been . He apparently decided on day one that his only wise strategic play would be to express outrage and disinherit the people with known ( or at least publicly revealed ) involvement in the lane closure scandal . It seemingly never occurred to him that he could effectively distance himself from the culprits without smearing and embittering them at the same time . Do n't say mean things . Have allies twice or thrice removed buy silence with the promise of sinecures or whatever . Three or four steps later Christie 's combativeness lead to this anti-Wildstein leak from Christie HQ : In David Wildstein 's past , people and newspaper accounts have described him as `` tumultuous '' and someone who `` made moves that were not productive . '' As a 16-year-old kid , he sued over a local school board election . He was publicly accused by his high school social studies teacher of deceptive behavior . He had a strange habit of registering web addresses for other people 's names without telling them There 's a lot we still do n't know about the bridge scandal -- yesterday 's deadline to submit subpoenaed documents to the state Legislature will probably result in leaks that help fill some of the gaps . But we do know that the best possible outcome for Christie is that he must live with the following absurdity trailing behind him for the rest of his political career . Christie has now twice reflected back to his high school days to waft away Wildstein 's stink . First , to questionably claim he did n't really know Wildstein ( because he ran in a cooler crowd ) and then to say that , in fact , Wildstein was a holy terror in high school . `` So that nerd I never knew in high school ? I actually did know him . He was a lying son of a bitch -- everyone knew that ! Which is why I publicly disowned him * ( * after making him my eyes and ears inside the Port Authority ) . '' I find it difficult to believe that anyone explaining away the biggest scandal of his political career with that story could ever survive a presidential nominating process . It 's bad to be identified with a major scandal . It 's worse to clean it up in a way that destroys your reputation for competence . Even the cleanup itself is incompetent ! And this is the best Christie can hope for . The alternative is that Wildstein , through his attorney , is telling the truth -- that contrary to his many public claims of ignorance , evidence exists ( and surfaces ) proving that Christie knew about the closures in real time , and suggests knowledge of the true motive as well . That shoe is still whooshing through midair . If it ever hits ground , Christie might actually have to resign . Even if it never does , though , the slowly effluviating nature of the scandal suggests that more and more stink will accrete around him over the coming weeks in the form of more bad actors for him to alienate . And he 's alienating former allies at such a rapid pace that he could easily end up having several more strange stories to tell about why all the people in his inner circle were obvious liabilities from the start .

For all the hype surrounding New Jersey's vast experience with political corruption, the current batch of pros don't seem to be very good at it. Nearly a month in, and the key question surrounding the George Washington Bridge lane-closure scandal is still whether Gov. Chris Christie genuinely did not know what his top advisers and confidants were up to, or whether he's both implicated and a once-in-a-generation-size political liar. Advertisement: But the continuing disclosures, which have filled out the Bridgegate plot and its still-growing cast of characters, tell a story influenced in equal measure by the Sopranos and Keystone Cops. The warring antagonists in this story are, of course, Christie himself and his one-time representative at the Port Authority David Wildstein, who resigned in anticipation of disgrace ahead of the "time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee" disclosure. In a proper corruption drama, someone like Wildstein would be awash in hush money or lying in a ditch somewhere, depending on his importance, and relationship to key principals. But since the principal here is a governor with presidential ambitions, and not a private-sector goon of some kind, Wildstein is free to do whatever he wants to escape legal retribution, knowing that physical retribution is out of the question. And he's made quite a spectacle of himself, trying to bribe an immunity deal out of federal prosecutors. Advertisement: That exact dynamic reveals how short-sighted Christie's management of the scandal has been. He apparently decided on day one that his only wise strategic play would be to express outrage and disinherit the people with known (or at least publicly revealed) involvement in the lane closure scandal. It seemingly never occurred to him that he could effectively distance himself from the culprits without smearing and embittering them at the same time. Don't say mean things. Have allies twice or thrice removed buy silence with the promise of sinecures or whatever. Three or four steps later Christie's combativeness lead to this anti-Wildstein leak from Christie HQ: Advertisement: In David Wildstein's past, people and newspaper accounts have described him as "tumultuous" and someone who "made moves that were not productive." As a 16-year-old kid, he sued over a local school board election. He was publicly accused by his high school social studies teacher of deceptive behavior. He had a controversial tenure as Mayor of Livingston He was an anonymous blogger known as Wally Edge He had a strange habit of registering web addresses for other people's names without telling them There's a lot we still don't know about the bridge scandal -- yesterday's deadline to submit subpoenaed documents to the state Legislature will probably result in leaks that help fill some of the gaps. But we do know that the best possible outcome for Christie is that he must live with the following absurdity trailing behind him for the rest of his political career. Christie has now twice reflected back to his high school days to waft away Wildstein's stink. First, to questionably claim he didn't really know Wildstein (because he ran in a cooler crowd) and then to say that, in fact, Wildstein was a holy terror in high school. Advertisement: "So that nerd I never knew in high school? I actually did know him. He was a lying son of a bitch -- everyone knew that! Which is why I publicly disowned him* (*after making him my eyes and ears inside the Port Authority)." I find it difficult to believe that anyone explaining away the biggest scandal of his political career with that story could ever survive a presidential nominating process. It's bad to be identified with a major scandal. It's worse to clean it up in a way that destroys your reputation for competence. Even the cleanup itself is incompetent! And this is the best Christie can hope for. The alternative is that Wildstein, through his attorney, is telling the truth -- that contrary to his many public claims of ignorance, evidence exists (and surfaces) proving that Christie knew about the closures in real time, and suggests knowledge of the true motive as well. That shoe is still whooshing through midair. If it ever hits ground, Christie might actually have to resign. Even if it never does, though, the slowly effluviating nature of the scandal suggests that more and more stink will accrete around him over the coming weeks in the form of more bad actors for him to alienate. And he's alienating former allies at such a rapid pace that he could easily end up having several more strange stories to tell about why all the people in his inner circle were obvious liabilities from the start.

www.salon.com

left

YhyIHEs2urEVqk9m

test

Fl84Sdb9qMhr9eGu

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/guantanamo-bay-prison-deteriorating-conditions/2014/09/01/id/591966/

Pressure Mounts to Close Crumbling Gitmo

2014-09-01

Pressure to close down the prison at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station , or `` Gitmo , '' is mounting — the only problem is , what to do with the prisoners ? While President Barack Obama pledged to shut the rapidly aging and deteriorating prison down , and even signed an executive order in 2009 to do so within one year , Gitmo remains open , housing 149 prisoners , with as many as 50 considered by the administration to be too dangerous to release , has reported on deteriorating conditions at the prison , noting that the Southern Command requested $ 200 million in improvements last year , but that request was rejected by the Pentagon.The prison remains stuck between a rock and a hard place — if money is spent to upgrade the facilities for both prisoners and staff , and the prison is closed , that money would be wasted . If the prison remains open , crucial improvements are needed . `` It ’ s a long way from being closed , '' Gen. John F. Kelly , head of the U.S. Southern Command which includes Joint Task Force Guant�namo , told the Times . `` Obviously the president is trying hard , he 's got people trying hard to get countries to take them , but at the end of the day , it 's going to take congressional action . `` That 's because House Republicans have voted to ban transfer of prisoners , charging that the Obama administration violated the law when they freed five Taliban prisoners in exchange for Sgt . Bowe Bergdahl in May without sufficiently notifying Congress.Rep . Howard `` Buck '' McKeon , California Republican , chairman of the House Armed Services Committee , told the Times , `` I do n't see any support in the House for relaxing the current restrictions , or backing off our ban , in light of the president 's recent violation of the law . `` An attempt to transfer six detainees to Uruguay fell apart at the last minute when Uruguayan President Jose Mujica backed away from the deal , the Times reports.Meanwhile , the Times reports , leaking ceilings , buckling floors and inadequate medical facilities cause constant problems at the aging prison.About 6,000 service members and staff work at the prison complex , and the Times estimates taxpayer expense at about $ 413 million in 2014 , or about $ 3 million per prisoner per year . If the prisoners were housed in a US federal penitentiary , costs would drop to about $ 30,280 per prisoner per year.Rear Adm. Kyle Kozad , who heads the prison task force , told the Times , `` We are forced to at least forecast so that we 're prepared if this detention facility is open two years from now , 12 years from now , 22 years from now , so that we 're prepared to be able to continue to do the mission . ''

Pressure to close down the prison at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, or "Gitmo," is mounting — the only problem is, what to do with the prisoners?While President Barack Obama pledged to shut the rapidly aging and deteriorating prison down, and even signed an executive order in 2009 to do so within one year, Gitmo remains open, housing 149 prisoners, with as many as 50 considered by the administration to be too dangerous to release,has reported on deteriorating conditions at the prison, noting that the Southern Command requested $200 million in improvements last year, but that request was rejected by the Pentagon.The prison remains stuck between a rock and a hard place — if money is spent to upgrade the facilities for both prisoners and staff, and the prison is closed, that money would be wasted. If the prison remains open, crucial improvements are needed."It’s a long way from being closed," Gen. John F. Kelly, head of the U.S. Southern Command which includes Joint Task Force Guant�namo, told the Times. "Obviously the president is trying hard, he's got people trying hard to get countries to take them, but at the end of the day, it's going to take congressional action."That's because House Republicans have voted to ban transfer of prisoners, charging that the Obama administration violated the law when they freed five Taliban prisoners in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in May without sufficiently notifying Congress.Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, California Republican, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told the Times, "I don't see any support in the House for relaxing the current restrictions, or backing off our ban, in light of the president's recent violation of the law."An attempt to transfer six detainees to Uruguay fell apart at the last minute when Uruguayan President Jose Mujica backed away from the deal, the Times reports.Meanwhile, the Times reports, leaking ceilings, buckling floors and inadequate medical facilities cause constant problems at the aging prison.About 6,000 service members and staff work at the prison complex, and the Times estimates taxpayer expense at about $413 million in 2014, or about $3 million per prisoner per year. If the prisoners were housed in a US federal penitentiary, costs would drop to about $30,280 per prisoner per year.Rear Adm. Kyle Kozad, who heads the prison task force, told the Times, "We are forced to at least forecast so that we're prepared if this detention facility is open two years from now, 12 years from now, 22 years from now, so that we're prepared to be able to continue to do the mission."

www.newsmax.com

right

Fl84Sdb9qMhr9eGu

test

ri5a4QEQrwkEHuHl

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/donald-trump-torture-absolutely-works-says-us-president-in-first-television-interview

Trump claims torture works but experts warn of its 'potentially existential' costs

2017-01-26

Matthew Weaver, Spencer Ackerman, Martin Kettle

Trump gives first presidential TV interview as draft executive order points to return to practices such as waterboarding Donald Trump has used his first TV interview as president to say he believes torture “ absolutely ” works and that the US should “ fight fire with fire . ” Speaking to ABC News , Trump said he would defer to the defence secretary , James Mattis , and CIA director , Mike Pompeo , to determine what can and can not be done legally to combat the spread of terrorism . But asked about the efficacy of tactics such as waterboarding , Trump said : “ absolutely I feel it works . ” ABC News ( @ ABC ) President Trump on waterboarding : “ I feel it works , ” but will rely on team ’ s guidance and do everything “ legally . '' https : //t.co/89o6NhpsWh pic.twitter.com/vWoL5W2ycc “ When Isis is doing things that nobody has ever heard of since medieval times . Would I feel strongly about waterboarding . As far as I ’ m concerned we have to fight fire with fire . ” Trump said he asked intelligence chiefs earlier this week whether torture works . “ The answer was yes , absolutely , ” he said . Does torture work – and is it worth the cost ? Read more He added that terrorist groups “ chop off the citizens ’ or anybody ’ s heads in the Middle East , because they ’ re Christian or Muslim or anything else ... we have that and we ’ re not allowed to do anything . We ’ re not playing on an even field . ” The interviews come after reports that Trump is preparing to sign an executive order that would reinstate the detention of terrorism suspects at facilities known as “ black sites ” . This would remove limitations on coercive interrogation techniques set by a longstanding army field manual intended to ensure humane military interrogations , which is mostly compliant with the Geneva Conventions . Mattis and Pompeo were “ blindsided ” by reports of the draft order , Politico said citing sources . However , Trump faces resistance to the prospect of the reintroduction of torture . On Wednesday , Steve Kleinman , a retired air force colonel and senior adviser to the FBI-led team that interrogates terrorist suspects warned that weakening US prohibitions against torture was dangerous and ignorant . “ A lot of these people who weigh in heavily on interrogation have no idea how little they know , [ and do so ] because of what they see on television , ” said Kleinman , chairman of the research advisory committee to the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group ( HIG ) . “ There is , at best , anecdotal evidence to support torture , ” said Kleinman , who emphasized that he was not speaking for the HIG . “ There is , on the other hand , a robust body of scientific literature and field testing that demonstrates the efficacy of a relationship-based , rapport-based , cognitive-based approach to interrogation , as well as a robust literature that would suggest torture immediately undermines a source ’ s ability to be a reliable reporter of information : memory is undermined , judgment is undermined , decision-making is undermined , time-references are undermined . And this is only from a purely operational perspective ; we can ’ t take the morality out of strategy . ” “ If the US was to make it once again the policy of the country to coerce , and to detain at length in an extrajudicial fashion , the costs would be beyond substantial – they ’ d be potentially existential , ” Kleinman said . Senator John McCain , a torture survivor and co-author of a 2015 law barring the US security agencies from using interrogation techniques that surpass the prohibitions beyond those set out in the US army field manual , signalled his defiance . “ The president can sign whatever executive orders he likes . But the law is the law . We are not bringing back torture in the United States of America , ” said McCain , the Arizona Republican who chairs the Senate armed services committee . McCain referenced explicit guarantees from Pompeo and Mattis during their Senate confirmation proceedings to follow the interrogations law and the army field manual . “ I am confident these leaders will be true to their word , ” McCain said . The former CIA head Leon Panetta , who gave the orders to close the agency ’ s black sites told the BBC that it would be a “ mistake ” to reintroduce enhanced interrogation techniques and “ damaging ” to the reputation of the US . Panetta said torture was violation of the US values and the constitution . Will Trump return USA to dark days of 'war on terror ' black sites ? Read more Mark Fallon , who was the deputy chief of Guantánamo ’ s Bush-era investigative taskforce for military tribunals , said : “ It does appear like a subterfuge to enact more brutal methods because that was what candidate Trump campaigned on during the election . ” Fallon warned that the field manual ’ s appendix M , which allows extended “ separation ” of a detainee from other captives , represented a “ slippery slope that could bring back torture ” . Britain ’ s prime minister , Theresa May , has been urged to by her own MPs to make Britain ’ s opposition to torture clear to Trump when she visits him on Friday . At prime minister ’ s questions Andrew Tyrie , a senior Tory MP , said : “ President Trump has repeatedly said he will bring back torture as an instrument of policy . When she sees him on Friday , will the prime minister make it clear that in no circumstances will she permit Britain to be dragged into facilitating that torture , as we were after 11 September ? ”

Trump gives first presidential TV interview as draft executive order points to return to practices such as waterboarding Donald Trump has used his first TV interview as president to say he believes torture “absolutely” works and that the US should “fight fire with fire.” Speaking to ABC News, Trump said he would defer to the defence secretary, James Mattis, and CIA director, Mike Pompeo, to determine what can and cannot be done legally to combat the spread of terrorism. But asked about the efficacy of tactics such as waterboarding, Trump said: “absolutely I feel it works.” ABC News (@ABC) President Trump on waterboarding: “I feel it works,” but will rely on team’s guidance and do everything “legally." https://t.co/89o6NhpsWh pic.twitter.com/vWoL5W2ycc “When Isis is doing things that nobody has ever heard of since medieval times. Would I feel strongly about waterboarding. As far as I’m concerned we have to fight fire with fire.” Trump said he asked intelligence chiefs earlier this week whether torture works. “The answer was yes, absolutely,” he said. Does torture work – and is it worth the cost? Read more He added that terrorist groups “chop off the citizens’ or anybody’s heads in the Middle East, because they’re Christian or Muslim or anything else ... we have that and we’re not allowed to do anything. We’re not playing on an even field.” The interviews come after reports that Trump is preparing to sign an executive order that would reinstate the detention of terrorism suspects at facilities known as “black sites”. This would remove limitations on coercive interrogation techniques set by a longstanding army field manual intended to ensure humane military interrogations, which is mostly compliant with the Geneva Conventions. Mattis and Pompeo were “blindsided” by reports of the draft order, Politico said citing sources. However, Trump faces resistance to the prospect of the reintroduction of torture. On Wednesday, Steve Kleinman, a retired air force colonel and senior adviser to the FBI-led team that interrogates terrorist suspects warned that weakening US prohibitions against torture was dangerous and ignorant. “A lot of these people who weigh in heavily on interrogation have no idea how little they know, [and do so] because of what they see on television,” said Kleinman, chairman of the research advisory committee to the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG). “There is, at best, anecdotal evidence to support torture,” said Kleinman, who emphasized that he was not speaking for the HIG. “There is, on the other hand, a robust body of scientific literature and field testing that demonstrates the efficacy of a relationship-based, rapport-based, cognitive-based approach to interrogation, as well as a robust literature that would suggest torture immediately undermines a source’s ability to be a reliable reporter of information: memory is undermined, judgment is undermined, decision-making is undermined, time-references are undermined. And this is only from a purely operational perspective; we can’t take the morality out of strategy.” “If the US was to make it once again the policy of the country to coerce, and to detain at length in an extrajudicial fashion, the costs would be beyond substantial – they’d be potentially existential,” Kleinman said. Senator John McCain, a torture survivor and co-author of a 2015 law barring the US security agencies from using interrogation techniques that surpass the prohibitions beyond those set out in the US army field manual, signalled his defiance. “The president can sign whatever executive orders he likes. But the law is the law. We are not bringing back torture in the United States of America,” said McCain, the Arizona Republican who chairs the Senate armed services committee. McCain referenced explicit guarantees from Pompeo and Mattis during their Senate confirmation proceedings to follow the interrogations law and the army field manual. “I am confident these leaders will be true to their word,” McCain said. The former CIA head Leon Panetta, who gave the orders to close the agency’s black sites told the BBC that it would be a “mistake” to reintroduce enhanced interrogation techniques and “damaging” to the reputation of the US. Panetta said torture was violation of the US values and the constitution. Will Trump return USA to dark days of 'war on terror' black sites? Read more Mark Fallon, who was the deputy chief of Guantánamo’s Bush-era investigative taskforce for military tribunals, said: “It does appear like a subterfuge to enact more brutal methods because that was what candidate Trump campaigned on during the election.” Fallon warned that the field manual’s appendix M, which allows extended “separation” of a detainee from other captives, represented a “slippery slope that could bring back torture”. Britain’s prime minister, Theresa May, has been urged to by her own MPs to make Britain’s opposition to torture clear to Trump when she visits him on Friday. At prime minister’s questions Andrew Tyrie, a senior Tory MP, said: “President Trump has repeatedly said he will bring back torture as an instrument of policy. When she sees him on Friday, will the prime minister make it clear that in no circumstances will she permit Britain to be dragged into facilitating that torture, as we were after 11 September?”

www.theguardian.com

left

ri5a4QEQrwkEHuHl

test

TTt5FFmsW6ng3fsC

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2019/february/trumps-north-korea-peace-talks-share-spotlight-with-fight-over-natl-emergency-russia-probe

Trump's North Korea Peace Talks Share Spotlight with Fight over Nat'l Emergency, Russia Probe

2019-02-25

President Donald Trump arrives in Hanoi , Vietnam , Tuesday for the two-day follow-up summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un . He 's still pressing for the regime to get rid of its nuclear weapons but says he 's made great progress since the first summit last year . `` There has been no nuclear testing , no missiles , no rockets . We got our hostages back , '' Trump told reporters ahead of the summit . Even so , US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says the demand for complete denuclearization remains . `` There has been no change in US policy since the time I 've been secretary of state , '' Pompeo told `` Fox News Sunday . '' `` Our objectives are clear . Our mission is clear , '' he continued . `` I 'm not in a rush . I do n't want to rush anybody , '' said Trump . `` I just do n't want testing . As long as there 's no testing , we 're happy , '' he continued in his speech at the Governor 's Ball at the White House Sunday . Democrats contend Mr. Trump needs to walk away with a verifiable inspection program . `` Nothing is clear and as a result , we could run the risk Kim is given concessions which are not accompanied by real concessions , '' said Sen. Ed Markey ( D-MA ) . Meanwhile , in the background of the international talks , Congress has a few questions for the president 's former attorney , Michael Cohen . `` Why the false statements before our committee when he first appeared ? Did they go beyond what he told us about Moscow Trump Tower ? '' wondered Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) . Cohen pleaded guilty in November to lying to Congress about a proposed Trump real estate project in Moscow . The president 's former `` fixer '' will appear before three congressional committees this week , including a public hearing in front of the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Wednesday . The House will also be busy with a resolution to block the president 's national emergency declaration over his border wall . The resolution is likely to pass and head to the Senate . However , some GOP lawmakers are undecided about how they 'll vote . `` I do n't know yet . I do n't like the process . I do n't think the emergency declaration law was written to deal with the things the president asked the Congress to do , '' said Sen. Roy Blunt ( R-MO ) . The president took to Twitter to encourage his fellow Republicans to stand firm . I hope our great Republican Senators don ’ t get led down the path of weak and ineffective Border Security . Without strong Borders , we don ’ t have a Country - and the voters are on board with us . Be strong and smart , don ’ t fall into the Democrats “ trap ” of Open Borders and Crime ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) February 25 , 2019 `` I hope our great Republican Senators do n't get led down the path of weak and ineffective Border Security , '' he wrote . `` Without strong Borders , we do n't have a Country - and the voters are on board with us . Be strong and smart , do n't fall into the Democrats `` trap '' of Open Borders and Crime ! '' One thing is n't likely this week — the release of special counsel Robert Mueller 's report on the Russia investigation . However , House Democrats say one way or another , the public will know what 's in it -- even if they have to subpoena the report and call Mueller to testify .

President Donald Trump arrives in Hanoi, Vietnam, Tuesday for the two-day follow-up summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. He's still pressing for the regime to get rid of its nuclear weapons but says he's made great progress since the first summit last year. "There has been no nuclear testing, no missiles, no rockets. We got our hostages back," Trump told reporters ahead of the summit. Even so, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says the demand for complete denuclearization remains. "There has been no change in US policy since the time I've been secretary of state," Pompeo told "Fox News Sunday." "Our objectives are clear. Our mission is clear," he continued. But the president says he's not rushing the regime. "I'm not in a rush. I don't want to rush anybody," said Trump. "I just don't want testing. As long as there's no testing, we're happy," he continued in his speech at the Governor's Ball at the White House Sunday. Democrats contend Mr. Trump needs to walk away with a verifiable inspection program. "Nothing is clear and as a result, we could run the risk Kim is given concessions which are not accompanied by real concessions," said Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA). Meanwhile, in the background of the international talks, Congress has a few questions for the president's former attorney, Michael Cohen. "Why the false statements before our committee when he first appeared? Did they go beyond what he told us about Moscow Trump Tower?" wondered Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). Cohen pleaded guilty in November to lying to Congress about a proposed Trump real estate project in Moscow. The president's former "fixer" will appear before three congressional committees this week, including a public hearing in front of the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Wednesday. The House will also be busy with a resolution to block the president's national emergency declaration over his border wall. The resolution is likely to pass and head to the Senate. However, some GOP lawmakers are undecided about how they'll vote. "I don't know yet. I don't like the process. I don't think the emergency declaration law was written to deal with the things the president asked the Congress to do," said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO). The president took to Twitter to encourage his fellow Republicans to stand firm. I hope our great Republican Senators don’t get led down the path of weak and ineffective Border Security. Without strong Borders, we don’t have a Country - and the voters are on board with us. Be strong and smart, don’t fall into the Democrats “trap” of Open Borders and Crime! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 25, 2019 "I hope our great Republican Senators don't get led down the path of weak and ineffective Border Security," he wrote. "Without strong Borders, we don't have a Country - and the voters are on board with us. Be strong and smart, don't fall into the Democrats "trap" of Open Borders and Crime!" Regardless, he vows to veto that resolution. One thing isn't likely this week — the release of special counsel Robert Mueller's report on the Russia investigation. However, House Democrats say one way or another, the public will know what's in it -- even if they have to subpoena the report and call Mueller to testify.

www1.cbn.com

right

TTt5FFmsW6ng3fsC

test

F81WMXTJQRirSw2v

republican_party

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/20/cnn-poll-are-gop-policies-too-extreme/?hpt=po_c1

CNN Poll: Are GOP policies too extreme?

2012-12-20

Washington ( CNN ) - Just over half the public says that the GOP should give up more than the Democrats in any bipartisan solution to the country 's problems , according to a new national survey . And a CNN/ORC International poll also indicates that a slight majority of Americans sees the Republican party 's policies and views as too extreme , a first for the GOP , and fewer than a third say they trust congressional Republicans more than President Barack Obama to deal with the major issues facing the nation . The poll 's Thursday release comes less than two weeks before the country faces automatic tax increases on nearly all Americans , as well as deep federal spending cuts , if no deal is struck to avert the country from falling off the fiscal cliff at the end of the year . According to the survey , 53 % say the GOP should compromise more , with 41 % saying the Democratic Party should give up more of the proposals it supports to develop bipartisan solutions . `` That 's due in part to the fact that the Republican brand is not doing all that well , '' says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland . Fifty-three percent of those surveyed say they view the policies of the GOP as too extreme , up 17 points from two years ago . Only 37 % say they view the polices of the Democratic Party as too extreme . It probably does n't help that House Speaker John Boehner , who 's leading GOP fiscal cliff negotiations with the president , is held in fairly low regard , particularly in comparison to Obama . According to the poll , 34 % of the public approves of how the top Republican in the House handling his job . By contrast , the president 's approval rating stands at 52 % . `` Small wonder that nearly half say they have more confidence in President Obama than in the congressional Republicans and that nearly half ( 48 % ) would blame the GOP if the fiscal cliff occurs , '' adds Holland . Thirty-seven percent said they would blame the president more , with 11 % saying they would point fingers at both sides equally if no agreement is struck to avert falling off the fiscal cliff . The survey also indicates that seven in ten Americans continue to think that the fiscal cliff will cause a crisis or major problems for the country if a deal is not reached . The poll 's release comes one day after Obama and Boehner publicly butted heads , with the president saying Republicans were focused too much on besting him personally instead of thinking about what 's best for the country . And Boehner said Obama had yet to make a proposal offering his promised approach of balance between increased revenue and spending cuts . The survey 's release also comes hours before the Republican led House is expected to vote on Boehner 's backup tax plan that limits tax hikes to income above $ 1 million . While a concession from his original opposition to any kind of increase in tax rates , the Boehner plan sets a significantly higher threshold for a rate hike than the $ 400,000 level sought by Obama . One piece of good news for the Republicans in the survey : Most Americans say that it 's good for the country that the GOP controls the House , an indication that the public would not like to see the Democrats with unchecked power in Washington . The CNN poll was conducted by ORC International December 17-18 , with 620 adults nationwide questioned by telephone . The survey 's overall sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points . - CNN Political Editor Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report

7 years ago Washington (CNN) - Just over half the public says that the GOP should give up more than the Democrats in any bipartisan solution to the country's problems, according to a new national survey. And a CNN/ORC International poll also indicates that a slight majority of Americans sees the Republican party's policies and views as too extreme, a first for the GOP, and fewer than a third say they trust congressional Republicans more than President Barack Obama to deal with the major issues facing the nation. - Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker The poll's Thursday release comes less than two weeks before the country faces automatic tax increases on nearly all Americans, as well as deep federal spending cuts, if no deal is struck to avert the country from falling off the fiscal cliff at the end of the year. According to the survey, 53% say the GOP should compromise more, with 41% saying the Democratic Party should give up more of the proposals it supports to develop bipartisan solutions. "That's due in part to the fact that the Republican brand is not doing all that well," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. Fifty-three percent of those surveyed say they view the policies of the GOP as too extreme, up 17 points from two years ago. Only 37% say they view the polices of the Democratic Party as too extreme. It probably doesn't help that House Speaker John Boehner, who's leading GOP fiscal cliff negotiations with the president, is held in fairly low regard, particularly in comparison to Obama. According to the poll, 34% of the public approves of how the top Republican in the House handling his job. By contrast, the president's approval rating stands at 52%. "Small wonder that nearly half say they have more confidence in President Obama than in the congressional Republicans and that nearly half (48%) would blame the GOP if the fiscal cliff occurs," adds Holland. Thirty-seven percent said they would blame the president more, with 11% saying they would point fingers at both sides equally if no agreement is struck to avert falling off the fiscal cliff. The survey also indicates that seven in ten Americans continue to think that the fiscal cliff will cause a crisis or major problems for the country if a deal is not reached. The poll's release comes one day after Obama and Boehner publicly butted heads, with the president saying Republicans were focused too much on besting him personally instead of thinking about what's best for the country. And Boehner said Obama had yet to make a proposal offering his promised approach of balance between increased revenue and spending cuts. The survey's release also comes hours before the Republican led House is expected to vote on Boehner's backup tax plan that limits tax hikes to income above $1 million. While a concession from his original opposition to any kind of increase in tax rates, the Boehner plan sets a significantly higher threshold for a rate hike than the $400,000 level sought by Obama. One piece of good news for the Republicans in the survey: Most Americans say that it's good for the country that the GOP controls the House, an indication that the public would not like to see the Democrats with unchecked power in Washington. The CNN poll was conducted by ORC International December 17-18, with 620 adults nationwide questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points. - CNN Political Editor Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

F81WMXTJQRirSw2v

test

2oWRy3QkdPOI2uMs

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2017/may/yates-ldquo-flynn-was-compromised-with-respect-to-the-russians-rdquo

Yates: 'Flynn Was Compromised With Respect to the Russians'

2017-05-08

WASHINGTON – Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates testified Monday before a Senate subcommittee about her efforts to warn the Trump administration of misinformation put forth by former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn . Days after the inauguration , Yates says she spoke with White House counsel Donald McGahn three times , twice in person and once over the phone , and told him that statements made by Vice President Mike Pence and others about Flynn ’ s discussions with the Russia ’ s ambassador to the U.S. were wrong . She said she worried Flynn was vulnerable to blackmail as a result . `` We believe that General Flynn was compromised with respect to the Russians , ” she told lawmakers . Much of her testimony revolved around her conversation with McGahn . “ We told them how we had this information , how we had acquired it , and how we knew it was untrue , ” she said . President Trump fired Flynn four days after the Washington Post published a story about Flynn and the reported misinformation he gave . This was more than two weeks after Yates ’ warning to the White House . “ Ask Sally Yates , under oath , if she knows how classified information got into the newspapers soon after she explained it to W.H . Council , ” he tweeted . In the hearing , Yates said she didn ’ t know how the Washington Post got the story . She said she did know Flynn had shared untrue information because of phone calls intercepted by the Obama administration . Trump has been quick to defend Flynn and Judicial Watch , a conservative watchdog group that ’ s filed a lawsuit about these intercepted phone calls , is backing him up . “ President Trump is onto something , ” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told ███ News . “ The Obama administration was monitoring at least people close to him and certainly the results of that classified intelligence gathering was leaked which is wildly illegal . ” Yates insists her decision to inform the White House was not politically motivated and she did not call for the Trump administration to fire Flynn . “ We gave them this information so that they could take action . ”

WASHINGTON – Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates testified Monday before a Senate subcommittee about her efforts to warn the Trump administration of misinformation put forth by former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Days after the inauguration, Yates says she spoke with White House counsel Donald McGahn three times, twice in person and once over the phone, and told him that statements made by Vice President Mike Pence and others about Flynn’s discussions with the Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. were wrong. She said she worried Flynn was vulnerable to blackmail as a result. "We believe that General Flynn was compromised with respect to the Russians,” she told lawmakers. Much of her testimony revolved around her conversation with McGahn. “We told them how we had this information, how we had acquired it, and how we knew it was untrue,” she said. President Trump fired Flynn four days after the Washington Post published a story about Flynn and the reported misinformation he gave. This was more than two weeks after Yates’ warning to the White House. Before the hearing, Trump took to Twitter. “Ask Sally Yates, under oath, if she knows how classified information got into the newspapers soon after she explained it to W.H. Council,” he tweeted. In the hearing, Yates said she didn’t know how the Washington Post got the story. She said she did know Flynn had shared untrue information because of phone calls intercepted by the Obama administration. Trump has been quick to defend Flynn and Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that’s filed a lawsuit about these intercepted phone calls, is backing him up. “President Trump is onto something,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told CBN News. “The Obama administration was monitoring at least people close to him and certainly the results of that classified intelligence gathering was leaked which is wildly illegal.” Yates insists her decision to inform the White House was not politically motivated and she did not call for the Trump administration to fire Flynn. “We gave them this information so that they could take action.”

www1.cbn.com

right

2oWRy3QkdPOI2uMs

test

EnaT7CoWFIpgTCrK

race_and_racism

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/some-racism-is-more-equal-than-others/

Some Racism Is More Equal Than Others

Daniel J. Flynn, Chris Talgo, Jeffrey Lord, William Murchison, George Neumayr, R. Emmett Tyrrell

The New York Times named anti-white racist Sarah Jeong to its editorial board earlier this week . The new hire ’ s social media history reads like something David Duke might write , if only the reader substitutes “ white ” for all mentions of his disfavored groups . Her posts featured the hashtag “ # CancelWhitePeople , ” proclaimed Caucasians “ only fit to live underground like groveling goblins , ” and fantasized of the coming extinction of the race she seeks to erase . “ Oh man , ” she tweeted , “ it ’ s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men . ” The peculiar hiring comes less than two years after public editor Liz Spayd ’ s scolding of her employer for its lack of diversity . “ Only two of the 20-plus reporters who covered the presidential campaign for The New York Times were black , ” Spayd wrote . “ None were Latino or Asian . That ’ s less diversity than you ’ ll find in Donald Trump ’ s cabinet thus far . Of The Times ’ s newly named White House team , all six are white , as is most everyone in the Washington bureau… . The executive editor , Dean Baquet , is African-American . The other editors on his masthead are white . ” Shortly thereafter , the Times released a report boasting that it signed on to something called “ the C.E.O . Action for Diversity and Inclusion , ” “ rolled out unconscious bias training , ” and “ expanded our outreach to underrepresented groups , working with organizations dedicated to diversity in technology ( e.g . Code2040 ) , journalism ( e.g . National Association of Black Journalists ) , and media ( e.g . The Emma Bowen Foundation ) . ” Though blacks and Latinos constituted just 14 percent of all employees , “ Company-wide , 61 percent of our new hires in 2017 were women , and 39 percent were people of color . ” Jeong came as a two-for-one deal . And as an added bonus , the political outlook she espouses beyond her racial preoccupations meshes with the views of her colleagues . A December 2015 tweet brags , “ I was equating Trump to Hitler before it was cool . ” As CNN ’ s Jim Acosta grandstanded his way out of a White House press briefing on Thursday because the administration portrays the news media in an adversarial light that he claims endangers journalists , the Times hired a woman who equates Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler . Why , other than to inspire an Operation Valkyrie , does anyone with a megaphone compare the elected president of the United States with a genocidal monster ? Acosta advocates producing chants , buttons , and bumper stickers protesting the White House , apparently in an effort to persuade the public that the president is wrong to regard the press as an enemy . The attempt of professional critics to muzzle their presidential critic seems to only embolden him . Thursday evening in Wilkes-Barre , Pennsylvania , Trump referred to the “ horrible , horrendous people ” in the back of the room and denounced “ fake-news CNN ” for declaring in 2016 that he possessed no path to 270 electoral votes . More than a generation ago , The Media Elite reported a survey of 240 journalists at major publications showing that in the four presidential elections from 1964 to 1976 the press never voted by less than a 4-to-1 margin for the Democratic candidate . A 2014 study by Indiana University professors Lars Willnat and David Weaver indicated that the number of Republicans among full-time journalists dropped from 18 percent in 2002 to seven percent in 2013 . Anecdotal evidence , such as the New York Times editorial board hiring a crackpot and CNN assigning a zealot to cover the White House , suggests that the media became more ideologically homogenous in the intervening few years . Hypocrisy may color the media ’ s crusades for diversity in other fields as journalism remains a stuff-white-people-like profession . Something far worse characterizes its lockstep conformity of opinion . The same bubble that prevented the Fourth Estate from seeing a competitive Trump candidacy , let alone a winning one , handicaps it addressing its real diversity crisis . Consumers of media suffer from a monolithic viewpoint coming from an ever-increasing variety of outlets . “ Her journalism and the fact that she is a young Asian woman have made her a subject of frequent online harassment , ” the Times explained in defense of Jeong ’ s hiring . “ For a period of time she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers . She sees now that this approach only served to feed the vitriol that we too often see on social media . She regrets it , and The Times does not condone it . ” Some racism is more equal than others . Some diversity is , too .

The New York Times named anti-white racist Sarah Jeong to its editorial board earlier this week. The new hire’s social media history reads like something David Duke might write, if only the reader substitutes “white” for all mentions of his disfavored groups. Her posts featured the hashtag “#CancelWhitePeople,” proclaimed Caucasians “only fit to live underground like groveling goblins,” and fantasized of the coming extinction of the race she seeks to erase. “Oh man,” she tweeted, “it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.” The peculiar hiring comes less than two years after public editor Liz Spayd’s scolding of her employer for its lack of diversity. “Only two of the 20-plus reporters who covered the presidential campaign for The New York Times were black,” Spayd wrote. “None were Latino or Asian. That’s less diversity than you’ll find in Donald Trump’s cabinet thus far. Of The Times’s newly named White House team, all six are white, as is most everyone in the Washington bureau…. The executive editor, Dean Baquet, is African-American. The other editors on his masthead are white.” Shortly thereafter, the Times released a report boasting that it signed on to something called “the C.E.O. Action for Diversity and Inclusion,” “rolled out unconscious bias training,” and “expanded our outreach to underrepresented groups, working with organizations dedicated to diversity in technology (e.g. Code2040), journalism (e.g. National Association of Black Journalists), and media (e.g. The Emma Bowen Foundation).” Though blacks and Latinos constituted just 14 percent of all employees, “Company-wide, 61 percent of our new hires in 2017 were women, and 39 percent were people of color.” Jeong came as a two-for-one deal. And as an added bonus, the political outlook she espouses beyond her racial preoccupations meshes with the views of her colleagues. A December 2015 tweet brags, “I was equating Trump to Hitler before it was cool.” As CNN’s Jim Acosta grandstanded his way out of a White House press briefing on Thursday because the administration portrays the news media in an adversarial light that he claims endangers journalists, the Times hired a woman who equates Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. Why, other than to inspire an Operation Valkyrie, does anyone with a megaphone compare the elected president of the United States with a genocidal monster? Acosta advocates producing chants, buttons, and bumper stickers protesting the White House, apparently in an effort to persuade the public that the president is wrong to regard the press as an enemy. Some people miss their irony. The attempt of professional critics to muzzle their presidential critic seems to only embolden him. Thursday evening in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, Trump referred to the “horrible, horrendous people” in the back of the room and denounced “fake-news CNN” for declaring in 2016 that he possessed no path to 270 electoral votes. More than a generation ago, The Media Elite reported a survey of 240 journalists at major publications showing that in the four presidential elections from 1964 to 1976 the press never voted by less than a 4-to-1 margin for the Democratic candidate. A 2014 study by Indiana University professors Lars Willnat and David Weaver indicated that the number of Republicans among full-time journalists dropped from 18 percent in 2002 to seven percent in 2013. Anecdotal evidence, such as the New York Times editorial board hiring a crackpot and CNN assigning a zealot to cover the White House, suggests that the media became more ideologically homogenous in the intervening few years. Hypocrisy may color the media’s crusades for diversity in other fields as journalism remains a stuff-white-people-like profession. Something far worse characterizes its lockstep conformity of opinion. The same bubble that prevented the Fourth Estate from seeing a competitive Trump candidacy, let alone a winning one, handicaps it addressing its real diversity crisis. Consumers of media suffer from a monolithic viewpoint coming from an ever-increasing variety of outlets. “Her journalism and the fact that she is a young Asian woman have made her a subject of frequent online harassment,” the Times explained in defense of Jeong’s hiring. “For a period of time she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers. She sees now that this approach only served to feed the vitriol that we too often see on social media. She regrets it, and The Times does not condone it.” Some racism is more equal than others. Some diversity is, too.

www.spectator.org

right

EnaT7CoWFIpgTCrK

test

ztQqFFJu1850bfb9

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/11/trump-pushes-extreme-vetting-hillary-says-vetting-impossible/

WikiLeaks: Hillary Clinton Says Vetting Refugees Is Impossible

2016-10-11

Ken Klukowski

Hillary Clinton regards vetting refugees as impossible , according to email released by WikiLeaks . For his part , Donald Trump says his immigration plan does not ban Muslims , but instead requires “ extreme vetting ” for Muslims arriving from countries with documented problems of Islamic terrorism—consistent with the U.S. Constitution . Regarding policy , Americans will decide between the sharply contrasting visions of Trump and Clinton—one focusing explicitly on security and America ’ s interests , the other saying behind closed doors that she believes in “ open borders ” but does not say so publicly , and that national leaders can have a private position that is different from their public positions . Apologists for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton say that Trump ’ s immigration plan is both bad policy and unconstitutional , and that one type of immigrant—Syrian refugees—should be admitted in far greater numbers . But hacked emails released by Wikileaks show Clinton thinks vetting Syrian refugees is “ impossible. ” Michael Patrick Leahy reports that Clinton acknowledged this reality for refugees pouring into Jordan . Director of National Intelligence James Clapper already admitted that the U.S. can not vet these refugees , so this may be an instance of Clinton telling the public a different position than you take in private . Emails also show Clinton ’ s inner circle caught in an echo chamber when it comes to constitutional rights for aliens ( legal or illegal , not just refugees ) . Mandy Grunwald writes of wanting to “ whack ” a Republican “ for trying to change the Constitution to deny babies born here the right to American citizenship if their parents aren ’ t citizens ? ( basically get rid of the 14th Amendment ) . ” To the contrary , the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not guarantee citizenship to the children of foreigners , whether they are in the United States legally or not . Congress chooses to grant citizenship very broadly in the Immigration and Nationality Act , but the Constitution does not require it except for the children of American citizens born on American soil . This is not exclusively a conservative idea ; in addition to constitutional conservative stalwarts like Prof. John Eastman , noted judicial activist Judge Richard Posner on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has declared that the Fourteenth Amendment does not confer birthright citizenship , calling the idea “ nonsense . ” Moreover , in 1993 now-Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid introduced a bill ( the Immigration Stabilization Act ) that would change current law , denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants . Since the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 , the constitutional contours of this issue have not changed from 1993 through 2016—only the politics of a cynical attempt to create millions of Democratic voters for those who racially stereotype foreigners from certain countries . All this goes back to the famous line of Justice Robert Jackson that the Constitution is not a “ suicide pact. ” It is a document that ensures several fundamental principles of fairness and justice—like due process and equal protection—to all persons , whether citizens or not . But for the most part , it is a document predicated upon American exceptionalism , and showcasing an “ America First ” paradigm . The Constitution frames issues like national security and immigration in terms of what is best for America . The Supreme Court seemed split on what the Constitution requires when it comes to immigrants , including refugees . Liberal justices refer to constitutional limits on immigration laws , while conservative justices say that the Constitution gives Congress complete discretion and full authority to determine who can cross the U.S. border and who can stay in this country . On issues of immigration , refugees , and the Constitution , Trump and Clinton are worlds apart—presenting voters with a clear choice . Ken Klukowski is senior legal editor for ███ . Follow him on Twitter @ kenklukowski .

Hillary Clinton regards vetting refugees as impossible, according to email released by WikiLeaks. For his part, Donald Trump says his immigration plan does not ban Muslims, but instead requires “extreme vetting” for Muslims arriving from countries with documented problems of Islamic terrorism—consistent with the U.S. Constitution. Regarding policy, Americans will decide between the sharply contrasting visions of Trump and Clinton—one focusing explicitly on security and America’s interests, the other saying behind closed doors that she believes in “open borders” but does not say so publicly, and that national leaders can have a private position that is different from their public positions. Apologists for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton say that Trump’s immigration plan is both bad policy and unconstitutional, and that one type of immigrant—Syrian refugees—should be admitted in far greater numbers. But hacked emails released by Wikileaks show Clinton thinks vetting Syrian refugees is “impossible.” Michael Patrick Leahy reports that Clinton acknowledged this reality for refugees pouring into Jordan. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper already admitted that the U.S. cannot vet these refugees, so this may be an instance of Clinton telling the public a different position than you take in private. Emails also show Clinton’s inner circle caught in an echo chamber when it comes to constitutional rights for aliens (legal or illegal, not just refugees). Mandy Grunwald writes of wanting to “whack” a Republican “for trying to change the Constitution to deny babies born here the right to American citizenship if their parents aren’t citizens? (basically get rid of the 14th Amendment).” To the contrary, the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not guarantee citizenship to the children of foreigners, whether they are in the United States legally or not. Congress chooses to grant citizenship very broadly in the Immigration and Nationality Act, but the Constitution does not require it except for the children of American citizens born on American soil. This is not exclusively a conservative idea; in addition to constitutional conservative stalwarts like Prof. John Eastman, noted judicial activist Judge Richard Posner on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has declared that the Fourteenth Amendment does not confer birthright citizenship, calling the idea “nonsense.” Moreover, in 1993 now-Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid introduced a bill (the Immigration Stabilization Act) that would change current law, denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. Since the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, the constitutional contours of this issue have not changed from 1993 through 2016—only the politics of a cynical attempt to create millions of Democratic voters for those who racially stereotype foreigners from certain countries. All this goes back to the famous line of Justice Robert Jackson that the Constitution is not a “suicide pact.” It is a document that ensures several fundamental principles of fairness and justice—like due process and equal protection—to all persons, whether citizens or not. But for the most part, it is a document predicated upon American exceptionalism, and showcasing an “America First” paradigm. The Constitution frames issues like national security and immigration in terms of what is best for America. The Supreme Court seemed split on what the Constitution requires when it comes to immigrants, including refugees. Liberal justices refer to constitutional limits on immigration laws, while conservative justices say that the Constitution gives Congress complete discretion and full authority to determine who can cross the U.S. border and who can stay in this country. On issues of immigration, refugees, and the Constitution, Trump and Clinton are worlds apart—presenting voters with a clear choice. Ken Klukowski is senior legal editor for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.

www.breitbart.com

right

ztQqFFJu1850bfb9

test

IviEp072Yo9uZMoF

lgbt_rights

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/17/liz-cheney-reiterates-stance-against-same-sex-marriage/?hpt=po_c2

Cheney sisters spar over same-sex marriage

2013-11-17

( CNN ) – One day after their daughters ' quarrel over same-sex marriage burst into the political spotlight , former Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife , Lynne , defended their daughter Liz Cheney , saying she loves and respects her sister Mary , who 's married to a woman . `` This is an issue we have dealt with privately for many years , and we are pained to see it become public , '' the Cheneys said in a statement . `` Since it has , one thing should be clear . Liz has always believed in the traditional definition of marriage , '' the Cheneys added , saying Liz Cheney has `` always treated her sister and her sister 's family with love and respect , exactly as she should have done . '' `` Compassion is called for , even when there is disagreement about such a fundamental matter and Liz 's many kindnesses should n't be used to distort her position , '' the statement concludes . The recent dispute started when Liz Cheney , who 's making a GOP primary challenge for a U.S. Senate seat in Wyoming next year , said Sunday morning that she supports some rights for same-sex partners but does not favor the right for same-sex couples to legally wed . `` I love Mary very much . I love her family very much . This is just an issue in which we disagree , '' Cheney said on `` Fox News Sunday . '' `` Liz – this is n't just an issue on which we disagree – you 're just wrong – and on the wrong side of history , '' she posted on Facebook . Mary Cheney married her longtime partner , Heather Poe , last year in Washington D.C. , which legalized same-sex marriage in 2009 . The couple have two children together – a son , Samuel , and a daughter , Sarah . Liz Cheney did not attend the wedding . Mary also shared a post by her wife , who said she was offended by Liz Cheney 's latest comments : I was watching my sister-in-law on Fox News Sunday ( yes Liz , in fifteen states and the District of Columbia you are my sister-in-law ) and was very disappointed to hear her say `` I do believe in the traditional definition of marriage . '' Liz has been a guest in our home , has spent time and shared holidays with our children , and when Mary and I got married in 2012 – she did n't hesitate to tell us how happy she was for us . To have her now say she does n't support our right to marry is offensive to say the least I ca n't help but wonder how Liz would feel if as she moved from state to state , she discovered that her family was protected in one but not the other . I always thought freedom meant freedom for EVERYONE . Responding to the comments , Cheney said Monday morning she treats her sister with compassion . `` I love my sister and her family and have always tried to be compassionate towards them . I believe that is the Christian way to behave , '' Liz Cheney told CNN anchor and Chief Washington Correspondent Jake Tapper . Mary Cheney 's sexual orientation was known during her father 's first run in 2000 for vice president , though her family generally declined to discuss her personal life on the campaign trail . Dick Cheney has said in the past that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry , though like his daughter Liz he says regulations should be handled at the state level . Tapper asked Cheney last month in an interview for CNN 's `` The Lead '' whether the family disagreement might create awkward Christmas table conversation . `` My position on that issue is well known , I enunciated it in 2000 in a debate with Joe Lieberman . It has n't changed . And I 'll let my daughters speak for themselves , '' the former vice president said . A majority of Americans voters–56 % –say they support or would support allowing same-sex marriage in their state , while 36 % oppose , according to a Quinnipiac University poll released in late September . When considering Republicans ' views only , the numbers flip . Fifty-eight percent oppose laws that legalize same-sex marriage , while 36 % favor such laws . The American Principles Fund , an independent political group defending Wyoming 's incumbent GOP Sen. Mike Enzi , launched an ad last month attacking Liz Cheney for supporting some same-sex rights . Wyoming is one of 34 states with a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage . The ad said she opposed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and applauded the State Department 's decision to grant benefits to same-sex partners of employees . Cheney said Sunday that Enzi should `` renounce '' the ad for being `` gutter politics . '' She defended her view on the State Department and explained that she opposed the constitutional amendment because she believes same-sex marriage decisions should be made on the state level . `` I do n't believe we ought to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation . If people are in a same-sex relationship and they want their partner to be able to have health benefits or be designated as a beneficiary on their life insurance , there 's no reason we should n't do that , '' she said . `` I also do n't support amending the Constitution on this issue . I do believe it 's an issue that 's got to be left up to the states . I do believe in the traditional definition of marriage . '' When Cheney voiced her stance on same-sex marriage in late August , her sister took to Facebook to say Liz Cheney was `` dead wrong '' on the issue . Asked about the dispute , White House spokesman Jay Carney said `` This is a tough issue , and can be a tough issue , for a lot of families . '' `` It is a very American value to pursue equality for everyone , '' he added .

6 years ago Updated 1:50 p.m. ET, 11/18/2013 (CNN) – One day after their daughters' quarrel over same-sex marriage burst into the political spotlight, former Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne, defended their daughter Liz Cheney, saying she loves and respects her sister Mary, who's married to a woman. "This is an issue we have dealt with privately for many years, and we are pained to see it become public," the Cheneys said in a statement. Follow @politicalticker Follow @KilloughCNN "Since it has, one thing should be clear. Liz has always believed in the traditional definition of marriage," the Cheneys added, saying Liz Cheney has "always treated her sister and her sister's family with love and respect, exactly as she should have done." "Compassion is called for, even when there is disagreement about such a fundamental matter and Liz's many kindnesses shouldn't be used to distort her position," the statement concludes. The recent dispute started when Liz Cheney, who's making a GOP primary challenge for a U.S. Senate seat in Wyoming next year, said Sunday morning that she supports some rights for same-sex partners but does not favor the right for same-sex couples to legally wed. "I love Mary very much. I love her family very much. This is just an issue in which we disagree," Cheney said on "Fox News Sunday." Mary Cheney responded Sunday not long after the interview. "Liz – this isn't just an issue on which we disagree – you're just wrong – and on the wrong side of history," she posted on Facebook. Cheney says daughter Liz will win Senate bid Mary Cheney married her longtime partner, Heather Poe, last year in Washington D.C., which legalized same-sex marriage in 2009. The couple have two children together – a son, Samuel, and a daughter, Sarah. Liz Cheney did not attend the wedding. Mary also shared a post by her wife, who said she was offended by Liz Cheney's latest comments: I was watching my sister-in-law on Fox News Sunday (yes Liz, in fifteen states and the District of Columbia you are my sister-in-law) and was very disappointed to hear her say "I do believe in the traditional definition of marriage." Liz has been a guest in our home, has spent time and shared holidays with our children, and when Mary and I got married in 2012 – she didn't hesitate to tell us how happy she was for us. To have her now say she doesn't support our right to marry is offensive to say the least I can't help but wonder how Liz would feel if as she moved from state to state, she discovered that her family was protected in one but not the other. I always thought freedom meant freedom for EVERYONE. Mary Cheney added: "Couldn't have said it better myself." Responding to the comments, Cheney said Monday morning she treats her sister with compassion. "I love my sister and her family and have always tried to be compassionate towards them. I believe that is the Christian way to behave," Liz Cheney told CNN anchor and Chief Washington Correspondent Jake Tapper. Liz Cheney asserts her Wyoming roots in first ad Mary Cheney's sexual orientation was known during her father's first run in 2000 for vice president, though her family generally declined to discuss her personal life on the campaign trail. Dick Cheney has said in the past that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry, though like his daughter Liz he says regulations should be handled at the state level. Tapper asked Cheney last month in an interview for CNN's "The Lead" whether the family disagreement might create awkward Christmas table conversation. "My position on that issue is well known, I enunciated it in 2000 in a debate with Joe Lieberman. It hasn't changed. And I'll let my daughters speak for themselves," the former vice president said. A majority of Americans voters–56%–say they support or would support allowing same-sex marriage in their state, while 36% oppose, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released in late September. When considering Republicans' views only, the numbers flip. Fifty-eight percent oppose laws that legalize same-sex marriage, while 36% favor such laws. The American Principles Fund, an independent political group defending Wyoming's incumbent GOP Sen. Mike Enzi, launched an ad last month attacking Liz Cheney for supporting some same-sex rights. Wyoming is one of 34 states with a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The ad said she opposed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and applauded the State Department's decision to grant benefits to same-sex partners of employees. Cheney said Sunday that Enzi should "renounce" the ad for being "gutter politics." She defended her view on the State Department and explained that she opposed the constitutional amendment because she believes same-sex marriage decisions should be made on the state level. "I don't believe we ought to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. If people are in a same-sex relationship and they want their partner to be able to have health benefits or be designated as a beneficiary on their life insurance, there's no reason we shouldn't do that," she said. "I also don't support amending the Constitution on this issue. I do believe it's an issue that's got to be left up to the states. I do believe in the traditional definition of marriage." When Cheney voiced her stance on same-sex marriage in late August, her sister took to Facebook to say Liz Cheney was "dead wrong" on the issue. Asked about the dispute, White House spokesman Jay Carney said "This is a tough issue, and can be a tough issue, for a lot of families." "It is a very American value to pursue equality for everyone," he added. - CNN’s Jake Tapper and Kevin Liptak contributed to this report.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

IviEp072Yo9uZMoF

test

nlEgdmuwC0oqNY1s

lgbt_rights

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/21/laura-bush-take-me-out-of-pro-gay-marriage-ad/

Laura Bush: Take me out of pro-gay marriage ad

2013-02-21

( CNN ) – Former first lady Laura Bush , who is one of three prominent Republicans featured in a new ad supporting same-sex marriage , has asked the spot 's creator to remove a clip of her espousing support for equal marriage rights . `` Mrs. Bush did not approve of her inclusion in this advertisement nor is she associated in any way with the group that made the ad , '' Anne MacDonald , a spokeswoman for the former first lady , wrote in a statement Thursday . `` When she became aware of the advertisement Tuesday night , we requested that the group remove her from it . '' The ad , from the Respect for Marriage Coalition , features Bush speaking in a 2010 CNN interview with Larry King . `` When couples are committed to each other and love each other then they ought to have the same sort of rights that everyone has , '' she is shown saying . Those remarks came as a surprise at the time , since she appeared to be breaking ranks on the issue with her husband , former President George W. Bush . In 2011 , her daughter Barbara appeared in a television spot for another pro-gay marriage group , the Human Rights Campaign . The spot also features clips of former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Secretary of State Colin Powell voicing their support for same-sex marriage rights . A spokeswoman for Powell said Thursday they were n't contacted for permission to use the clip , but that `` his remarks are in the public domain and we have not asked them to remove it . '' A spokesman for Cheney did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ad Thursday morning . The Respect for Marriage Coalition similarly did not respond to a query on whether they would remove Bush from their spot . The group said Wednesday they would spend $ 1 million to air the spot nationally , as well as run print ads in major newspapers utilizing the same quotes from the Republicans who back equal marriage rights . `` None of us would want to be told we ca n't marry the person we love , '' a narrator says introducing the clips . `` That 's why a growing majority of Americans believe it 's time to allow marriage for gay and lesbian couples . '' The ad shows Colin Powell , the former Secretary of State under George W. Bush , supporting same-sex marriage in an interview with CNN 's Wolf Blitzer from May . `` Allowing them to live together with the protection of law , it seems to me is the way we should be moving in this country , '' Powell said on CNN 's `` The Situation Room . '' That interview reflected a shift for Powell , who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when the military 's Do n't Ask , Do n't Tell policy was implemented . A third Republican , former Vice President Dick Cheney , is shown in the spot saying `` Freedom means freedom for everyone . '' Cheney 's younger daughter Mary wed her longtime partner Heather Poe in June . They were married in Washington , D.C. , which legalized same-sex marriage in 2009 . And a Democrat , President Barack Obama , is shown during his January inauguration address declaring `` Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law . '' The new ad campaign comes as the Supreme Court prepares to tackle the issue of same-sex marriage this spring . Last year the high court agreed to hear two constitutional challenges to state and federal laws dealing with the recognition of gay and lesbian couples to legally wed . Oral arguments will be held on March 26 and 27 , with a ruling by late June .

7 years ago (CNN) – Former first lady Laura Bush, who is one of three prominent Republicans featured in a new ad supporting same-sex marriage, has asked the spot's creator to remove a clip of her espousing support for equal marriage rights. "Mrs. Bush did not approve of her inclusion in this advertisement nor is she associated in any way with the group that made the ad," Anne MacDonald, a spokeswoman for the former first lady, wrote in a statement Thursday. "When she became aware of the advertisement Tuesday night, we requested that the group remove her from it." The ad, from the Respect for Marriage Coalition, features Bush speaking in a 2010 CNN interview with Larry King. "When couples are committed to each other and love each other then they ought to have the same sort of rights that everyone has," she is shown saying. Those remarks came as a surprise at the time, since she appeared to be breaking ranks on the issue with her husband, former President George W. Bush. In 2011, her daughter Barbara appeared in a television spot for another pro-gay marriage group, the Human Rights Campaign. UPDATE: Group switches ad after Laura Bush’s request The spot also features clips of former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Secretary of State Colin Powell voicing their support for same-sex marriage rights. A spokeswoman for Powell said Thursday they weren't contacted for permission to use the clip, but that "his remarks are in the public domain and we have not asked them to remove it." A spokesman for Cheney did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ad Thursday morning. The Respect for Marriage Coalition similarly did not respond to a query on whether they would remove Bush from their spot. The group said Wednesday they would spend $1 million to air the spot nationally, as well as run print ads in major newspapers utilizing the same quotes from the Republicans who back equal marriage rights. "None of us would want to be told we can't marry the person we love," a narrator says introducing the clips. "That's why a growing majority of Americans believe it's time to allow marriage for gay and lesbian couples." The ad shows Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State under George W. Bush, supporting same-sex marriage in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer from May. "Allowing them to live together with the protection of law, it seems to me is the way we should be moving in this country," Powell said on CNN's "The Situation Room." That interview reflected a shift for Powell, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy was implemented. A third Republican, former Vice President Dick Cheney, is shown in the spot saying "Freedom means freedom for everyone." Cheney's younger daughter Mary wed her longtime partner Heather Poe in June. They were married in Washington, D.C., which legalized same-sex marriage in 2009. And a Democrat, President Barack Obama, is shown during his January inauguration address declaring "Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law." The new ad campaign comes as the Supreme Court prepares to tackle the issue of same-sex marriage this spring. Last year the high court agreed to hear two constitutional challenges to state and federal laws dealing with the recognition of gay and lesbian couples to legally wed. Oral arguments will be held on March 26 and 27, with a ruling by late June.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

nlEgdmuwC0oqNY1s

test

mFeg0C6WMZJkJN1y

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/c3321eff556438e03fc1d1d12b6d42a2

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

2020-06-05

The pedestal where the statue of Admiral Raphael Semmes stands empty , early Friday , June 5 , 2020 in Mobile , Ala . The city of Mobile removed the Confederate statue early Friday , without making any public announcements . ( WMPI-TV via AP ) The pedestal where the statue of Admiral Raphael Semmes stands empty , early Friday , June 5 , 2020 in Mobile , Ala . The city of Mobile removed the Confederate statue early Friday , without making any public announcements . ( WMPI-TV via AP ) MOBILE , Ala. ( AP ) — Alabama ’ s port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd , with the mayor saying the monument was a “ potential distraction ” to focusing on the city ’ s future . The bronze likeness of Admiral Raphael Semmes , which stood in a middle of a downtown street near the Mobile waterfront for 120 years , had become a flash point for protest in the Gulf Coast city . Vandalized during a demonstration this week and then cleaned by the city , it was removed overnight without any public notice . Mayor Sandy Stimpson , in a string of messages sent on Twitter , said he ordered the removal . The decision to take down the statue wasn ’ t about Semmes or the monument itself , “ and it is not an attempt to rewrite history , ” he wrote . “ Moving this statue will not change the past . It is about removing a potential distraction so we may focus clearly on the future of our city , ” Stimpson said . The city would not say where the statue had been taken or what would be done with it , and it didn ’ t rule out the possibility that it would be returned to its original location . Other Confederate symbols have come down around the South as calls to get rid of rebel monuments intensified during protests over Floyd ’ s death , in which an Minneapolis police officer was charged with murder . The city of Birmingham removed a towering obelisk after another statue was toppled by protesters . Virginia ’ s governor has decided to remove a huge statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee in Richmond , Virginia , after city authorities said they ’ ll remove other Confederate monuments from Monument Avenue . Semmes was a Confederate commerce raider , sinking Union-allied ships during the Civil War . According to the Encyclopedia of Alabama , he was jailed on treason charges in New York City before returning South after the war , and was later prohibited by U.S. authorities from taking office as an elected judge in Mobile . He devoted his later years to writing his memoirs and became a “ Lost Cause ” hero to Southerners who lamented the end of the Confederacy . The statue was dedicated in 1900 , the year before Alabama ratified a Constitution that established white supremacy in the state by essentially disenfranchising blacks and poor whites . Semmes , a city of several thousand people near Mobile , was incorporated in 2010 and named in his honor .

The pedestal where the statue of Admiral Raphael Semmes stands empty, early Friday, June 5, 2020 in Mobile, Ala. The city of Mobile removed the Confederate statue early Friday, without making any public announcements. (WMPI-TV via AP) The pedestal where the statue of Admiral Raphael Semmes stands empty, early Friday, June 5, 2020 in Mobile, Ala. The city of Mobile removed the Confederate statue early Friday, without making any public announcements. (WMPI-TV via AP) MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama’s port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the mayor saying the monument was a “potential distraction” to focusing on the city’s future. The bronze likeness of Admiral Raphael Semmes, which stood in a middle of a downtown street near the Mobile waterfront for 120 years, had become a flash point for protest in the Gulf Coast city. Vandalized during a demonstration this week and then cleaned by the city, it was removed overnight without any public notice. Mayor Sandy Stimpson, in a string of messages sent on Twitter, said he ordered the removal. The decision to take down the statue wasn’t about Semmes or the monument itself, “and it is not an attempt to rewrite history,” he wrote. “Moving this statue will not change the past. It is about removing a potential distraction so we may focus clearly on the future of our city,” Stimpson said. The city would not say where the statue had been taken or what would be done with it, and it didn’t rule out the possibility that it would be returned to its original location. ADVERTISEMENT Other Confederate symbols have come down around the South as calls to get rid of rebel monuments intensified during protests over Floyd’s death, in which an Minneapolis police officer was charged with murder. The city of Birmingham removed a towering obelisk after another statue was toppled by protesters. Virginia’s governor has decided to remove a huge statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee in Richmond, Virginia, after city authorities said they’ll remove other Confederate monuments from Monument Avenue. Semmes was a Confederate commerce raider, sinking Union-allied ships during the Civil War. According to the Encyclopedia of Alabama, he was jailed on treason charges in New York City before returning South after the war, and was later prohibited by U.S. authorities from taking office as an elected judge in Mobile. He devoted his later years to writing his memoirs and became a “Lost Cause” hero to Southerners who lamented the end of the Confederacy. The statue was dedicated in 1900, the year before Alabama ratified a Constitution that established white supremacy in the state by essentially disenfranchising blacks and poor whites. Semmes, a city of several thousand people near Mobile, was incorporated in 2010 and named in his honor.

www.apnews.com

center

mFeg0C6WMZJkJN1y

test

i83jgeVNKyNuhN7T

lgbt_rights

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/glenn-beck-gay-marriage-cut/2015/05/02/id/642228/

Glenn Beck: Legalizing Gay Marriage Will Cut Church Attendance in Half

2015-05-02

Todd Beamon

Fifty percent of churchgoers in America will stop attending church within five years if the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage , conservative commentator Glenn Beck predicted . `` If gay marriage goes through the Supreme Court and gay marriage becomes fine and they can put teeth in it — so now they can go after the churches — 50 percent of our churches will fall away , meaning the congregations , '' Beck said Thursday on his radio show . His comments were reported by The Blaze . `` Within five years , the congregations , 50 percent of the congregants will fall away from their church because they won ’ t be able to take the persecution , '' Beck said.The nine-member court heard arguments Tuesday on whether to legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states . Same-sex couples now can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia.Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has indicated her support for same-sex marriage , and both she and Justice Elena Kagan have officiated at gay marriages . Justice Anthony Kennedy is expected to be the swing vote in the court 's ruling , which is expected later next month.Beck , who has long railed against government involvement in marriage , predicted that an affirmative decision from the court would force churches to shut down — or see their memberships plunge because people will stop attending due to the pressure to marry gays and lesbians . `` What does your church do if they are currently saying , 'No , we aren ’ t going to marry same-sex couples . ' What happens ? '' Beck asked . `` They lose their tax-exempt status and a lot of them will fall away . `` In addition , `` the stigma of going to church will be too much , '' Beck said , and Americans would not want to risk losing their jobs , livelihoods , or reputations , the Blaze reports . `` Persecution is coming , '' he later added . `` If this goes through , persecution is coming . I mean serious persecution . Mark my words . `` Fifty percent , '' Beck reiterated . `` Within five years , 50 percent of the people you sit next to in church will not be there … because they ’ ll say : ' I can ’ t do that . I will lose my job . People are picketing at my house . I just can ’ t do that . ' ''

Fifty percent of churchgoers in America will stop attending church within five years if the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage, conservative commentator Glenn Beck predicted."If gay marriage goes through the Supreme Court and gay marriage becomes fine and they can put teeth in it — so now they can go after the churches — 50 percent of our churches will fall away, meaning the congregations," Beck said Thursday on his radio show. His comments were reported by The Blaze. "Within five years, the congregations, 50 percent of the congregants will fall away from their church because they won’t be able to take the persecution," Beck said.The nine-member court heard arguments Tuesday on whether to legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states. Same-sex couples now can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia.Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has indicated her support for same-sex marriage, and both she and Justice Elena Kagan have officiated at gay marriages. Justice Anthony Kennedy is expected to be the swing vote in the court's ruling, which is expected later next month.Beck, who has long railed against government involvement in marriage, predicted that an affirmative decision from the court would force churches to shut down — or see their memberships plunge because people will stop attending due to the pressure to marry gays and lesbians."What does your church do if they are currently saying, 'No, we aren’t going to marry same-sex couples.' What happens?" Beck asked. "They lose their tax-exempt status and a lot of them will fall away."In addition, "the stigma of going to church will be too much," Beck said, and Americans would not want to risk losing their jobs, livelihoods, or reputations, the Blaze reports."Persecution is coming," he later added. "If this goes through, persecution is coming. I mean serious persecution. Mark my words."Fifty percent," Beck reiterated. "Within five years, 50 percent of the people you sit next to in church will not be there … because they’ll say: 'I can’t do that. I will lose my job. People are picketing at my house. I just can’t do that.'"

www.newsmax.com

right

i83jgeVNKyNuhN7T

test

y5PbA9Cm9mmAe6Ar

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/08/john_dean_on_richard_nixon_hes_in_the_middle_of_this_its_for_him_blessed_by_him/

The new Richard Nixon lie: John Dean on why he would have loved the Tea Party

2014-08-08

David Daley

This week marks the 40th anniversary of Richard Nixon 's resignation , just steps ahead of likely removal from office for the Watergate coverup . In his new book , `` The Nixon Defense , '' John Dean -- Nixon 's legal counsel during Watergate -- has generated an amazing historic record . He transcribed all of the Oval Office tapes related to Watergate and allows them to stand as a guide to what the president knew and when he knew it . Nixon does not come out looking good . While some of these tapes were transcribed earlier by historian Stanley Kutler , and others were transcribed by Watergate prosecutors , no one has published a complete record until now . And it 's clearer than ever , from these transcripts , that Nixon helped encourage and orchestrate the White House coverup as soon as the days after the burglars were arrested in June 1972 inside the Democratic National Committee headquarters . Dean himself remains a fascinating figure . For going into the Oval Office in March 1973 and telling Nixon that the Watergate coverup has created a cancer growing on the presidency , he 'll always be considered by some to be one of the honest men inside a corrupt White House . To others , Dean is a turncoat , a traitor , an architect of the coverup who switched sides when it became legally necessary and politically expedient . There are even conspiracy theories that place him at the center of everything . In a wide-ranging conversation last week at the Warwick Hotel in Manhattan , we talked about Nixon 's role in the coverup , what he might have done differently , and about what it takes to tell the president that there 's a cancer growing inside the presidency . We also worked through some of the alternate Watergate theories , most interestingly the one where Watergate burglars with CIA ties intentionally sabotaged the operation . And Dean said that while Nixon has gotten credit for a progressive domestic agenda , it was the priority of one aide , and he was n't interested in it . Nixon revisionism , Nixon conspiracy theories -- perhaps we still do have Dick Nixon to kick around . It ’ s amazing to me -- and must have been to you -- that no one beat you to this book . It 's been 40 years and nobody thought it would be interesting to transcribe every Watergate conversation off these tapes . It ’ s a story you really have to watch unfold day-to-day . Because no one 's done that . I think it was maybe the burden of having to do the transcripts . And they thought they had enough of a gist from the combination of the Watergate prosecutor and the material they got from [ historian Stanley ] Kutler . It ’ s probably even less than half because Stanley ’ s — those are all partial transcripts . His ellipses can be 20 to 50 minutes of omitted material . Stan is a good historian and knew what to cut and what not to cut . But he missed some things that might be in the flow that he didn ’ t pick up in earlier conversations . And I ’ m not sure which was harder , David , transcribing them or trying to boil them all back down . Both of them were awesome tasks . What do you bring to this task that is different than , say , Kutler or the other people that have worked on this ? Did you have a deeper understanding of what was being was said , simply based on working with all these people and understanding how they speak and think ? Probably the most simplistic thing is that I recognized words and phrases they don ’ t . Did you see the Politico piece where they compared the transcripts ? Bet on my transcript . I just know how they speak , I know how they think . The other thing is that Stanley was stuck with analog copies , and I have digital copies . My digital copies are not even as sophisticated as it is now . They have an engineer who did it . I just did it by having to learn how to do it and do it myself , and got a portable unit that I could take out to the Nixon library and digitize all that material I had . Well , the NARA [ National Archives and Records Administration ] people are wonderful ... So the most obvious question is why take on such a herculean task ? What do we learn after having all these transcripts added to the historical record ? I didn ’ t know I had to . That ’ s the most simplistic answer . When my publisher was encouraging me to do something on Nixon and the anniversary , my editor said , `` You must have some curiosity on some questions , '' and I said sure . I wondered how anyone as savvy as Richard Nixon could screw up his presidency as badly as he did . That was my basic question . Still a question 37 years later . And so I decided to see if I could find the answer out . And the key was , how could he be so foolish to come up with his final defense . Which was I did n't know anything until John Dean told me . Exactly . I just said , `` How could he have come to that ? '' And to get to that answer , I kept having to go back further and further and further , until I ’ m back to June 20 , 1972 . There ’ s just no other way . In your memoir `` Blind Ambition , '' you write about talking to Charles Colson about this when you 're both in prison . `` It looks suspicious to me , '' you wrote . `` Millions of dollars have been spent investigating Watergate . A President has been forced out of office . Dozens of lives have been ruined . We 're sitting in the can . And still nobody can explain why they bugged the place to begin with . '' And there is no simplistic answer , except you have to watch it happen day to day . And that ’ s what the book does ; it ’ s a combination of his character and his decision-making . -- and this is so contrary to his image as Mister Careful , Mister Executive . -- and he was already thinking through all of the different permutations of what happened . There are probably six different meetings on that day . A couple with H.R . Haldeman , there ’ s the call with John Mitchell in the evening . In some ways , he settled on a coverup on June 20 . Absolutely . Absolutely . Haldeman and Ehrlichman had settled on it when they agreed to the bogus press release over the weekend . But it gets worse . He ’ s relatively passive at the outset . He is later a total activist ; he is the driving force of the coverup of the coverup , which happens after March 21 . You 're working in the White House . You are the president 's lawyer . Did you realize at the time how involved he was , how consumed he was ? Or did you learn things from these transcripts ? That 's September 1972 , and then not again for another almost six months . So I ’ ve always had natural curiosities — how could they make these foolish decisions ? It never occurred to you at the time , or even later , that Nixon was so busy orchestrating the details of his coverup ? What did you come away from this book learning for the first time ? I had no idea that he was aware of the payment of hush money . I had no idea his involvement in suborning Jeb Magruder ’ s perjury . Those were all really surprising to me . He ’ s totally knowledgeable the whole way along . To me , it completes and fills in — as Bob Woodward says , it ’ s the definitive account of Watergate . But it ’ s also an amazing human story of a man in trouble , and how people respond in these situations . There ’ s a lot of drama that I really didn ’ t realize was in that story . I was in the forest at the time . Nixon is about to win a 49-state landslide . He was never in any danger . But while these transcripts make clear he never really considered another path , he could have , no ? Did it even cross his mind to honestly find out what happened and get rid of the people involved ? Could he have gotten through Watergate ? I think he did have opportunities , but they were not realistic for him . I do very little commentary in the book along the way , but one of the things that I am struck with is how he keeps coming back to Colson . Is Colson involved in this ? Is Colson involved in this ? You know why he ’ s doing that ? Because he did know about Colson 's involvement with the break-in at Brookings and also the Daniel Ellsberg break-in . Right . And he is not sure if he didn ’ t answer another break-in . He has just forgotten . Really ! You think the coverup happens because Nixon thought he just might have said go break into the DNC and he ca n't remember ? Yes , and so he ’ s very worried personally , and he ’ s trying to find out , very subtly , even with Haldeman and Ehrlichman . In essence , he soon gets comfort from Colson that they didn ’ t cook this up . This one wasn ’ t ours , thank God . It could have been . And so he gets over that and his next concern is more on an emotional level with John Mitchell . Haldeman had once told me in one of our sessions that Richard Nixon believed he was president because of John Mitchell . That but for their relationship , he wouldn ’ t be president of the United States . And so he felt greatly indebted to him . Mitchell didn ’ t want to come to Washington — he wanted to stay in New York and practice law , didn ’ t want to be attorney general . He certainly did n't want to run the Committee to Reelect the President . No , didn ’ t want to do any of that . But Nixon leaned on him all the time , much to probably his chagrin . And obviously , it killed his career . And I ’ m not positive that John Mitchell ordered the break-in , like Jeb Magruder thinks . Here ’ s the way it happened , as best as I can interpret the tapes now that I have them : Gordon Liddy ’ s plan is rejected in two meetings in Mitchells office — And it ’ s a joke , everybody knows it ’ s a joke . Mitchell 's not going to approve it — But you ’ re in the attorney general 's office , you ’ re the counsel to the president of the United States , and you ’ re hearing this crazy , batshit stuff . You must need to respond to this . And I now know from Haldeman 's schedule — I went back and told him , not once but twice — I was only sure once , and had only testified once . I know now it was twice . That this man 's insane , and if Mitchell hadn ’ t winked at me and said , `` Hey , I ’ m not taking this seriously , '' and he ’ s looking at this as a show ... And it 's when I go back a second time , I ’ m the one to blow it up and say , `` You ca n't talk about this stuff in the office of the attorney general . '' I just said it . It was just absurd . And that Magruder would have the bad judgment to bring Liddy back to a second meeting is incredible to me . Liddy has no judgment . He ’ s somewhere between an under-accomplished juvenile delinquent who grew up and never matured , to somewhere between a sociopath and a psychopath . I don ’ t know where he falls . He ’ s got problems . This guy has no moral compass and the fact that he would go over and pitch that is insane . So anyway , I go back to Haldeman , I now know , twice . I put a lot of it in the endnotes , because I didn ’ t want to make this another biographical work — I ’ ve already done that . But this did refresh a lot of my recollections and I was able to get later records and material like that . So I ’ m pretty sure because of my meeting with Haldeman that this plan is dead . Haldeman says , `` You stay a mile away , '' and I say , `` I didn ’ t want any part of it and we shouldn ’ t have any a part of it . '' And he said , `` You ’ re right I don ’ t want any part of it , either. `` And I ’ m convinced that Magruder — and I explained this in a meeting , it 's in the tapes , it 's in the book — that it got in what ’ s called the Tickler System at the White House , and [ Haldeman 's aide ] Gordan Strachan never gets it out . He ’ s got it in his system , and he doesn ’ t know whether Haldeman wants it or not -- Because he ’ s hearing it somewhere , `` I want this , I need this , I have to have this information. `` Right , it may well be , as Haldeman explained , that he was pushing Strachan like crazy to record McGovern ’ s meetings . And what he wants is his speeches . And this is a pretty fine line , and maybe that ’ s just a later Haldeman giving his own baloney . But the way he describes it to Nixon is — because Nixon ’ s is asking the same thing — they want copies of McGovern 's speeches and they ’ re not getting them . They just want somebody to go in the crowd with a recorder when he goes and does a public appearance , because they ’ re not getting that even . And that ’ s what they really want . So that can all easily be confused . So what I see happening , the plan is approved by Mitchell , and it includes Watergate , it includes McGovern , it includes whoever the leading candidate might be . That ’ s done . So Liddy goes and breaks into Watergate . Liddy doesn ’ t find [ chairman ] Larry O ’ Brien ’ s office -- and this is something he ’ s talked over with Magruder before the first break-in . I don ’ t think Magruder knows about the second one , because the fruits of the first one start coming in , and there ’ s some talk in the book -- Ehrlichman somehow learns about the fruits — I ’ m pretty convinced its from Fred LaRue that he learns about them . But anyway , Ehrlichman learns about them , the fact that there ’ s some juicy stuff and what have you . But Mitchell thinks it 's junk . And this is a story that Magruder told me contemporaneously , as well as what he later testified when he has immunity , no reason to lie , he ’ s trying to clean his act up . And the stories are totally consistent . He says , `` Mitchell picks up the phone , calls Liddy and reams him out . 'Gordon this stuff is junk , its not worth the money were paying for it , ' '' you know , a couple hundred thousand dollars . That ’ s what — today , a million dollars ! It ’ s a lot of money . It was then , and it is today . And Liddy tells him , `` General , I 'll take care of it . '' And he doesn ’ t say how he ’ ll do it but what he does is go back in the second time . There ’ s a tape from Nixon saying to Haldeman , `` put a plant in McGovern operation . '' Now , what ’ s a `` plant '' mean ? Anything . But Liddy would have obviously taken that as electronic surveillance . So what Haldeman does is gives the instructions to Strachan to have Liddy change his intelligence operation from Muskie to McGovern . And that ’ s where they ’ re going the night of the break-in . So if they had been arrested in McGovern office , instead of the DNC , he ’ d have it traceable right back to Nixon . So why are they going into the DNC in June of '72 ? There 's never much intelligence to be gained in a party headquarters , but there 's next to nothing at this point in a presidential campaign . I did a special edition of `` Blind Ambition '' where I put a big , fat explanation of why they broke in . Because by then , I had the testimony of Howard Hunt saying , `` I instructed him to fish for financial information , to see if we couldn ’ t embarrass the Democrats . This is right after ITT . They ’ re looking for just financial numbers , they ’ re rummaging the files looking for data . They don ’ t know what they ’ re looking for . This whole thing is so damn bungled anyway , it ’ s so imprecise — but it ’ s just a drop-by . Take some pictures and then we 're going to go to McGovern and do that . You make them sound like amateurs , but a lot of the people arrested have long-standing ties to the CIA , like Howard Hunt and James McCord . Yes ! A lot of people think this was all sophisticated , highly planned — it 's not . It is just a bunch of amateurs , it 's ham-fisted , and they got caught . Just that simple . And the tapes confirm basically all that testimony from Hunt and the burglars as to what they were looking for , which was financial information from Larry O'Brien . I want to come back to some of this later , but first : Nixon knows he ’ s being taped . He just thinks that only three people know that the taping system exists ? He ’ s clearly aware of it sometimes . But at other times , 99 percent of the time , no knowledge . He forgets . It ’ s voice-activated . He doesn ’ t have to turn a switch on his desk . He just walks into the office and the machine starts . And on some level he just thought , if it came down to it , that the tapes would be protected under executive privilege . Right , right . You ’ ll see on two occasions that he asks it be removed . July of 73 , after it is revealed , it is removed . But he asks in April , twice , and Haldeman tells him he ’ ll do it . The problem is Haldeman got consumed by Watergate himself . And that ended that . So Nixon ’ s fear in many ways , especially as the coverup gets going — is that people are going to turn on him and then it 's all going to go , as he says , from bad to worse — And that ’ s happening . You ’ re being blackmailed , in some ways . Hunt wants money , the burglars need money — Nixon is , in the end , surprisingly frightened by both Haldeman and Ehrlichman . Not to mention , me . And this is not the powerful leader of the Western world . He knows he ’ s got his own jeopardy . What is the day-to-day like in the White House during that period of time ? Are you aware of all the chaos , all of the concern and the fear ? Or is it compartmentalized to the people who are in those meetings with him ? Very compartmentalized . Need to know . So that ’ s what this book does , fills in all that went on behind closed doors relating to Watergate . So how effectively is the rest of the White House operating ? The economy , Vietnam , China -- was the senior staff distracted ? Please don ’ t forget this point -- Nixon 's character and his decision-making are so flawed that I can not believe Watergate is the only area they affected . It has to permeate — this man couldn ’ t just put on one hat for Watergate and then , Vietnam and the economy and whatever , be different . At the end , none -- he 's not thinking about anything else . Kind of shows that the presidency can almost run without a president . What ’ s first of all interesting is his perception of what is a coverup , which he was very concerned about . But his idea of a coverup is rather unique , which is based on his experience with Harry Truman . He had actually thought he had the goods on some Truman administration people , both tax delinquencies , non-payments , and kickbacks . None of them were prosecuted . That ’ s what he called a coverup . Where nobody gets prosecuted . In other words , if all those who were arrested had somehow been exonerated and not prosecuted , that ’ s a coverup . If you cut if off before you get to John Mitchell , it ’ s not a coverup . They ’ re giving them something . So he has this strange rationalization for what is a coverup and what is not . And he ’ s willing to keep it going up as necessary , but when he gets to Jeb Magruder , he ’ s worried . He ’ s worried not only because it does go to Mitchell but because it might even come over to Haldeman . So that ’ s where he wants it cut . What does it take to go into the Oval Office and tell the president that there ’ s a cancer on the presidency ? Is that a line that you had planned , or which comes out contemporaneously ? Yeah , it just struck me as something that might get his attention and realize the seriousness of what I was trying to tell him . And it did . But he wrote in his diary later that night that he thought I was overreacting . I was just raising one horror after another and thought that he would at some point say , `` Let 's end it . '' Let me put it this way : I went to work for an image of a man , who I thought he was . When I met him on March 21 , it wasn ’ t the same man . It was like the curtain came open and I saw who the real wizard was . And it 's , `` I can get money . We can take care of that . '' Not only does he say it , after I leave , I now know he goes out and asks [ secretary ] Rose Woods , `` How much do we have in our slush fund ? '' I mean , jeez ! Before that , he ’ s selling an ambassadorship , for god ’ s sake , to raise money . A whole different picture of Nixon arises in this book , as to what he actually was . He wasn ’ t just sort of tepidly and passively , and a little bit involved . He ’ s in the middle of this . It 's for him , blessed by him . What is your relationship like with him after March 21 ? And behind the scenes , the conversation moves to how they could push you out , blame the coverup on you , protect the president -- and hope you keep quiet . They just feel it can be Nixon and Haldeman and Ehrlichman '' s word against mine , and that they will win . If the taping system isn ’ t revealed , that might have worked . Back to Liddy : Early in the week after the arrests , Gordon meets you and takes responsibility for it all going wrong . And he says if you want to have him killed , just tell him which street corner to be standing on , and he 'll be there to be taken out . He tells me that on June 19 , when we were down 15th Street . And I kind of just gave him a flat answer ; I thought this was all a little theatrical . I said , `` Gordon , I don ’ t think that ’ ll be necessary . '' Although I really wasn ’ t inclined — I ’ m not somebody who really thinks he can join in a conspiracy to commit murder . As much as I might like . There 's a quote from Nixon about you in this book : `` Dean has become harder in the job . Because he ’ s a guy , in spite of his Playboy image , who is very deceptive . He ’ s a playboy , he ’ s got a beautiful girl who lives with him who ’ s not his wife , he changes them every once in a while . He loves rock music and discotheques . '' ( Laughter ) That must have been an interesting quote to come across on these tapes . There were several of those . And the only way to honestly report them was to put them in , you know . Well , they get into my sex life later . What ’ s most interesting about that , when that kind of stuff comes up with anybody else , it 's been withdrawn if they were still alive . Mine stayed in . Because there ’ s some stuff like that about Kissinger in there . And it ’ s all withdrawn . How should we see Nixon now ? On one hand , there 's been some Nixon revisionism as Republicans turned so hard to the right that people look at OSHA , at the EPA , and say that Nixon was practically a liberal compared to conservatives today . Well , first I ’ m not sure if those are really Nixon . I heard some tapes — I didn ’ t put everything I heard in there , but there was clearly some stuff where Nixon is telling John Ehrlichman , who is something of a liberal/progressive — certainly a moderate at the time — who wants these ideas . And Nixon , in essence , tells him , go ahead and do whatever you want , just don ’ t get me arrested , or don ’ t get me in trouble . Not arrested , but you know , don ’ t get me politically in trouble for any of this stuff . So it ’ s really not Nixon driving any of this stuff . On the other hand , Nixon going back to his first campaign against Helen Douglas and `` the Pink Lady '' was a pretty nasty character . And he probably would have been right at home with the Tea Party today . Exactly what I was going to say . He was an opportunist and I think he would feel very comfortable with the Tea Party . At the same time , some of Nixon 's abuses , as horrible as it is to hear them being coordinated from the Oval Office , seem almost quaint compared to Iran-Contra , or what we saw under Bush/Cheney , or the extent of the NSA surveillance state revealed by Edward Snowden . No question . We don ’ t know what the parallels were from earlier , if the NSA was doing the same kind of stuff . The Church Committee certainly uncovered a lot of unseemly stuff , and I think because technology changed , the NSA changed . And people today , they just give up so much of their freedom with the Internet . Because they get a free app . They get a good search engine . There are lots of conspiracy theories still floated about Watergate , some of them wild , but a lot of them lead to really normal and interesting questions : the bug on O'Brien 's phone not working , being a toy in the end . The bugging of Spencer Oliver 's phone instead , a lower-level official . The way they taped the doors , not once but twice , perhaps making it even easier for them to be caught . To elevate it to a conspiracy theory is giving these guys competence they didn ’ t have . First of all , James McCord is not a very bright fellow . As best I can tell , he was essentially a janitor at the CIA . He swept and looked for surveillance in their headquarters . This is not high tech . The Post dropped this line , and no one really picked it up afterwards , but his equipment was antiquated , it was amateurish . Well , that feeds the conspiracy theory : McCord was an experienced guy and he went in with junk . So what was his agenda ? No , this isn ’ t a sophisticated job . On the phone-in shows , you get these questions about the CIA and all that , and it just doesn ’ t work . And certainly if it did , something would have come up in these tapes . If there was a call girl ring being operated or any of that craziness , this just blows that all away . No one had any thought of any of that . Well , there 's some sense that the reports Mitchell was getting from the bugs were of a sexual nature . But what if you ’ ve got somebody — Like Hunt or McCord on the inside , who has a different agenda and a different boss than the White House imagined ? They ’ re not … there ’ s just not a sign that they were . There ’ s no evidence . So McCord tapes the door this way ? He ’ s just not smart , the lock wasn ’ t staying closed this other way . The tape gets pulled off once , McCord goes back , does it the same way a second time . Stupid . Stupid explains it . It ’ s also apparently the way the janitor did it . The thought being that there are folks in the CIA that get anxious about the Huston Plan over domestic intelligence gathering and worry that Nixon and the White House were going to stumble across these other things -- and that Hunt and McCord are working for them and sabotage the break-in . How would you keep something like this a secret all these years ? And why wouldn ’ t someone in the White House know ? And how would all these events unfold the way they did ? Are there questions we still don ’ t know the answers to ? Or do we have a sense of pretty much everything that happened ? Yeah , not to me . I don ’ t think there ’ s an unanswered question . And the record is so thorough , and the primary sources in this book are so solid . I guess what they ’ ll say is , `` Well , he selectively took material from the tapes . '' Just go check them yourself and tell them what I got wrong . Build your own transcripts .

This week marks the 40th anniversary of Richard Nixon's resignation, just steps ahead of likely removal from office for the Watergate coverup. In his new book, "The Nixon Defense," John Dean -- Nixon's legal counsel during Watergate -- has generated an amazing historic record. He transcribed all of the Oval Office tapes related to Watergate and allows them to stand as a guide to what the president knew and when he knew it. Nixon does not come out looking good. While some of these tapes were transcribed earlier by historian Stanley Kutler, and others were transcribed by Watergate prosecutors, no one has published a complete record until now. And it's clearer than ever, from these transcripts, that Nixon helped encourage and orchestrate the White House coverup as soon as the days after the burglars were arrested in June 1972 inside the Democratic National Committee headquarters. Advertisement: Dean himself remains a fascinating figure. For going into the Oval Office in March 1973 and telling Nixon that the Watergate coverup has created a cancer growing on the presidency, he'll always be considered by some to be one of the honest men inside a corrupt White House. To others, Dean is a turncoat, a traitor, an architect of the coverup who switched sides when it became legally necessary and politically expedient. There are even conspiracy theories that place him at the center of everything. In a wide-ranging conversation last week at the Warwick Hotel in Manhattan, we talked about Nixon's role in the coverup, what he might have done differently, and about what it takes to tell the president that there's a cancer growing inside the presidency. We also worked through some of the alternate Watergate theories, most interestingly the one where Watergate burglars with CIA ties intentionally sabotaged the operation. And Dean said that while Nixon has gotten credit for a progressive domestic agenda, it was the priority of one aide, and he wasn't interested in it. Nixon revisionism, Nixon conspiracy theories -- perhaps we still do have Dick Nixon to kick around. Advertisement: This transcript has been lightly condensed and edited. It’s amazing to me -- and must have been to you -- that no one beat you to this book. It's been 40 years and nobody thought it would be interesting to transcribe every Watergate conversation off these tapes. It’s a story you really have to watch unfold day-to-day. Because no one's done that. Advertisement: Any theories as to why not? I think it was maybe the burden of having to do the transcripts. And they thought they had enough of a gist from the combination of the Watergate prosecutor and the material they got from [historian Stanley] Kutler. But still, that's only half the 1,000 tapes. Advertisement: It’s probably even less than half because Stanley’s — those are all partial transcripts. His ellipses can be 20 to 50 minutes of omitted material. Stan is a good historian and knew what to cut and what not to cut. But he missed some things that might be in the flow that he didn’t pick up in earlier conversations. And I’m not sure which was harder, David, transcribing them or trying to boil them all back down. Both of them were awesome tasks. What do you bring to this task that is different than, say, Kutler or the other people that have worked on this? Did you have a deeper understanding of what was being was said, simply based on working with all these people and understanding how they speak and think? Probably the most simplistic thing is that I recognized words and phrases they don’t. Did you see the Politico piece where they compared the transcripts? Bet on my transcript. Advertisement: I just know how they speak, I know how they think. The other thing is that Stanley was stuck with analog copies, and I have digital copies. My digital copies are not even as sophisticated as it is now. They have an engineer who did it. I just did it by having to learn how to do it and do it myself, and got a portable unit that I could take out to the Nixon library and digitize all that material I had. How did they treat you at the Nixon library? Well, the NARA [National Archives and Records Administration] people are wonderful ... Advertisement: So the most obvious question is why take on such a herculean task? What do we learn after having all these transcripts added to the historical record? I didn’t know I had to. That’s the most simplistic answer. When my publisher was encouraging me to do something on Nixon and the anniversary, my editor said, "You must have some curiosity on some questions," and I said sure. I wondered how anyone as savvy as Richard Nixon could screw up his presidency as badly as he did. That was my basic question. That's still on your mind almost four decades later? Still a question 37 years later. And so I decided to see if I could find the answer out. And the key was, how could he be so foolish to come up with his final defense. Advertisement: Which was I didn't know anything until John Dean told me. Exactly. I just said, "How could he have come to that?" And to get to that answer, I kept having to go back further and further and further, until I’m back to June 20, 1972. There’s just no other way. In your memoir "Blind Ambition," you write about talking to Charles Colson about this when you're both in prison. "It looks suspicious to me," you wrote. "Millions of dollars have been spent investigating Watergate. A President has been forced out of office. Dozens of lives have been ruined. We're sitting in the can. And still nobody can explain why they bugged the place to begin with." And there is no simplistic answer, except you have to watch it happen day to day. And that’s what the book does; it’s a combination of his character and his decision-making. Advertisement: Which is horrible from day one. Abysmal. You read those new transcripts of June 20 -- -- and this is so contrary to his image as Mister Careful, Mister Executive. -- and he was already thinking through all of the different permutations of what happened. There are probably six different meetings on that day. A couple with H.R. Haldeman, there’s the call with John Mitchell in the evening. In some ways, he settled on a coverup on June 20. Advertisement: Absolutely. Absolutely. Haldeman and Ehrlichman had settled on it when they agreed to the bogus press release over the weekend. But it gets worse. He’s relatively passive at the outset. He is later a total activist; he is the driving force of the coverup of the coverup, which happens after March 21. You're working in the White House. You are the president's lawyer. Did you realize at the time how involved he was, how consumed he was? Or did you learn things from these transcripts? Well, I only have dealings with him one time. That's September 1972, and then not again for another almost six months. So I’ve always had natural curiosities — how could they make these foolish decisions? It never occurred to you at the time, or even later, that Nixon was so busy orchestrating the details of his coverup? What did you come away from this book learning for the first time? I had no idea that he was aware of the payment of hush money. I had no idea his involvement in suborning Jeb Magruder’s perjury. Those were all really surprising to me. He’s totally knowledgeable the whole way along. To me, it completes and fills in — as Bob Woodward says, it’s the definitive account of Watergate. But it’s also an amazing human story of a man in trouble, and how people respond in these situations. There’s a lot of drama that I really didn’t realize was in that story. I was in the forest at the time. Nixon is about to win a 49-state landslide. He was never in any danger. But while these transcripts make clear he never really considered another path, he could have, no? Did it even cross his mind to honestly find out what happened and get rid of the people involved? Could he have gotten through Watergate? I think he did have opportunities, but they were not realistic for him. I do very little commentary in the book along the way, but one of the things that I am struck with is how he keeps coming back to Colson. Is Colson involved in this? Is Colson involved in this? You know why he’s doing that? Because he did know about Colson's involvement with the break-in at Brookings and also the Daniel Ellsberg break-in. Right. And he is not sure if he didn’t answer another break-in. He has just forgotten. Really! You think the coverup happens because Nixon thought he just might have said go break into the DNC and he can't remember? Yes, and so he’s very worried personally, and he’s trying to find out, very subtly, even with Haldeman and Ehrlichman. In essence, he soon gets comfort from Colson that they didn’t cook this up. This one wasn’t ours. This one wasn’t ours, thank God. It could have been. And so he gets over that and his next concern is more on an emotional level with John Mitchell. Haldeman had once told me in one of our sessions that Richard Nixon believed he was president because of John Mitchell. That but for their relationship, he wouldn’t be president of the United States. And so he felt greatly indebted to him. Mitchell didn’t want to come to Washington — he wanted to stay in New York and practice law, didn’t want to be attorney general. He certainly didn't want to run the Committee to Reelect the President. No, didn’t want to do any of that. But Nixon leaned on him all the time, much to probably his chagrin. And obviously, it killed his career. And I’m not positive that John Mitchell ordered the break-in, like Jeb Magruder thinks. Here’s the way it happened, as best as I can interpret the tapes now that I have them: Gordon Liddy’s plan is rejected in two meetings in Mitchells office — This is Gemstone? Gemstone, right. Millions of dollars, prostitutes, a massive black bag operation. And it’s a joke, everybody knows it’s a joke. Mitchell's not going to approve it — But you’re in the attorney general's office, you’re the counsel to the president of the United States, and you’re hearing this crazy, batshit stuff. You must need to respond to this. And I now know from Haldeman's schedule — I went back and told him, not once but twice — I was only sure once, and had only testified once. I know now it was twice. What are you thinking in that room? That this man's insane, and if Mitchell hadn’t winked at me and said, "Hey, I’m not taking this seriously," and he’s looking at this as a show ... And it's when I go back a second time, I’m the one to blow it up and say, "You can't talk about this stuff in the office of the attorney general." I just said it. It was just absurd. And that Magruder would have the bad judgment to bring Liddy back to a second meeting is incredible to me. Liddy has no judgment. He’s somewhere between an under-accomplished juvenile delinquent who grew up and never matured, to somewhere between a sociopath and a psychopath. I don’t know where he falls. He’s got problems. This guy has no moral compass and the fact that he would go over and pitch that is insane. So anyway, I go back to Haldeman, I now know, twice. I put a lot of it in the endnotes, because I didn’t want to make this another biographical work — I’ve already done that. But this did refresh a lot of my recollections and I was able to get later records and material like that. So I’m pretty sure because of my meeting with Haldeman that this plan is dead. Haldeman says, "You stay a mile away," and I say, "I didn’t want any part of it and we shouldn’t have any a part of it." And he said, "You’re right I don’t want any part of it, either. " And I’m convinced that Magruder — and I explained this in a meeting, it's in the tapes, it's in the book — that it got in what’s called the Tickler System at the White House, and [Haldeman's aide] Gordan Strachan never gets it out. He’s got it in his system, and he doesn’t know whether Haldeman wants it or not -- Because he’s hearing it somewhere, "I want this, I need this, I have to have this information. " Right, it may well be, as Haldeman explained, that he was pushing Strachan like crazy to record McGovern’s meetings. And what he wants is his speeches. And this is a pretty fine line, and maybe that’s just a later Haldeman giving his own baloney. But the way he describes it to Nixon is — because Nixon’s is asking the same thing — they want copies of McGovern's speeches and they’re not getting them. They just want somebody to go in the crowd with a recorder when he goes and does a public appearance, because they’re not getting that even. And that’s what they really want. So that can all easily be confused. So what I see happening, the plan is approved by Mitchell, and it includes Watergate, it includes McGovern, it includes whoever the leading candidate might be. That’s done. So Liddy goes and breaks into Watergate. Liddy doesn’t find [chairman] Larry O’Brien’s office -- and this is something he’s talked over with Magruder before the first break-in. I don’t think Magruder knows about the second one, because the fruits of the first one start coming in, and there’s some talk in the book -- Ehrlichman somehow learns about the fruits — I’m pretty convinced its from Fred LaRue that he learns about them. But anyway, Ehrlichman learns about them, the fact that there’s some juicy stuff and what have you. But Mitchell thinks it's junk. And this is a story that Magruder told me contemporaneously, as well as what he later testified when he has immunity, no reason to lie, he’s trying to clean his act up. And the stories are totally consistent. He says, "Mitchell picks up the phone, calls Liddy and reams him out. 'Gordon this stuff is junk, its not worth the money were paying for it,'" you know, a couple hundred thousand dollars. That’s what — today, a million dollars! It’s a lot of money. It was then, and it is today. And Liddy tells him, "General, I'll take care of it." And he doesn’t say how he’ll do it but what he does is go back in the second time. There’s a tape from Nixon saying to Haldeman, "put a plant in McGovern operation." Now, what’s a "plant" mean? Anything. But Liddy would have obviously taken that as electronic surveillance. So what Haldeman does is gives the instructions to Strachan to have Liddy change his intelligence operation from Muskie to McGovern. And that’s where they’re going the night of the break-in. So if they had been arrested in McGovern office, instead of the DNC, he’d have it traceable right back to Nixon. So why are they going into the DNC in June of '72? There's never much intelligence to be gained in a party headquarters, but there's next to nothing at this point in a presidential campaign. They’re fishing. For what? There’s no information there — I did a special edition of "Blind Ambition" where I put a big, fat explanation of why they broke in. Because by then, I had the testimony of Howard Hunt saying, "I instructed him to fish for financial information, to see if we couldn’t embarrass the Democrats. This is right after ITT. They’re looking for just financial numbers, they’re rummaging the files looking for data. They don’t know what they’re looking for. This whole thing is so damn bungled anyway, it’s so imprecise — but it’s just a drop-by. Take some pictures and then we're going to go to McGovern and do that. You make them sound like amateurs, but a lot of the people arrested have long-standing ties to the CIA, like Howard Hunt and James McCord. Yes! A lot of people think this was all sophisticated, highly planned — it's not. It is just a bunch of amateurs, it's ham-fisted, and they got caught. Just that simple. And the tapes confirm basically all that testimony from Hunt and the burglars as to what they were looking for, which was financial information from Larry O'Brien. I want to come back to some of this later, but first: Nixon knows he’s being taped. Nixon knows he’s being taped. He just thinks that only three people know that the taping system exists? He’s clearly aware of it sometimes. But at other times, 99 percent of the time, no knowledge. He just forgets? While talking about a coverup? He forgets. It’s voice-activated. He doesn’t have to turn a switch on his desk. He just walks into the office and the machine starts. And on some level he just thought, if it came down to it, that the tapes would be protected under executive privilege. Right, right. You’ll see on two occasions that he asks it be removed. July '73 it is finally removed. July of 73, after it is revealed, it is removed. But he asks in April, twice, and Haldeman tells him he’ll do it. The problem is Haldeman got consumed by Watergate himself. And that ended that. So Nixon’s fear in many ways, especially as the coverup gets going — is that people are going to turn on him and then it's all going to go, as he says, from bad to worse — To go bust. And that’s happening. You’re being blackmailed, in some ways. Hunt wants money, the burglars need money — Nixon is, in the end, surprisingly frightened by both Haldeman and Ehrlichman. Not to mention, me. And this is not the powerful leader of the Western world. He knows he’s got his own jeopardy. What is the day-to-day like in the White House during that period of time? Are you aware of all the chaos, all of the concern and the fear? Or is it compartmentalized to the people who are in those meetings with him? Very compartmentalized. Need to know. So that’s what this book does, fills in all that went on behind closed doors relating to Watergate. So how effectively is the rest of the White House operating? The economy, Vietnam, China -- was the senior staff distracted? Please don’t forget this point -- Nixon's character and his decision-making are so flawed that I cannot believe Watergate is the only area they affected. It has to permeate — this man couldn’t just put on one hat for Watergate and then, Vietnam and the economy and whatever, be different. At the end, none -- he's not thinking about anything else. Kind of shows that the presidency can almost run without a president. What do we learn new about Nixon's character here? What’s first of all interesting is his perception of what is a coverup, which he was very concerned about. But his idea of a coverup is rather unique, which is based on his experience with Harry Truman. He had actually thought he had the goods on some Truman administration people, both tax delinquencies, non-payments, and kickbacks. None of them were prosecuted. That’s what he called a coverup. Where nobody gets prosecuted. In other words, if all those who were arrested had somehow been exonerated and not prosecuted, that’s a coverup. If you cut if off before you get to John Mitchell, it’s not a coverup. They’re giving them something. So he has this strange rationalization for what is a coverup and what is not. And he’s willing to keep it going up as necessary, but when he gets to Jeb Magruder, he’s worried. He’s worried not only because it does go to Mitchell but because it might even come over to Haldeman. So that’s where he wants it cut. What does it take to go into the Oval Office and tell the president that there’s a cancer on the presidency? Is that a line that you had planned, or which comes out contemporaneously? Yeah, it just struck me as something that might get his attention and realize the seriousness of what I was trying to tell him. And it did. But he wrote in his diary later that night that he thought I was overreacting. I was just raising one horror after another and thought that he would at some point say, "Let's end it." Was that naive? Let me put it this way: I went to work for an image of a man, who I thought he was. When I met him on March 21, it wasn’t the same man. It was like the curtain came open and I saw who the real wizard was. The real Nixonian darkness. Right. What surprised you the most from his reaction? The non-reaction. He has answers for everything I raised. And it's, "I can get money. We can take care of that." Not only does he say it, after I leave, I now know he goes out and asks [secretary] Rose Woods, "How much do we have in our slush fund?" I mean, jeez! And its 400,000 bucks. Before that, he’s selling an ambassadorship, for god’s sake, to raise money. A whole different picture of Nixon arises in this book, as to what he actually was. He wasn’t just sort of tepidly and passively, and a little bit involved. He’s in the middle of this. It's for him, blessed by him. What is your relationship like with him after March 21? That’s pretty much my last conversation with him. And behind the scenes, the conversation moves to how they could push you out, blame the coverup on you, protect the president -- and hope you keep quiet. They just feel it can be Nixon and Haldeman and Ehrlichman"s word against mine, and that they will win. If the taping system isn’t revealed, that might have worked. Exactly right. Back to Liddy: Early in the week after the arrests, Gordon meets you and takes responsibility for it all going wrong. And he says if you want to have him killed, just tell him which street corner to be standing on, and he'll be there to be taken out. He tells me that on June 19, when we were down 15th Street. And I kind of just gave him a flat answer; I thought this was all a little theatrical. I said, "Gordon, I don’t think that’ll be necessary." Ever regret that choice? Might have been a mistake. Although I really wasn’t inclined — I’m not somebody who really thinks he can join in a conspiracy to commit murder. As much as I might like. There's a quote from Nixon about you in this book: "Dean has become harder in the job. Because he’s a guy, in spite of his Playboy image, who is very deceptive. He’s a playboy, he’s got a beautiful girl who lives with him who’s not his wife, he changes them every once in a while. He loves rock music and discotheques." (Laughter) That must have been an interesting quote to come across on these tapes. There were several of those. And the only way to honestly report them was to put them in, you know. Well, they get into my sex life later. What’s most interesting about that, when that kind of stuff comes up with anybody else, it's been withdrawn if they were still alive. Mine stayed in. Because there’s some stuff like that about Kissinger in there. And it’s all withdrawn. How should we see Nixon now? On one hand, there's been some Nixon revisionism as Republicans turned so hard to the right that people look at OSHA, at the EPA, and say that Nixon was practically a liberal compared to conservatives today. Well, first I’m not sure if those are really Nixon. I heard some tapes — I didn’t put everything I heard in there, but there was clearly some stuff where Nixon is telling John Ehrlichman, who is something of a liberal/progressive — certainly a moderate at the time — who wants these ideas. And Nixon, in essence, tells him, go ahead and do whatever you want, just don’t get me arrested, or don’t get me in trouble. Not arrested, but you know, don’t get me politically in trouble for any of this stuff. So it’s really not Nixon driving any of this stuff. On one hand, the domestic agenda is fairly progressive. It is. On the other hand, Nixon going back to his first campaign against Helen Douglas and "the Pink Lady" was a pretty nasty character. And he probably would have been right at home with the Tea Party today. Exactly what I was going to say. He was an opportunist and I think he would feel very comfortable with the Tea Party. At the same time, some of Nixon's abuses, as horrible as it is to hear them being coordinated from the Oval Office, seem almost quaint compared to Iran-Contra, or what we saw under Bush/Cheney, or the extent of the NSA surveillance state revealed by Edward Snowden. No question. We don’t know what the parallels were from earlier, if the NSA was doing the same kind of stuff. The Church Committee certainly uncovered a lot of unseemly stuff, and I think because technology changed, the NSA changed. And people today, they just give up so much of their freedom with the Internet. Because they get a free app. They get a good search engine. There are lots of conspiracy theories still floated about Watergate, some of them wild, but a lot of them lead to really normal and interesting questions: the bug on O'Brien's phone not working, being a toy in the end. The bugging of Spencer Oliver's phone instead, a lower-level official. The way they taped the doors, not once but twice, perhaps making it even easier for them to be caught. To elevate it to a conspiracy theory is giving these guys competence they didn’t have. First of all, James McCord is not a very bright fellow. As best I can tell, he was essentially a janitor at the CIA. He swept and looked for surveillance in their headquarters. This is not high tech. The Post dropped this line, and no one really picked it up afterwards, but his equipment was antiquated, it was amateurish. Well, that feeds the conspiracy theory: McCord was an experienced guy and he went in with junk. So what was his agenda? No, this isn’t a sophisticated job. On the phone-in shows, you get these questions about the CIA and all that, and it just doesn’t work. And certainly if it did, something would have come up in these tapes. If there was a call girl ring being operated or any of that craziness, this just blows that all away. No one had any thought of any of that. Well, there's some sense that the reports Mitchell was getting from the bugs were of a sexual nature. But what if you’ve got somebody — Who?! Like Hunt or McCord on the inside, who has a different agenda and a different boss than the White House imagined? They’re not … there’s just not a sign that they were. There’s no evidence. So McCord tapes the door this way? He’s just not smart, the lock wasn’t staying closed this other way. The tape gets pulled off once, McCord goes back, does it the same way a second time. Stupid. Stupid explains it. It’s also apparently the way the janitor did it. The thought being that there are folks in the CIA that get anxious about the Huston Plan over domestic intelligence gathering and worry that Nixon and the White House were going to stumble across these other things -- and that Hunt and McCord are working for them and sabotage the break-in. How would you keep something like this a secret all these years? And why wouldn’t someone in the White House know? Because they were being played. And how would all these events unfold the way they did? Are there questions we still don’t know the answers to? Or do we have a sense of pretty much everything that happened? Yeah, not to me. I don’t think there’s an unanswered question. And the record is so thorough, and the primary sources in this book are so solid. I guess what they’ll say is, "Well, he selectively took material from the tapes." Just go check them yourself and tell them what I got wrong. Build your own transcripts.

www.salon.com

left

y5PbA9Cm9mmAe6Ar

test

BoZPDlFWPtv7n1gi

supreme_court

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/25/politicians-respond-to-supreme-court-rulings/

Politicians respond to Supreme Court rulings

2012-06-25

( CNN ) – Political figures reacted to the release of Supreme Court rulings Monday on the controversial Arizona immigration law and over campaign finance . The high court struck down key parts of the Arizona bill , voting 5-3 that the federal government has the power to block the state 's measure . However , the court upheld one of the most controversial parts of the bill – a provision that allows police to check a person 's immigration status while enforcing other laws if `` reasonable suspicion '' exists that the person is in the United States illegally . They also turned aside another chance to revisit one of its most controversial decisions in recent years , rejecting a pending state appeal over whether corporations have explained `` free speech '' power in independent election expenditures . President Barack Obama : `` I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona 's immigration law . What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform . A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system – it 's part of the problem . At the same time , I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally . I agree with the Court that individuals can not be detained solely to verify their immigration status . No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like . Going forward , we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans , as the Court 's decision recognizes . Furthermore , we will continue to enforce our immigration laws by focusing on our most important priorities like border security and criminals who endanger our communities , and not , for example , students who earn their education – which is why the Department of Homeland Security announced earlier this month that it will lift the shadow of deportation from young people who were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own . I will work with anyone in Congress who 's willing to make progress on comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our economic needs and security needs , and upholds our tradition as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants . And in the meantime , we will continue to use every federal resource to protect the safety and civil rights of all Americans , and treat all our people with dignity and respect . We can solve these challenges not in spite of our most cherished values – but because of them . What makes us American is not a question of what we look like or what our names are . What makes us American is our shared belief in the enduring promise of this country – and our shared responsibility to leave it more generous and more hopeful than we found it . '' Mitt Romney , presumptive Republican presidential nominee : `` Today 's decision underscores the need for a President who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy . President Obama has failed to provide any leadership on immigration . This represents yet another broken promise by this President . I believe that each state has the duty–and the right–to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law , particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities . As Candidate Obama , he promised to present an immigration plan during his first year in office . But 4 years later , we are still waiting . '' Republican Arizona Gov . Jan Brewer : `` Today 's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law . It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens . After more than two years of legal challenges , the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S . Constitution . '' Former Sen. Rick Santorum , R-Pennsylvania : `` It 's time for the federal government to step up to its constitutional responsibility to secure our borders , enforce our immigration laws fairly , and to partner with states rather than sue them to accomplish this important objective . '' Sen. Chuck Schumer , D-New York : `` This is as strong a repudiation of the Arizona law as one could expect given that the law has not been implemented yet . Three linchpins of the Arizona law were struck down by a convincing majority of the Court as clearly violating federal law , and a fourth is on thin legal ice . The Court is sending a stern warning to Arizona that the provision allowing local law enforcement to check people 's immigration documents can not be implemented in a discriminatory or draconian way , or it will be thrown out like the rest of the law . This decision tells us that states can not take the law into their own hands and makes it clear that the only real solution to immigration reform is a comprehensive federal law . The decision should importune Republicans and Democrats to work together on this issue in a bipartisan way . '' Sens . John McCain and Jon Kyl , R-Arizona : “ While we still want to fully review the Supreme Court ’ s decision , today ’ s ruling appears to validate a key component of Arizona ’ s immigration law , SB 1070 . The Arizona law was born out of the state ’ s frustration with the burdens that illegal immigration and continued drug smuggling impose on its schools , hospitals , criminal justice system and fragile desert environment , and an administration that chooses to set enforcement policies based on a political agenda , not the laws as written by Congress . We will continue our efforts on behalf of the citizens of Arizona to secure our southern border . We believe Arizonans are better served when state and federal officials work as partners to protect our citizens rather than as litigants in a courtroom . ” Sen. Harry Reid , D-Nevada : `` The Supreme Court was right to strike down the vast majority of the Arizona law . With three out of the four provisions being struck down , the ruling shows that the Obama administration was right to challenge this law , which was not just ill-advised but also unconstitutional . I am greatly concerned that the provision putting American citizens in danger of being detained by police unless they carry their immigration papers at all times will lead to a system of racial profiling . This is a strong reminder that ultimately , the responsibility for fixing our nation ’ s broken immigration system lies with Congress . '' Sen. Scott Brown , R-Massachusetts : `` The Court 's decision today is another reminder that the federal government needs to deal with our broken immigration system . I believe the first step is securing the border and turning off the magnets that encourage people to come into country illegally . We are a nation of immigrants and should fix the system to make it easier for people seeking to enter our country legally , but we are also a nation of laws that have to be respected and observed . Elizabeth Warren has the wrong approach . She supports amnesty and taxpayer funded benefits , including in-state college tuition , for those in the country illegally . She wants to make illegal immigration more attractive . I want to strengthen our legal immigration system and provide more opportunities for those who have played by the rules . '' Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus : `` Once again we are reminded that President Obama has failed to keep his promise on immigration reform . In the absence of presidential leadership , states have acted on their own to serve their people and enforce the law , but the issue can not fully be resolved with a president unwilling to keep his promises . This decision makes that job even more difficult , and it leaves Americans waiting for a plan the president promised to deliver years ago . '' Rep. Charles Gonzalez , chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus : `` When three out of four provisions of a state 's law are struck down , it obviously ca n't be viewed as a victory for the state . Nor can an unconstitutional law be used a model for the nation , as Governor Romney suggested . The fact the Romney has said that as president he would not even challenge Arizona 's law , shows what a sad direction our country 's immigration laws would go under his administration . `` The 'show me your papers ' provision , that institutionalizes racial profiling , remains a very important element that needs to be addressed . The CHC will coordinate with civil rights groups and immigration law organizations to follow up on a challenge to this provision , which is still an open legal question . We will be watching very closely how Arizona exercises this part of the law and will continue to fight against instances of racial and ethnic profiling . '' Attorney General Eric Holder : “ I welcome the Supreme Court ’ s decision to strike down major provisions of Arizona ’ s S.B . 1070 on federal preemption grounds . Today ’ s ruling appropriately bars the State of Arizona from effectively criminalizing unlawful status in the state and confirms the federal government ’ s exclusive authority to regulate in the area of immigration . “ While I am pleased the Court confirmed the serious constitutional questions the government raised regarding Section 2 , I remain concerned about the impact of Section 2 , which requires law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person lawfully stopped or detained when they have reason to suspect that the person is here unlawfully . As the Court itself recognized , Section 2 is not a license to engage in racial profiling and I want to assure communities around this country that the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously enforce federal prohibitions against racial and ethnic discrimination . We will closely monitor the impact of S.B . 1070 to ensure compliance with federal immigration law and with applicable civil rights laws , including ensuring that law enforcement agencies and others do not implement the law in a manner that has the purpose or effect of discriminating against the Latino or any other community . “ We will also work to ensure that the verification provision does not divert police officers away from traditional law enforcement efforts in order to enforce federal immigration law , potentially impairing local policing efforts and discouraging crime victims , including children of non-citizens , victims of domestic violence , and asylum seekers , from reporting abuses and crimes out of fear of detention or deportation . We will continue to use every federal resource to protect the safety and civil rights of all Americans . ” Sen. Mitch McConnell , R-Kentucky : `` In another important victory for freedom of speech , the Supreme Court has reversed the Montana Supreme Court , upholding First Amendment free speech rights that were set out in Citizens United . As I pointed out in an amicus brief that I filed in the Montana case , a review of Federal Election Commission records of independent spending supporting the eight Republican presidential candidates earlier this year showed only minimal corporate involvement in the 2012 election cycle . Not one Fortune 100 company contributed a cent to any of the eight Republican Super PACs , as of the end of March , according to FEC records . The records also showed that of the $ 96 million contributed to the eight Super PACs through March 31 , an overwhelming 86.32 percent of that money came from individuals while only 13.68 percent came from corporations and 0.81 percent from public companies . Clearly , the much predicted corporate tsunami that critics of Citizens United warned about simply did not occur . '' Sen. Chuck Schumer , D-New York : “ Even as the current election cycle exposes the folly of the reasoning behind the Citizens United decision , the Supreme Court persists with its anything-goes interpretation of the First Amendment . For apparently political reasons , the Supreme Court is further tipping the balance of power in America in favor of deep-pocketed , outside interests . ” Rep. Nancy Pelosi , D-California : `` Today , the Supreme Court kept open the floodgates to uninhibited special interest spending in our campaigns and in our politics . Their disappointing decision to uphold Citizens United deals yet another blow to a fundamental American value : that the voices of the people determine the outcome of our elections , not the checkbooks of the few . `` Democrats are committed to restoring transparency , accountability , openness , and fairness to our political process . Our strategy is simple : we must DARE – to fight for disclosure and shine a bright light on secret donations ; to amend the Constitution to overturn the crushing Citizens United ruling ; to reform the system and empower small donors and the grassroots ; and to elect reform-minded candidates and leaders to office . '' - Watch Brewer on CNN 's `` John King , USA '' Monday at 6 p.m . ET .

7 years ago (CNN) – Political figures reacted to the release of Supreme Court rulings Monday on the controversial Arizona immigration law and over campaign finance. The high court struck down key parts of the Arizona bill, voting 5-3 that the federal government has the power to block the state's measure. However, the court upheld one of the most controversial parts of the bill – a provision that allows police to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the United States illegally. - Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker They also turned aside another chance to revisit one of its most controversial decisions in recent years, rejecting a pending state appeal over whether corporations have explained "free speech" power in independent election expenditures. Immigration reactions: President Barack Obama: "I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona's immigration law. What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system – it's part of the problem. At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally. I agree with the Court that individuals cannot be detained solely to verify their immigration status. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like. Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans, as the Court's decision recognizes. Furthermore, we will continue to enforce our immigration laws by focusing on our most important priorities like border security and criminals who endanger our communities, and not, for example, students who earn their education – which is why the Department of Homeland Security announced earlier this month that it will lift the shadow of deportation from young people who were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own. I will work with anyone in Congress who's willing to make progress on comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our economic needs and security needs, and upholds our tradition as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And in the meantime, we will continue to use every federal resource to protect the safety and civil rights of all Americans, and treat all our people with dignity and respect. We can solve these challenges not in spite of our most cherished values – but because of them. What makes us American is not a question of what we look like or what our names are. What makes us American is our shared belief in the enduring promise of this country – and our shared responsibility to leave it more generous and more hopeful than we found it." Mitt Romney, presumptive Republican presidential nominee: "Today's decision underscores the need for a President who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy. President Obama has failed to provide any leadership on immigration. This represents yet another broken promise by this President. I believe that each state has the duty–and the right–to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities. As Candidate Obama, he promised to present an immigration plan during his first year in office. But 4 years later, we are still waiting." Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer: "Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution." Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania: "It's time for the federal government to step up to its constitutional responsibility to secure our borders, enforce our immigration laws fairly, and to partner with states rather than sue them to accomplish this important objective." Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York: "This is as strong a repudiation of the Arizona law as one could expect given that the law has not been implemented yet. Three linchpins of the Arizona law were struck down by a convincing majority of the Court as clearly violating federal law, and a fourth is on thin legal ice. The Court is sending a stern warning to Arizona that the provision allowing local law enforcement to check people's immigration documents cannot be implemented in a discriminatory or draconian way, or it will be thrown out like the rest of the law. This decision tells us that states cannot take the law into their own hands and makes it clear that the only real solution to immigration reform is a comprehensive federal law. The decision should importune Republicans and Democrats to work together on this issue in a bipartisan way." Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl, R-Arizona: “While we still want to fully review the Supreme Court’s decision, today’s ruling appears to validate a key component of Arizona’s immigration law, SB 1070. The Arizona law was born out of the state’s frustration with the burdens that illegal immigration and continued drug smuggling impose on its schools, hospitals, criminal justice system and fragile desert environment, and an administration that chooses to set enforcement policies based on a political agenda, not the laws as written by Congress. We will continue our efforts on behalf of the citizens of Arizona to secure our southern border. We believe Arizonans are better served when state and federal officials work as partners to protect our citizens rather than as litigants in a courtroom.” Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada: "The Supreme Court was right to strike down the vast majority of the Arizona law. With three out of the four provisions being struck down, the ruling shows that the Obama administration was right to challenge this law, which was not just ill-advised but also unconstitutional. I am greatly concerned that the provision putting American citizens in danger of being detained by police unless they carry their immigration papers at all times will lead to a system of racial profiling. This is a strong reminder that ultimately, the responsibility for fixing our nation’s broken immigration system lies with Congress." Sen. Scott Brown, R-Massachusetts: "The Court's decision today is another reminder that the federal government needs to deal with our broken immigration system. I believe the first step is securing the border and turning off the magnets that encourage people to come into country illegally. We are a nation of immigrants and should fix the system to make it easier for people seeking to enter our country legally, but we are also a nation of laws that have to be respected and observed. Elizabeth Warren has the wrong approach. She supports amnesty and taxpayer funded benefits, including in-state college tuition, for those in the country illegally. She wants to make illegal immigration more attractive. I want to strengthen our legal immigration system and provide more opportunities for those who have played by the rules." Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus: "Once again we are reminded that President Obama has failed to keep his promise on immigration reform. In the absence of presidential leadership, states have acted on their own to serve their people and enforce the law, but the issue cannot fully be resolved with a president unwilling to keep his promises. This decision makes that job even more difficult, and it leaves Americans waiting for a plan the president promised to deliver years ago." Rep. Charles Gonzalez, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus: "When three out of four provisions of a state's law are struck down, it obviously can't be viewed as a victory for the state. Nor can an unconstitutional law be used a model for the nation, as Governor Romney suggested. The fact the Romney has said that as president he would not even challenge Arizona's law, shows what a sad direction our country's immigration laws would go under his administration. "The 'show me your papers' provision, that institutionalizes racial profiling, remains a very important element that needs to be addressed. The CHC will coordinate with civil rights groups and immigration law organizations to follow up on a challenge to this provision, which is still an open legal question. We will be watching very closely how Arizona exercises this part of the law and will continue to fight against instances of racial and ethnic profiling." Attorney General Eric Holder: “I welcome the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down major provisions of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 on federal preemption grounds. Today’s ruling appropriately bars the State of Arizona from effectively criminalizing unlawful status in the state and confirms the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate in the area of immigration. “While I am pleased the Court confirmed the serious constitutional questions the government raised regarding Section 2, I remain concerned about the impact of Section 2, which requires law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person lawfully stopped or detained when they have reason to suspect that the person is here unlawfully. As the Court itself recognized, Section 2 is not a license to engage in racial profiling and I want to assure communities around this country that the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously enforce federal prohibitions against racial and ethnic discrimination. We will closely monitor the impact of S.B. 1070 to ensure compliance with federal immigration law and with applicable civil rights laws, including ensuring that law enforcement agencies and others do not implement the law in a manner that has the purpose or effect of discriminating against the Latino or any other community. “We will also work to ensure that the verification provision does not divert police officers away from traditional law enforcement efforts in order to enforce federal immigration law, potentially impairing local policing efforts and discouraging crime victims, including children of non-citizens, victims of domestic violence, and asylum seekers, from reporting abuses and crimes out of fear of detention or deportation. We will continue to use every federal resource to protect the safety and civil rights of all Americans.” Free speech reactions: Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky: "In another important victory for freedom of speech, the Supreme Court has reversed the Montana Supreme Court, upholding First Amendment free speech rights that were set out in Citizens United. As I pointed out in an amicus brief that I filed in the Montana case, a review of Federal Election Commission records of independent spending supporting the eight Republican presidential candidates earlier this year showed only minimal corporate involvement in the 2012 election cycle. Not one Fortune 100 company contributed a cent to any of the eight Republican Super PACs, as of the end of March, according to FEC records. The records also showed that of the $96 million contributed to the eight Super PACs through March 31, an overwhelming 86.32 percent of that money came from individuals while only 13.68 percent came from corporations and 0.81 percent from public companies. Clearly, the much predicted corporate tsunami that critics of Citizens United warned about simply did not occur." Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York: “Even as the current election cycle exposes the folly of the reasoning behind the Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court persists with its anything-goes interpretation of the First Amendment. For apparently political reasons, the Supreme Court is further tipping the balance of power in America in favor of deep-pocketed, outside interests.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-California: "Today, the Supreme Court kept open the floodgates to uninhibited special interest spending in our campaigns and in our politics. Their disappointing decision to uphold Citizens United deals yet another blow to a fundamental American value: that the voices of the people determine the outcome of our elections, not the checkbooks of the few. "Democrats are committed to restoring transparency, accountability, openness, and fairness to our political process. Our strategy is simple: we must DARE – to fight for disclosure and shine a bright light on secret donations; to amend the Constitution to overturn the crushing Citizens United ruling; to reform the system and empower small donors and the grassroots; and to elect reform-minded candidates and leaders to office." - Watch Brewer on CNN's "John King, USA" Monday at 6 p.m. ET.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

BoZPDlFWPtv7n1gi

test

meqefoOfbxWHcHQx

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/12/obama-reaches-out-to-senate-democrats/

Obama reaches out to Senate Democrats

2013-03-12

Washington ( CNN ) - When President Barack Obama attended the first of four meetings on Capitol Hill this week , it was clear that many of the Senate Democrats he lunched with wanted to bend his ear . `` There were quite a bit of questions , he stayed for a long time , '' Sen. Ben Cardin , D-Maryland , said about the meeting that was scheduled for 60 minutes but went for about 90 . `` Sen. ( Majority Leader Harry ) Reid gave him ample opportunity to leave and he decided to stay and answer more questions . '' In fact , the president took about a dozen questions from senators and discussed a wide range of issues , including the budget , entitlement reform , foreign policy , immigration , guns and drones . While the president 's efforts this week to reach out to lawmakers is largely aimed at Republicans , several Democratic senators have acknowledged privately that they are frustrated the president does n't have stronger relationships with them . `` I 'm very impressed with the tone that I 'm hearing today , '' said Sen. Joe Manchin , D-West Virginia , moments after the meeting ended . `` And maybe I think he realized that we 've got to work together . '' It may sound odd to hear a Democrat talking about working together with a Democratic president , but that 's a sentiment among many senators who feel shut out or ignored by the White House . After the meeting , some of those same senators said , based on the president 's presentation , it was clear he understood he needed to improve relations with them . Obama will meet Wednesday with House Republicans ; on Thursday he 'll meet separately with House Democrats and Senate Republicans . Sen. Susan Collins , R-Maine , said she hopes these meetings will lead to direct talks with the president on the thorny budget issues confronting the country . `` I think this initial overture is very welcome . but it needs to be followed up with concrete working sessions that extend many hours , where we 're all locked in a room , occasionally thrown something to eat , until we reach agreement on some of the very big issues facing us , '' she said . One difficult issue is whether Democrats are willing to compromise on entitlement reform . `` The president was pretty clear that we have to have these programs sustainable and it 's reasonable to look at them , '' Cardin said . The president told the Democrats that his recent outreach to Senate Republicans – including a private dinner at a fancy hotel last week – was positive . But he also said Republicans need to be more willing to compromise . `` He says working together with Republicans in terms of getting a grand bargain or a major dent in this issue is critically important , '' said Sen. Carl Levin , D-Michigan , about a deal to reduce the deficit . `` But compromise is essential and he has n't seen enough from them yet but he is also going to keep on trying . '' While serious subjects dominated the meeting , the president did win laughter after he playfully grabbed Reid 's notes and made fun of the doodles drawn on them . The president joked that he wanted to send them to a psychiatrist for analysis .

7 years ago Washington (CNN) - When President Barack Obama attended the first of four meetings on Capitol Hill this week, it was clear that many of the Senate Democrats he lunched with wanted to bend his ear. "There were quite a bit of questions, he stayed for a long time," Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Maryland, said about the meeting that was scheduled for 60 minutes but went for about 90. "Sen. (Majority Leader Harry) Reid gave him ample opportunity to leave and he decided to stay and answer more questions." In fact, the president took about a dozen questions from senators and discussed a wide range of issues, including the budget, entitlement reform, foreign policy, immigration, guns and drones. While the president's efforts this week to reach out to lawmakers is largely aimed at Republicans, several Democratic senators have acknowledged privately that they are frustrated the president doesn't have stronger relationships with them. "I'm very impressed with the tone that I'm hearing today," said Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, moments after the meeting ended. "And maybe I think he realized that we've got to work together." It may sound odd to hear a Democrat talking about working together with a Democratic president, but that's a sentiment among many senators who feel shut out or ignored by the White House. After the meeting, some of those same senators said, based on the president's presentation, it was clear he understood he needed to improve relations with them. Obama will meet Wednesday with House Republicans; on Thursday he'll meet separately with House Democrats and Senate Republicans. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she hopes these meetings will lead to direct talks with the president on the thorny budget issues confronting the country. "I think this initial overture is very welcome. but it needs to be followed up with concrete working sessions that extend many hours, where we're all locked in a room, occasionally thrown something to eat, until we reach agreement on some of the very big issues facing us," she said. One difficult issue is whether Democrats are willing to compromise on entitlement reform. "The president was pretty clear that we have to have these programs sustainable and it's reasonable to look at them," Cardin said. The president told the Democrats that his recent outreach to Senate Republicans – including a private dinner at a fancy hotel last week – was positive. But he also said Republicans need to be more willing to compromise. "He says working together with Republicans in terms of getting a grand bargain or a major dent in this issue is critically important," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, about a deal to reduce the deficit. "But compromise is essential and he hasn't seen enough from them yet but he is also going to keep on trying." While serious subjects dominated the meeting, the president did win laughter after he playfully grabbed Reid's notes and made fun of the doodles drawn on them. The president joked that he wanted to send them to a psychiatrist for analysis.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

meqefoOfbxWHcHQx

test

5pXCGNC1D7Nel5oa

national_defense

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-arms/u-s-pulls-out-of-soviet-era-nuclear-missile-pact-with-russia-idUSKCN1US0Y4

U.S. pulls out of Soviet-era nuclear missile pact with Russia

2019-08-02

Steve Holland

WASHINGTON/MOSCOW ( ███ ) - The United States formally withdrew from a landmark 1987 nuclear missile pact with Russia on Friday after determining that Moscow was violating the treaty , an accusation the Kremlin has denied . Washington signaled it would pull out of the arms control treaty six months ago unless Moscow stuck to the accord . Russia called the move a ploy to exit a pact that the United States wanted to leave anyway in order to develop new missiles . President Donald Trump told reporters he would like to seal a new arms deal with Russia reducing all nuclear forces , and possibly with China as well . “ If we could get a pact where they reduce and we reduce nuclear , that would be a good thing for the world . I do believe that will happen , ” Trump said . The Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty ( INF ) was negotiated by then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev . It banned land-based missiles with a range of between 310 and 3,400 miles ( 500-5,500 km ) , reducing the ability of both countries to launch a nuclear strike on short notice . The dispute is aggravating the worst U.S.-Russia friction since the Cold War ended in 1991 . Some experts believe the treaty ’ s collapse could undermine other arms control agreements and speed an erosion of the global system designed to block the spread of nuclear arms . “ The United States will not remain party to a treaty that is deliberately violated by Russia , ” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement . “ Russia ’ s non-compliance under the treaty jeopardizes U.S. supreme interests as Russia ’ s development and fielding of a treaty-violating missile system represents a direct threat to the United States and our allies and partners , ” Pompeo said . Senior Trump administration officials , who spoke on condition of anonymity , said Russia had deployed “ multiple battalions ” of a cruise missile throughout Russia in violation of the pact , including in western Russia , “ with the ability to strike critical European targets . ” Russia denies the allegation , saying the missile ’ s range puts it outside the treaty . It rejected a U.S. demand to destroy the new missile , the Novator 9M729 , known as the SSC-8 by the NATO Western military alliance . Moscow has told Washington the U.S. decision to quit the pact undermines global security and removes a key pillar of international arms control . China ’ s new ambassador to the United Nations , Zhang Jun , said China regrets that the United States is withdrawing from the treaty and expressed doubt about joining the United States and Russia in a nuclear deal . “ The United States is saying China should be a party in this disarmament agreement , but I think everybody knows that China is not at the same level with the United States and the Russian Federation , ” he said . Russia said on Friday it had asked the United States for a moratorium on the deployment of land-based short and intermediate-range nuclear missiles . “ A serious mistake has been made in Washington , ” Russia ’ s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement . “ We have already introduced a unilateral moratorium and won ’ t deploy land-based short or medium-range missiles , if we get them , in regions where such U.S. missiles are not deployed , ” it said . President Vladimir Putin has said Russia does not want an arms race and he has promised he would not deploy Russian missiles unless the United States does so first . However , should Washington take such a step , he has said he would be forced to deploy Russian hypersonic nuclear missiles on ships or submarines near U.S. territorial waters . NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg dismissed Russia ’ s moratorium request on Friday , saying it was “ not a credible offer ” as he said Moscow had already deployed illegal missiles . “ There are no new U.S. missiles , no new NATO missiles in Europe , but there are more and more new Russian missiles , ” he said . NATO said it had agreed a defensive package of measures to deter Russia . That response would be measured and would only involve conventional weapons , it said . NATO ’ s Stoltenberg said there would be “ no rash moves ” by the alliance which he said “ would not mirror what Russia does . ” NATO members Britain and Poland blamed Moscow for the treaty ’ s demise . “ Their contempt for the rules-based international system threatens European security , ” British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said on Twitter . European officials had voiced concern that if the treaty collapses , Europe could again become an arena for a nuclear-armed , intermediate-range missile buildup by the United States and Russia . U.S. officials said the United States was months away from the first flight tests of an American intermediate-range missile that would serve as a counter to the Russians . Any deployment would be years away , they said . “ We are just at the stage of looking at how we might further the development of conventional options , ” one official said .

By Steve Holland and Andrew Osborn WASHINGTON/MOSCOW (Reuters) - The United States formally withdrew from a landmark 1987 nuclear missile pact with Russia on Friday after determining that Moscow was violating the treaty, an accusation the Kremlin has denied. Washington signaled it would pull out of the arms control treaty six months ago unless Moscow stuck to the accord. Russia called the move a ploy to exit a pact that the United States wanted to leave anyway in order to develop new missiles. President Donald Trump told reporters he would like to seal a new arms deal with Russia reducing all nuclear forces, and possibly with China as well. “If we could get a pact where they reduce and we reduce nuclear, that would be a good thing for the world. I do believe that will happen,” Trump said. The Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) was negotiated by then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. It banned land-based missiles with a range of between 310 and 3,400 miles (500-5,500 km), reducing the ability of both countries to launch a nuclear strike on short notice. The dispute is aggravating the worst U.S.-Russia friction since the Cold War ended in 1991. Some experts believe the treaty’s collapse could undermine other arms control agreements and speed an erosion of the global system designed to block the spread of nuclear arms. “The United States will not remain party to a treaty that is deliberately violated by Russia,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement. “Russia’s non-compliance under the treaty jeopardizes U.S. supreme interests as Russia’s development and fielding of a treaty-violating missile system represents a direct threat to the United States and our allies and partners,” Pompeo said. Senior Trump administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Russia had deployed “multiple battalions” of a cruise missile throughout Russia in violation of the pact, including in western Russia, “with the ability to strike critical European targets.” Russia denies the allegation, saying the missile’s range puts it outside the treaty. It rejected a U.S. demand to destroy the new missile, the Novator 9M729, known as the SSC-8 by the NATO Western military alliance. Moscow has told Washington the U.S. decision to quit the pact undermines global security and removes a key pillar of international arms control. China’s new ambassador to the United Nations, Zhang Jun, said China regrets that the United States is withdrawing from the treaty and expressed doubt about joining the United States and Russia in a nuclear deal. “The United States is saying China should be a party in this disarmament agreement, but I think everybody knows that China is not at the same level with the United States and the Russian Federation,” he said. ‘SERIOUS MISTAKE’ Russia said on Friday it had asked the United States for a moratorium on the deployment of land-based short and intermediate-range nuclear missiles. “A serious mistake has been made in Washington,” Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement. “We have already introduced a unilateral moratorium and won’t deploy land-based short or medium-range missiles, if we get them, in regions where such U.S. missiles are not deployed,” it said. FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Ronald Reagan (R) and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev sign the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty in the White House December 8 1987. REUTERS//File Photo President Vladimir Putin has said Russia does not want an arms race and he has promised he would not deploy Russian missiles unless the United States does so first. However, should Washington take such a step, he has said he would be forced to deploy Russian hypersonic nuclear missiles on ships or submarines near U.S. territorial waters. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg dismissed Russia’s moratorium request on Friday, saying it was “not a credible offer” as he said Moscow had already deployed illegal missiles. “There are no new U.S. missiles, no new NATO missiles in Europe, but there are more and more new Russian missiles,” he said. ‘WE DON’T WANT A NEW ARMS RACE’ NATO said it had agreed a defensive package of measures to deter Russia. That response would be measured and would only involve conventional weapons, it said. NATO’s Stoltenberg said there would be “no rash moves” by the alliance which he said “would not mirror what Russia does.” “We don’t want a new arms race,” Stoltenberg said. NATO members Britain and Poland blamed Moscow for the treaty’s demise. “Their contempt for the rules-based international system threatens European security,” British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said on Twitter. FILE PHOTO: A component of SSC-8/9M729 cruise missile system is on display during a news briefing, organized by Russian defence and foreign ministries, at Patriot Expocentre near Moscow, Russia January 23, 2019. REUTERS/Maxim Shemetov European officials had voiced concern that if the treaty collapses, Europe could again become an arena for a nuclear-armed, intermediate-range missile buildup by the United States and Russia. U.S. officials said the United States was months away from the first flight tests of an American intermediate-range missile that would serve as a counter to the Russians. Any deployment would be years away, they said. “We are just at the stage of looking at how we might further the development of conventional options,” one official said.

www.reuters.com

center

5pXCGNC1D7Nel5oa

test

yd7uJb7gCpuSif4W

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/19/trump-russia-fake-news-libertarians-autocrats-democracy

Disruption games: why are libertarians lining up with autocrats to undermine democracy?

2017-11-19

Julian Borger

In the era of digital politics , an odd alliance has sprung up : anti-state campaigners and Moscow-backed nationalists are combining to disrupt liberal institutions At a time when strange alliances are disrupting previously stable democracies , the Catalan independence referendum was a perfect reflection of a weird age . Along with the flag-waving and calls for “ freedom ” from Madrid , the furore that followed the vote unleashed some of the darker elements that have haunted recent turbulent episodes in Europe and America : fake news , Russian mischief and , marching oddly in step , libertarian activism . From his residence of more than five years inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London , Assange tweeted 80 times in support of Catalan secession , and his views were amplified by the state-run Russian news agency , Sputnik , making him the most quoted English-language voice on Twitter , according to independent research and the Sydney Morning Herald . Jared Kushner failed to disclose emails sent to Trump team about WikiLeaks and Russia Read more In second place was Edward Snowden , another champion of transparency , who like Assange had little by way of a track record on Spanish politics . Together , Snowden and Assange accounted for a third of all Twitter traffic under the # Catalonia hashtag . At the same time , a European Union counter-propaganda unit detected an upsurge in pro-Kremlin fake news on the political crisis , playing up the tensions . “ World powers prepare for war in Europe , ” one Russian politics site declared in its headline . The same patterns were apparent in the Brexit vote , Donald Trump ’ s shock victory , the surge of the Front National in France and the dramatic ascent of the Five Star Movement in Italy , from the pet project of a comedian , Beppe Grillo , to the second most powerful force in Italy . In all cases , libertarians viscerally opposed to centralised power made common cause with a brutally autocratic state apparatus in Moscow , an American plutocrat with a deeply murky financial record , and the instinctively authoritarian far right . All in the name of disruption of government and liberal norms in western democracies . So why are the pioneering crusaders of total transparency and freedom of information lining up alongside the most powerful exponents of disinformation and disruption ? This has not just been a marriage of convenience . There are elements of ideological bonding too . In Twitter direct messages during the last throes of the US election campaign , released over the past week , WikiLeaks , which US intelligence has deemed a tool of Russian intelligence , attempted to woo Trump ’ s eldest son , Donald Trump Jr , with offers of secret collusion . The messages from the official WikiLeaks account , first published in the Atlantic , ask for a leak of the future president ’ s tax return to soften the blow of its eventual publication , and to give WikiLeaks the appearance of impartiality given it had already released a trove of documents hacked from the Democratic party ( by Russia , according to US intelligence ) . Donald Jr only replied occasionally to the WikiLeaks emails , but appears in some case to have acted on them , notifying colleagues . In one instance , his father tweeted a reference to WikiLeaks 15 minutes after the group had been in touch . WikiLeaks grew steadily bolder in its proposals , urging the Trump campaign not to concede on election night if he lost but to challenge the result as rigged . And in mid-December , when Trump was president-elect , it suggested Trump should push for Assange to be made Australian ambassador to Washington . Assange also gave his backing to the Brexit vote in the UK , an intervention which again does not appear to be merely incidental . It earned him an unannounced visit in March from Nigel Farage , the Brexit leader and Trump ’ s closest British ally . When doorstopped on his way out of the Ecuadorian embassy , Farage claimed he could not remember why he had gone there . In recent weeks , it has become increasingly clear that Brexit was another arena in which Assange and Moscow were in step . Over the past week , researchers at the University of Edinburgh identified more than 400 fake Twitter accounts apparently run from St Petersburg , which published Brexit-related posts in the run-up to the UK referendum , some of them aimed at stirring anti-Islamic sentiment . They ’ re completely at odds with each other in every other sense but share a hatred of establishment western politics Jamie Bartlett , Demos “ The radical libertarians and the autocrats are allied by virtue of sharing an enemy which is the mainstream , soft , establishment , liberal politics , ” said Jamie Bartlett , the director of the centre for the analysis of social media at the Demos thinktank . “ Most early , hardline cryptographers who were part of this movement in the 1990s considered that democracy and liberty were not really compatible . Like most radical libertarians – as Assange was – the principal enemy was the soft democrats who were imposing the will of the majority on the minority and who didn ’ t really believe in genuine , absolute freedom . ” That meant some odd bedfellows could become useful allies . “ They have been able to forge a very convenient marriage with other enemies of liberal democracy , ” said Bartlett , “ who are in every other sense imaginable completely at odds with each other , but they do share that common hatred of establishment , western , soft , democratic politics as they see it . ” Edward Snowden ’ s worldview also had libertarian roots . He was a supporter of the rightwing maverick US presidential candidate , Ron Paul , and vigorously opposed the Obama administration ’ s endorsement of gun control and affirmative action . He turned against his employers in the US security apparatus , and stole their secrets in the name of transparency and the citizen ’ s right to privacy , but his defection has left him in exile in Moscow , at the mercy of a government that hardly even pretends to observe such western niceties . However , Snowden has never professed any great enthusiasm for Russian governance , and most of the available evidence suggests he did not end up in Russia by design , but because of a failed scheme , hatched by WikiLeaks to fly him from Hong Kong to Latin America . Unlike Assange , he has been increasingly critical of the Kremlin . But there are plenty of other examples of the mutual embrace between Moscow and western libertarianism . In particular , the libertarians share with Moscow a profound distaste for the European Union , which they see as a continent-wide epitome of centralisation , and of liberal social norms . “ This libertarian hatred of political correctness , that everyone has to follow this social democratic view on gender , welfare , progressive politics and immigration , and libertarians can ’ t stand that , as degrading the idea of individual liberty , ” Bartlett said . “ So I think you ’ ll find quite a lot of people on the libertarian right who think that Russia has become the only real counterbalance to that philosophy . ” The meeting of minds is embodied in the man long seen as Trump ’ s chief ideologue , Steve Bannon . Bannon is another western libertarian for whom the contradiction between opposing restrictions on individual liberties at home and backing Russian authoritarianism is subsumed beneath an admiration for Putin ’ s muscular nationalism . In the summer of 2014 , Bannon explained the attraction of the Russian leader for “ traditionalists ” , to a meeting of conservative Catholics through a Skype link to the Vatican . “ One of the reasons is that they believe that at least Putin is standing up for traditional institutions , and he ’ s trying to do it in a form of nationalism – and I think that people , particularly in certain countries , want to see sovereignty for their country , they want to see nationalism for their country , ” Bannon said , according to a transcript of the discussion published by BuzzFeed . “ They don ’ t believe in this kind of pan-European Union or they don ’ t believe in the centralized government in the United States . They ’ d rather see more of a states-based entity that the founders originally set up where freedoms were controlled at the local level . ” For Farage too , reverence for Putin ’ s boldness on the world stage has outweighed doubts about his repressive rule . Asked in a 2014 GQ magazine interview , which world leader he most admired , he said : “ As an operator , but not as a human being , I would say Putin . “ The way he played the whole Syria thing . Brilliant . Not that I approve of him politically . How many journalists in jail now ? ” The investigation into the Russian involvement in the Brexit vote is only now getting started . Russian journalist Alexey Kovalev argues Moscow ’ s influence has been overstated and misunderstood . Pointing to the minimal audience for the Russian English-language TV channel , Kovalev wrote : “ Russian trolling operations seem less like pouring gasoline on fire and more like pouring a bucket of water into the ocean . ” Catalan independence : EU experts detect rise in pro-Kremlin false claims Read more Kadri Liik , an expert on Russian-European relations , said : “ Some fake news probably may have influenced the Brexit vote , but these fake news were manufactured by the British tabloids and the leave campaign . Any amplification provided by Russia ’ s agents was negligible compared to the energy that was invested locally . ” In Catalonia too , Russian bots and their fake news output were pushing on a door that was already swinging open because of other circumstances . The Catalan leaders , unlike those in the US , France , and the UK have shown little interest so far in reciprocating Moscow ’ s embrace . However , the long-term corrosive effect of Russia ’ s use of disinformation to break down trust in western institutions is hard to measure and may be unmeasurable . What is clear is that it is continuing with the active assistance of political movements who trade in disillusion and resentment , and who have found a natural home on the internet . In Italy , the Five Star Movement ( M5S ) , combines its anti-establishment stance at home with close alignment to Moscow ’ s line in foreign policy . Its web guru , Gianroberto Casaleggio , who claims that M5S is pioneering “ a new , direct democracy that will see the elimination of all barriers between the citizen and the state ” , has established news sites that circulate conspiracy theories , many of them crossposted from Russian outlets . One such story suggested the US was covertly funding the flow of immigrants from Africa . It linked back to a story on Sputnik Italia . As with Assange , Casaleggio ’ s distaste for the overbearing state does not apply to Moscow . The common fight against US , Nato and the rest of the western world ’ s liberal order is what has taken primacy . “ I think they ’ re more anarchic in their belief that the state will wither away and power will be redistributed in some fundamentally democratic revolution that they thought would be embedded within the internet , ” said Franklin Foer , a US journalist and the author of World Without Mind : The Existential Threat of Big Tech . “ It ’ s fairly naive , because power always reasserts itself . ”

In the era of digital politics, an odd alliance has sprung up: anti-state campaigners and Moscow-backed nationalists are combining to disrupt liberal institutions At a time when strange alliances are disrupting previously stable democracies, the Catalan independence referendum was a perfect reflection of a weird age. Along with the flag-waving and calls for “freedom” from Madrid, the furore that followed the vote unleashed some of the darker elements that have haunted recent turbulent episodes in Europe and America: fake news, Russian mischief and, marching oddly in step, libertarian activism. From his residence of more than five years inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, Assange tweeted 80 times in support of Catalan secession, and his views were amplified by the state-run Russian news agency, Sputnik, making him the most quoted English-language voice on Twitter, according to independent research and the Sydney Morning Herald. Jared Kushner failed to disclose emails sent to Trump team about WikiLeaks and Russia Read more In second place was Edward Snowden, another champion of transparency, who like Assange had little by way of a track record on Spanish politics. Together, Snowden and Assange accounted for a third of all Twitter traffic under the #Catalonia hashtag. At the same time, a European Union counter-propaganda unit detected an upsurge in pro-Kremlin fake news on the political crisis, playing up the tensions. “World powers prepare for war in Europe,” one Russian politics site declared in its headline. The same patterns were apparent in the Brexit vote, Donald Trump’s shock victory, the surge of the Front National in France and the dramatic ascent of the Five Star Movement in Italy, from the pet project of a comedian, Beppe Grillo, to the second most powerful force in Italy. In all cases, libertarians viscerally opposed to centralised power made common cause with a brutally autocratic state apparatus in Moscow, an American plutocrat with a deeply murky financial record, and the instinctively authoritarian far right. All in the name of disruption of government and liberal norms in western democracies. So why are the pioneering crusaders of total transparency and freedom of information lining up alongside the most powerful exponents of disinformation and disruption? This has not just been a marriage of convenience. There are elements of ideological bonding too. In Twitter direct messages during the last throes of the US election campaign, released over the past week, WikiLeaks, which US intelligence has deemed a tool of Russian intelligence, attempted to woo Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr, with offers of secret collusion. Facebook Twitter Pinterest The furore that followed the Catalan vote unleashed fake news, Russian mischief and, oddly, libertarian activism. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images The messages from the official WikiLeaks account, first published in the Atlantic, ask for a leak of the future president’s tax return to soften the blow of its eventual publication, and to give WikiLeaks the appearance of impartiality given it had already released a trove of documents hacked from the Democratic party (by Russia, according to US intelligence). Donald Jr only replied occasionally to the WikiLeaks emails, but appears in some case to have acted on them, notifying colleagues. In one instance, his father tweeted a reference to WikiLeaks 15 minutes after the group had been in touch. WikiLeaks grew steadily bolder in its proposals, urging the Trump campaign not to concede on election night if he lost but to challenge the result as rigged. And in mid-December, when Trump was president-elect, it suggested Trump should push for Assange to be made Australian ambassador to Washington. Assange also gave his backing to the Brexit vote in the UK, an intervention which again does not appear to be merely incidental. It earned him an unannounced visit in March from Nigel Farage, the Brexit leader and Trump’s closest British ally. When doorstopped on his way out of the Ecuadorian embassy, Farage claimed he could not remember why he had gone there. In recent weeks, it has become increasingly clear that Brexit was another arena in which Assange and Moscow were in step. Over the past week, researchers at the University of Edinburgh identified more than 400 fake Twitter accounts apparently run from St Petersburg, which published Brexit-related posts in the run-up to the UK referendum, some of them aimed at stirring anti-Islamic sentiment. They’re completely at odds with each other in every other sense but share a hatred of establishment western politics Jamie Bartlett, Demos “The radical libertarians and the autocrats are allied by virtue of sharing an enemy which is the mainstream, soft, establishment, liberal politics,” said Jamie Bartlett, the director of the centre for the analysis of social media at the Demos thinktank. “Most early, hardline cryptographers who were part of this movement in the 1990s considered that democracy and liberty were not really compatible. Like most radical libertarians – as Assange was – the principal enemy was the soft democrats who were imposing the will of the majority on the minority and who didn’t really believe in genuine, absolute freedom.” That meant some odd bedfellows could become useful allies. “They have been able to forge a very convenient marriage with other enemies of liberal democracy,” said Bartlett, “who are in every other sense imaginable completely at odds with each other, but they do share that common hatred of establishment, western, soft, democratic politics as they see it.” Edward Snowden’s worldview also had libertarian roots. He was a supporter of the rightwing maverick US presidential candidate, Ron Paul, and vigorously opposed the Obama administration’s endorsement of gun control and affirmative action. He turned against his employers in the US security apparatus, and stole their secrets in the name of transparency and the citizen’s right to privacy, but his defection has left him in exile in Moscow, at the mercy of a government that hardly even pretends to observe such western niceties. However, Snowden has never professed any great enthusiasm for Russian governance, and most of the available evidence suggests he did not end up in Russia by design, but because of a failed scheme, hatched by WikiLeaks to fly him from Hong Kong to Latin America. Unlike Assange, he has been increasingly critical of the Kremlin. But there are plenty of other examples of the mutual embrace between Moscow and western libertarianism. In particular, the libertarians share with Moscow a profound distaste for the European Union, which they see as a continent-wide epitome of centralisation, and of liberal social norms. “This libertarian hatred of political correctness, that everyone has to follow this social democratic view on gender, welfare, progressive politics and immigration, and libertarians can’t stand that, as degrading the idea of individual liberty,” Bartlett said. “So I think you’ll find quite a lot of people on the libertarian right who think that Russia has become the only real counterbalance to that philosophy.” The meeting of minds is embodied in the man long seen as Trump’s chief ideologue, Steve Bannon. Bannon is another western libertarian for whom the contradiction between opposing restrictions on individual liberties at home and backing Russian authoritarianism is subsumed beneath an admiration for Putin’s muscular nationalism. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Trump and Hillary Clinton at the debate in St Louis in October last year. Photograph: Rick Wilking/Reuters In the summer of 2014, Bannon explained the attraction of the Russian leader for “traditionalists”, to a meeting of conservative Catholics through a Skype link to the Vatican. “One of the reasons is that they believe that at least Putin is standing up for traditional institutions, and he’s trying to do it in a form of nationalism – and I think that people, particularly in certain countries, want to see sovereignty for their country, they want to see nationalism for their country,” Bannon said, according to a transcript of the discussion published by BuzzFeed. “They don’t believe in this kind of pan-European Union or they don’t believe in the centralized government in the United States. They’d rather see more of a states-based entity that the founders originally set up where freedoms were controlled at the local level.” For Farage too, reverence for Putin’s boldness on the world stage has outweighed doubts about his repressive rule. Asked in a 2014 GQ magazine interview, which world leader he most admired, he said: “As an operator, but not as a human being, I would say Putin. “The way he played the whole Syria thing. Brilliant. Not that I approve of him politically. How many journalists in jail now?” The investigation into the Russian involvement in the Brexit vote is only now getting started. Russian journalist Alexey Kovalev argues Moscow’s influence has been overstated and misunderstood. Pointing to the minimal audience for the Russian English-language TV channel, Kovalev wrote: “Russian trolling operations seem less like pouring gasoline on fire and more like pouring a bucket of water into the ocean.” Catalan independence: EU experts detect rise in pro-Kremlin false claims Read more Kadri Liik, an expert on Russian-European relations, said: “Some fake news probably may have influenced the Brexit vote, but these fake news were manufactured by the British tabloids and the leave campaign. Any amplification provided by Russia’s agents was negligible compared to the energy that was invested locally.” In Catalonia too, Russian bots and their fake news output were pushing on a door that was already swinging open because of other circumstances. The Catalan leaders, unlike those in the US, France, and the UK have shown little interest so far in reciprocating Moscow’s embrace. However, the long-term corrosive effect of Russia’s use of disinformation to break down trust in western institutions is hard to measure and may be unmeasurable. What is clear is that it is continuing with the active assistance of political movements who trade in disillusion and resentment, and who have found a natural home on the internet. In Italy, the Five Star Movement (M5S), combines its anti-establishment stance at home with close alignment to Moscow’s line in foreign policy. Its web guru, Gianroberto Casaleggio, who claims that M5S is pioneering “a new, direct democracy that will see the elimination of all barriers between the citizen and the state”, has established news sites that circulate conspiracy theories, many of them crossposted from Russian outlets. One such story suggested the US was covertly funding the flow of immigrants from Africa. It linked back to a story on Sputnik Italia. As with Assange, Casaleggio’s distaste for the overbearing state does not apply to Moscow. The common fight against US, Nato and the rest of the western world’s liberal order is what has taken primacy. “I think they’re more anarchic in their belief that the state will wither away and power will be redistributed in some fundamentally democratic revolution that they thought would be embedded within the internet,” said Franklin Foer, a US journalist and the author of World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech. “It’s fairly naive, because power always reasserts itself.”

www.theguardian.com

left

yd7uJb7gCpuSif4W

test

qMTanbYTwcgZF8l8

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/sep/29/we-should-have-seen-trump-coming

We should have seen Trump coming

2017-09-29

Ta-Nehisi Coates

I have often wondered how I missed the coming tragedy . It is not so much that I should have predicted that Americans would elect Donald Trump . It ’ s just that I shouldn ’ t have put it past us . It was tough to keep track of the currents of politics and pageantry swirling at once . All my life I had seen myself , and my people , backed into a corner . Had I been wrong ? Watching the crowds at county fairs cheer for Michelle Obama in 2008 , or flipping through the enchanting photo spreads of the glamorous incoming administration , it was easy to believe that I had been . And it was more than symbolic . Barack Obama ’ s victory meant not just a black president but also that Democrats , the party supported by most black people , enjoyed majorities in Congress . Prominent intellectuals were predicting that modern conservatism – a movement steeped in white resentment – was at its end and that a demographic wave of Asians , Latinos and blacks would sink the Republican party . Back in the summer of 2008 , as Obama closed out the primary and closed in on history , vendors in Harlem hawked T-shirts emblazoned with his face and posters placing him in the black Valhalla where Martin , Malcolm and Harriet were throned . It is hard to remember the excitement of that time , because I now know that the sense we had that summer , the sense that we were approaching an end-of-history moment , proved to be wrong . It is not so much that I logically reasoned out that Obama ’ s election would author a post-racist age . But it now seemed possible that white supremacy , the scourge of American history , might well be banished in my lifetime . In those days I imagined racism as a tumour that could be isolated and removed from the body of America , not as a pervasive system both native and essential to that body . From that perspective , it seemed possible that the success of one man really could alter history , or even end it . I had never seen a black man like Barack Obama . He talked to white people in a new language – as though he actually trusted them and believed in them . It was not my language . It was not even a language I was much interested in , save to understand how he had come to speak it and its effect on those who heard it . More interesting to me was that he had somehow balanced that language with the language of the south side of Chicago . He referred to himself , unambiguously , as a black man . He had married a black woman . It is easy to forget how shocking this was , given the common belief at the time that there was a direct relationship between success and assimilation . The narrative held that successful black men took white wives and crossed over into that arid no-man ’ s-land that was not black , though it could never be white . Blackness for such men was not a thing to root yourself in but something to evade and escape . Barack Obama found a third way – a means of communicating his affection for white America without fawning over it . White people were enchanted by him – and those who worked in newsrooms seemed most enchanted of all . But I could see that those charged with analysing the import of Obama ’ s blackness were , in the main , working off an old script . Obama was dubbed “ the new Tiger Woods of American politics ” , as a man who wasn ’ t “ exactly black ” . I understood the point – Obama was not “ black ” as these writers understood “ black ” . It wasn ’ t just that he wasn ’ t a drug dealer , like most black men on the news , but that he did not hail from an inner city , he was not raised on chitterlings , his mother had not washed white people ’ s floors . But this confusion was a reduction of racism ’ s true breadth , premised on the need to fix black people in one corner of the universe so that white people may be secure in all the rest of it . So to understand Obama , analysts needed to give him a superpower that explained how this self-described black man escaped his assigned corner . That power was his mixed ancestry . The precise ancestry of a black drug dealer or cop killer is irrelevant . His blackness predicts and explains his crime . He reinforces the racist presumption . It is only when that presumption is questioned that a fine analysis of ancestry is invoked . Frederick Douglass was an ordinary nigger while working the fields . But when he was a famed abolitionist , it was often said that his genius must derive from his white half . Ancestry isn ’ t even really necessary . My wife , Kenyatta , was the only black girl in her Tennessee “ gifted and talented ” classes from age six . She could dance and double dutch with the best of them . Her white classmates did not care . “ You ’ re not really black , ” they would say . They meant it as a compliment . But what they really meant was to slander her neighbours and family , to reorder the world in such a way that confirmed their status among the master class . And if Obama , rooted in the world of slaves , could rise above the masters , all the while claiming the identity and traditions of slaves , was there any real meaning in being a master at all ? Denying Barack Obama his blackness served another purpose : it was a means of coping with having been wrong . Those of us who did not believe there could be a black president were challenged by the sudden prospect of one . It is easy to see how it all makes sense now – in every era there have been individual black people capable of defying the bonds of white supremacy , even as that same system held the great mass of us captive . I will speak for myself and say that before Obama ’ s campaign began , the American presidency seemed out of reach . It existed so high in the firmament , and seemed so synonymous with the country ’ s sense of itself , that I never gave the prospect of a black president much thought . By the summer of 2008 , it was clear that I ’ d made an error . Two responses were possible : ( 1 ) assess that error and reconsider the nature of the world in which I lived ; or ( 2 ) refuse to accept the error and simply retrofit yesterday ’ s reasoning to this new reality . The notion that Obama was a “ different kind of black ” allowed for that latter option and the comfort of being right . But some of us had not wanted to be right . And when we asserted that “ America ain ’ t never letting no nigger be president , ” we were not bragging . Instinct warned me against hope . But instinct had also warned me against Obama winning Iowa , and instinct was wrong . And if we had misjudged America ’ s support for a black man running to occupy the White House , perhaps I had misjudged the nature of my country . Perhaps we were just now awakening from some awful nightmare , and if Barack Obama was not the catalyst of that awakening , he was at least the sign . And just like that , I was swept away , because I wanted desperately to be swept away , and taking the measure of my community , I saw that I was not alone . There is a notion out there that black people enjoy the sisyphean struggle against racism . In fact , most of us live for the day when we can struggle against anything else . But having been , by that very racism , pinned into ghettos , both metaphorical and real , our options for struggle are chosen long before we are born . And so we struggle out of fear for our children . We struggle out of fear for ourselves . We struggle to avoid our feelings , because to actually consider all that was taken , to understand that it was taken systemically , that the taking is essential to America and echoes down through the ages , could make you crazy . But after Obama ’ s election it seemed that perhaps there was another way . Perhaps we , as Americans , could elide the terrible history , elide the national crime . Maybe it was possible to fix the problems afflicting black people without focusing on race . Perhaps it was possible to think of black people as a community in disproportionate need , worthy of aid simply because they were Americans in need . Better schools could be built , better healthcare administered , better jobs made available , not because of anything specific in the black experience but precisely because there isn ’ t . If you squinted for a moment , if you actually tried to believe , it made so much sense . All that was needed for this new theory was a champion – articulate , young , clean . And maybe this new champion had arrived . That was one way of thinking about things . Here was another . “ Son , ” my father said of Obama , “ you know the country got to be messed up for them folks to give him the job. ” The economy was on the brink . The blood of untold numbers of Iraqis was on our hands . Hurricane Katrina had shamed the society . From this other angle , post-racialism and good feeling were taken up not so much out of elevation in consciousness but out of desperation . It all makes so much sense now . The pageantry , the math , the magazines , the essays heralded an end to the old country with all its divisions . We forgot that there were those who loved that old country as it was , who did not lament the divisions but drew power from them . And so we saw postcards with watermelons on the White House lawn . We saw simian caricatures of the first family , the invocation of a “ food-stamp president ” and his anticolonial , Islamist agenda . These were the fetishes that gathered the tribe of white supremacy , that rallied them to the age-old banner – and if there was one mistake , one reason why I did not see the coming tragedy , why I did not account for its possibilities , it was because , at that point , I had not yet truly considered that banner ’ s fearsome power . The opportunity for that consideration came by coincidence . The eight years of Barack Obama bracketed the 150th anniversary of the civil war – America ’ s preeminent existential crisis . In 1861 , believing themselves immersed in a short war , the forces of union thought white supremacy was still affordable . So even in the north the cause of abolition was denounced , and blacks were forbidden from fighting in the army . But the war dragged on , and wallowing in white supremacy amid the increase of dead was like wallowing in pearls amid a famine . Emancipation was embraced . Blacks were recruited and sent into battle . Later they were enfranchised and sent to serve in the halls of government , national and statewide . But in 1876 , with the hot war now passed , and the need for black soldiers gone , the country returned to its supremacist roots . “ A revolution has taken place by force of arms and a race are disenfranchised , ” wrote Mississippi ’ s Reconstruction-era governor , Adelbert Ames . They are to be returned to a condition of serfdom – an era of second slavery … The nation should have acted but it was “ tired of the annual autumnal outbreaks in the South ” … The political death of the negro will forever release the nation from the weariness from such “ political outbreaks ” . You may think I exaggerate . Time will show you how accurate my statements are . So there was nothing new in the suddenly transracial spirit that saw the country , in 2008 , reaching “ for the best part of itself ” . It had done so before – and then promptly retrenched in the worst part of itself . To see this connection , to see Obama ’ s election as part of a familiar cycle , you would have had to understand how central the brand of white supremacy was to the country . I did not . I could remember , as a child , the black nationalists claiming the country was built by slaves . But this claim was rarely evidenced and mostly struck me as an applause line or rhetorical point . I understood slavery as bad and I had a vague sense that it had once been integral to the country and that the dispute over it had , somehow , contributed to the civil war . But even that partial sense ran contrary to the way the civil war was presented in the popular culture , as a violent misunderstanding , an honourable duel between wayward brothers , instead of what it was – a spectacular chapter in a long war that was declared when the first Africans were brought chained to American shores . When it comes to the civil war , all of our popular understanding , our popular history and culture , our great films , the subtext of our arguments are in defiance of its painful truths . It is not a mistake that Gone With the Wind is one of the most read works of American literature or that The Birth of a Nation is the most revered touchstone of all American film . Both emerge from a need for palliatives and painkillers , an escape from the truth of those five short years in which 750,000 American soldiers were killed , more than all American soldiers killed in all other American wars combined , in a war declared for the cause of expanding “ African slavery ” . That war was inaugurated not reluctantly , but lustily , by men who believed property in humans to be the cornerstone of civilisation , to be an edict of God , and so delivered their own children to his maw . And when that war was done , the now-defeated God lived on , honoured through the human sacrifice of lynching and racist pogroms . The history breaks the myth . And so the history is ignored , and fictions are weaved into our art and politics that dress villainy in martyrdom and transform banditry into chivalry , and so strong are these fictions that their emblem , the stars and bars , darkens front porches and state capitol buildings across the land to this day . The implications of the true story are existential and corrosive to our larger national myth . To understand that the most costly war in this country ’ s history was launched in direct opposition to everything the country claims to be , to understand that it was the product of centuries of enslavement , which is to see an even longer , more total war , is to alter the accepted conception of America as a beacon of freedom . How does one face this truth or forge a national identity out of it ? For now the country holds to the common theory that emancipation and civil rights were redemptive , a fraught and still-incomplete resolution of the accidental hypocrisy of a nation founded by slaveholders extolling a gospel of freedom . This common theory dominates much of American discourse , from left to right . Conveniently , it holds the possibility of ultimate resolution , for if right-thinking individuals can dedicate themselves to finishing the work of ensuring freedom for all , then perhaps the ghosts of history can be escaped . It was the common theory – through its promise of a progressive American history , where the country improves itself inexorably and necessarily – that allowed for Obama ’ s rise . And it was that rise that offered me that chance to see that theory for the illusion that it was . Immersed in my reading , it became clear to me that the common theory of providential progress , of the inevitable reconciliation between the sin of slavery and the democratic ideal , was myth . Marking the moment of awakening is like marking the moment one fell in love . If forced I would say I took my tumble with the dark vision of historian Edmund Morgan ’ s book American Slavery , American Freedom . Certainly slavery was contrary to America ’ s stated democratic precepts , conceded Morgan , but in fact , it was slavery that allowed American democracy to exist in the first place . It was slavery that gifted much of the south with a working class that lived outside of all protections and could be driven , beaten and traded into generational perpetuity . Profits pulled from these workers , repression of the normal angst of labour , and the ability to employ this labour on abundant land stolen from Native Americans formed a foundation for democratic equality among a people who came to see skin colour and hair textures as defining features . Morgan showed the process in motion through the law – rights gradually awarded to the mass of European poor and oppressed , at precisely the same time they were being stripped from enslaved Africans and their descendants . It was not just Edmund Morgan . It was James McPherson . It was Barbara Fields . It was David Blight . Together they guided me through the history of slavery and its cataclysmic resolution . I became obsessed and insufferable . Civil war podcasts were always booming through the house . I ’ d drag Kenyatta and our son , Samori , to the sites of battles – Gettysburg , Petersburg , the Wilderness – audiobooks playing the whole way . I went to Tennessee . I saw Shiloh . I saw Fort Donelson . I saw Island No 10 . At every stop I was moved . The stories of suffering , limbs amputated , men burned alive , the bravery and gallantry , all of it seeped up out of the ground and enveloped me . But something else accompanied this hallowed feeling : a sense that the story , as it was told on these sites , as it was interpreted by visitors – most of them white – was incomplete , and this incompletion was not thoughtless but essential . The tactics of the war were always up for discussion , but the animating cause of those tactics , with but a few exceptions , went unsaid . By then , I knew . The history books spoke where tourism could not . The four million enslaved bodies , at the start of the civil war , represented an inconceivable financial interest – $ 75bn in today ’ s dollars – and the cotton that passed through their hands represented 60 % of the country ’ s exports . In 1860 , the largest concentration of multimillionaires in the country could be found in the Mississippi River valley , where the estates of large planters loomed . Any fair consideration of the depth and width of enslavement tempts insanity . First conjure the crime – the generational destruction of human bodies – and all of its related offences – domestic terrorism , poll taxes , mass incarceration . But then try to imagine being an individual born among the remnants of that crime , among the wronged , among the plundered , and feeling the gravity of that crime all around and seeing it in the sideways glances of the perpetrators of that crime and overhearing it in their whispers and watching these people , at best , denying their power to address the crime and , at worst , denying that any crime had occurred at all , even as their entire lives revolve around the fact of a robbery so large that it is written in our very names . This is not a thought experiment . America is literally unimaginable without plundered labour shackled to plundered land , without the organising principle of whiteness as citizenship , without the culture crafted by the plundered , and without that culture itself being plundered . White dependency on slavery extended from the economic to the social , and the rights of whites were largely seen as dependent on the degradation of blacks . “ White men , ” wrote Mississippi senator and eventual president of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis , “ have an equality resulting from a presence of a lower caste , which can not exist were white men to fill the position here occupied by the servile race . ” Antebellum Georgia governor Joseph E Brown made the same point : “ Among us the poor white laborer is respected as an equal . His family is treated with kindness , consideration and respect . He does not belong to the menial class . The negro is in no sense of the term his equal . He feels and knows this . He belongs to the only true aristocracy , the race of white men . He blacks no master ’ s boots , and bows the knee to no one save God alone . He receives higher wages for his labor than does the laborer of any other portion of the world , and he raises up his children , with the knowledge that they belong to no inferior caste ; but that the highest members of the society in which he lives , will , if their conduct is good , respect and treat them as equals . ” Enslavement provided not merely the foundation of white economic prosperity , but the foundation of white social equality , and thus the foundation of American democracy . But that was 150 years ago . And the slave south lost the war , after all . Was it not the America of Frederick Douglass that had prevailed and the Confederacy of Jefferson Davis that had been banished ? Were we not a new country exalting in Martin Luther King Jr ’ s dream ? I was never quite that far gone . But I had been wrong about the possibility of Barack Obama . And it seemed fair to consider that I might be wrong about a good deal more . But the same year I began my exploration of the civil war and the same summer I finished American Slavery , American Freedom , Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates was arrested . Gates was returning from a long trip . He was having trouble with the lock on his front door and so was attempting to force his way into his home . Someone saw this and called the police . They arrived and , after an exchange of words , Sgt James Crowley arrested , charged and jailed Gates for disorderly conduct . It caused a minor sensation . Commenting on the arrest , Obama asserted that anyone in Gates ’ s situation would be “ pretty angry ” if they were arrested in their own home . Obama added that “ the Cambridge police acted stupidly. ” He then cited the “ long history ” of “ African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately ” . I don ’ t know why I expected this would go over well . I don ’ t know why I thought this mild criticism from a new president in defence of one of the most respected academics at our country ’ s most lauded university in a case of obvious but still bloodless injustice might be heard by the broader country and if not agreed with , at least grappled with . In fact , there would be no grappling . Obama was denounced for having attacked the police , and the furore grew so great that it momentarily threatened to waylay his agenda . The president beat a hasty retreat . He apologised to the police officer , then invited Crowley and Gates to the White House for a beer . It was absurd . It was spectacle . But it cohered to the common theory , it appealed to the redemptive spirit and reduced the horror of being detained by an armed officer of the state , and all of the history of that horror , to something that could be resolved over a beer . And now the lies of the civil war and the lies of these post-racial years began to resonate with each other , and I could now see history , awful and undead , reaching out from the grave . America had a biography , and in that biography , the shackling of black people – slaves and free – featured prominently . I could not yet draw literal connections , though that would come . But what I sensed was a country trying to skip out on a bill , trying to stave off a terrible accounting . Adapted from We Were Eight Years in Power : An American Tragedy by Ta-Nehisi Coates , which will be published by Hamish Hamilton on 5 October at £16.99 . To buy it for £14.44 , got to go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846 . Free UK p & p over £10 , online orders only . Phone orders min p & p of £1.99 . • Follow the Long Read on Twitter at @ gdnlongread , or sign up to the long read weekly email here .

I have often wondered how I missed the coming tragedy. It is not so much that I should have predicted that Americans would elect Donald Trump. It’s just that I shouldn’t have put it past us. It was tough to keep track of the currents of politics and pageantry swirling at once. All my life I had seen myself, and my people, backed into a corner. Had I been wrong? Watching the crowds at county fairs cheer for Michelle Obama in 2008, or flipping through the enchanting photo spreads of the glamorous incoming administration, it was easy to believe that I had been. And it was more than symbolic. Barack Obama’s victory meant not just a black president but also that Democrats, the party supported by most black people, enjoyed majorities in Congress. Prominent intellectuals were predicting that modern conservatism – a movement steeped in white resentment – was at its end and that a demographic wave of Asians, Latinos and blacks would sink the Republican party. Back in the summer of 2008, as Obama closed out the primary and closed in on history, vendors in Harlem hawked T-shirts emblazoned with his face and posters placing him in the black Valhalla where Martin, Malcolm and Harriet were throned. It is hard to remember the excitement of that time, because I now know that the sense we had that summer, the sense that we were approaching an end-of-history moment, proved to be wrong. It is not so much that I logically reasoned out that Obama’s election would author a post-racist age. But it now seemed possible that white supremacy, the scourge of American history, might well be banished in my lifetime. In those days I imagined racism as a tumour that could be isolated and removed from the body of America, not as a pervasive system both native and essential to that body. From that perspective, it seemed possible that the success of one man really could alter history, or even end it. I had never seen a black man like Barack Obama. He talked to white people in a new language – as though he actually trusted them and believed in them. It was not my language. It was not even a language I was much interested in, save to understand how he had come to speak it and its effect on those who heard it. More interesting to me was that he had somehow balanced that language with the language of the south side of Chicago. He referred to himself, unambiguously, as a black man. He had married a black woman. It is easy to forget how shocking this was, given the common belief at the time that there was a direct relationship between success and assimilation. The narrative held that successful black men took white wives and crossed over into that arid no-man’s-land that was not black, though it could never be white. Blackness for such men was not a thing to root yourself in but something to evade and escape. Barack Obama found a third way – a means of communicating his affection for white America without fawning over it. White people were enchanted by him – and those who worked in newsrooms seemed most enchanted of all. But I could see that those charged with analysing the import of Obama’s blackness were, in the main, working off an old script. Obama was dubbed “the new Tiger Woods of American politics”, as a man who wasn’t “exactly black”. I understood the point – Obama was not “black” as these writers understood “black”. It wasn’t just that he wasn’t a drug dealer, like most black men on the news, but that he did not hail from an inner city, he was not raised on chitterlings, his mother had not washed white people’s floors. But this confusion was a reduction of racism’s true breadth, premised on the need to fix black people in one corner of the universe so that white people may be secure in all the rest of it. So to understand Obama, analysts needed to give him a superpower that explained how this self-described black man escaped his assigned corner. That power was his mixed ancestry. The precise ancestry of a black drug dealer or cop killer is irrelevant. His blackness predicts and explains his crime. He reinforces the racist presumption. It is only when that presumption is questioned that a fine analysis of ancestry is invoked. Frederick Douglass was an ordinary nigger while working the fields. But when he was a famed abolitionist, it was often said that his genius must derive from his white half. Ancestry isn’t even really necessary. My wife, Kenyatta, was the only black girl in her Tennessee “gifted and talented” classes from age six. She could dance and double dutch with the best of them. Her white classmates did not care. “You’re not really black,” they would say. They meant it as a compliment. But what they really meant was to slander her neighbours and family, to reorder the world in such a way that confirmed their status among the master class. And if Obama, rooted in the world of slaves, could rise above the masters, all the while claiming the identity and traditions of slaves, was there any real meaning in being a master at all? Denying Barack Obama his blackness served another purpose: it was a means of coping with having been wrong. Those of us who did not believe there could be a black president were challenged by the sudden prospect of one. It is easy to see how it all makes sense now – in every era there have been individual black people capable of defying the bonds of white supremacy, even as that same system held the great mass of us captive. I will speak for myself and say that before Obama’s campaign began, the American presidency seemed out of reach. It existed so high in the firmament, and seemed so synonymous with the country’s sense of itself, that I never gave the prospect of a black president much thought. By the summer of 2008, it was clear that I’d made an error. Two responses were possible: (1) assess that error and reconsider the nature of the world in which I lived; or (2) refuse to accept the error and simply retrofit yesterday’s reasoning to this new reality. The notion that Obama was a “different kind of black” allowed for that latter option and the comfort of being right. But some of us had not wanted to be right. And when we asserted that “America ain’t never letting no nigger be president,” we were not bragging. Instinct warned me against hope. But instinct had also warned me against Obama winning Iowa, and instinct was wrong. And if we had misjudged America’s support for a black man running to occupy the White House, perhaps I had misjudged the nature of my country. Perhaps we were just now awakening from some awful nightmare, and if Barack Obama was not the catalyst of that awakening, he was at least the sign. And just like that, I was swept away, because I wanted desperately to be swept away, and taking the measure of my community, I saw that I was not alone. There is a notion out there that black people enjoy the sisyphean struggle against racism. In fact, most of us live for the day when we can struggle against anything else. But having been, by that very racism, pinned into ghettos, both metaphorical and real, our options for struggle are chosen long before we are born. And so we struggle out of fear for our children. We struggle out of fear for ourselves. We struggle to avoid our feelings, because to actually consider all that was taken, to understand that it was taken systemically, that the taking is essential to America and echoes down through the ages, could make you crazy. But after Obama’s election it seemed that perhaps there was another way. Perhaps we, as Americans, could elide the terrible history, elide the national crime. Maybe it was possible to fix the problems afflicting black people without focusing on race. Perhaps it was possible to think of black people as a community in disproportionate need, worthy of aid simply because they were Americans in need. Better schools could be built, better healthcare administered, better jobs made available, not because of anything specific in the black experience but precisely because there isn’t. If you squinted for a moment, if you actually tried to believe, it made so much sense. All that was needed for this new theory was a champion – articulate, young, clean. And maybe this new champion had arrived. That was one way of thinking about things. Here was another. “Son,” my father said of Obama, “you know the country got to be messed up for them folks to give him the job.” The economy was on the brink. The blood of untold numbers of Iraqis was on our hands. Hurricane Katrina had shamed the society. From this other angle, post-racialism and good feeling were taken up not so much out of elevation in consciousness but out of desperation. It all makes so much sense now. The pageantry, the math, the magazines, the essays heralded an end to the old country with all its divisions. We forgot that there were those who loved that old country as it was, who did not lament the divisions but drew power from them. Facebook Twitter Pinterest A Confederate flag with the name of US president Donald Trump, North Carolina, May 2017. Photograph: Shannon Stapleton/Reuters And so we saw postcards with watermelons on the White House lawn. We saw simian caricatures of the first family, the invocation of a “food-stamp president” and his anticolonial, Islamist agenda. These were the fetishes that gathered the tribe of white supremacy, that rallied them to the age-old banner – and if there was one mistake, one reason why I did not see the coming tragedy, why I did not account for its possibilities, it was because, at that point, I had not yet truly considered that banner’s fearsome power. The opportunity for that consideration came by coincidence. The eight years of Barack Obama bracketed the 150th anniversary of the civil war – America’s preeminent existential crisis. In 1861, believing themselves immersed in a short war, the forces of union thought white supremacy was still affordable. So even in the north the cause of abolition was denounced, and blacks were forbidden from fighting in the army. But the war dragged on, and wallowing in white supremacy amid the increase of dead was like wallowing in pearls amid a famine. Emancipation was embraced. Blacks were recruited and sent into battle. Later they were enfranchised and sent to serve in the halls of government, national and statewide. But in 1876, with the hot war now passed, and the need for black soldiers gone, the country returned to its supremacist roots. “A revolution has taken place by force of arms and a race are disenfranchised,” wrote Mississippi’s Reconstruction-era governor, Adelbert Ames. They are to be returned to a condition of serfdom – an era of second slavery … The nation should have acted but it was “tired of the annual autumnal outbreaks in the South” … The political death of the negro will forever release the nation from the weariness from such “political outbreaks”. You may think I exaggerate. Time will show you how accurate my statements are. So there was nothing new in the suddenly transracial spirit that saw the country, in 2008, reaching “for the best part of itself”. It had done so before – and then promptly retrenched in the worst part of itself. To see this connection, to see Obama’s election as part of a familiar cycle, you would have had to understand how central the brand of white supremacy was to the country. I did not. I could remember, as a child, the black nationalists claiming the country was built by slaves. But this claim was rarely evidenced and mostly struck me as an applause line or rhetorical point. I understood slavery as bad and I had a vague sense that it had once been integral to the country and that the dispute over it had, somehow, contributed to the civil war. But even that partial sense ran contrary to the way the civil war was presented in the popular culture, as a violent misunderstanding, an honourable duel between wayward brothers, instead of what it was – a spectacular chapter in a long war that was declared when the first Africans were brought chained to American shores. When it comes to the civil war, all of our popular understanding, our popular history and culture, our great films, the subtext of our arguments are in defiance of its painful truths. It is not a mistake that Gone With the Wind is one of the most read works of American literature or that The Birth of a Nation is the most revered touchstone of all American film. Both emerge from a need for palliatives and painkillers, an escape from the truth of those five short years in which 750,000 American soldiers were killed, more than all American soldiers killed in all other American wars combined, in a war declared for the cause of expanding “African slavery”. That war was inaugurated not reluctantly, but lustily, by men who believed property in humans to be the cornerstone of civilisation, to be an edict of God, and so delivered their own children to his maw. And when that war was done, the now-defeated God lived on, honoured through the human sacrifice of lynching and racist pogroms. The history breaks the myth. And so the history is ignored, and fictions are weaved into our art and politics that dress villainy in martyrdom and transform banditry into chivalry, and so strong are these fictions that their emblem, the stars and bars, darkens front porches and state capitol buildings across the land to this day. The implications of the true story are existential and corrosive to our larger national myth. To understand that the most costly war in this country’s history was launched in direct opposition to everything the country claims to be, to understand that it was the product of centuries of enslavement, which is to see an even longer, more total war, is to alter the accepted conception of America as a beacon of freedom. How does one face this truth or forge a national identity out of it? For now the country holds to the common theory that emancipation and civil rights were redemptive, a fraught and still-incomplete resolution of the accidental hypocrisy of a nation founded by slaveholders extolling a gospel of freedom. This common theory dominates much of American discourse, from left to right. Conveniently, it holds the possibility of ultimate resolution, for if right-thinking individuals can dedicate themselves to finishing the work of ensuring freedom for all, then perhaps the ghosts of history can be escaped. It was the common theory – through its promise of a progressive American history, where the country improves itself inexorably and necessarily – that allowed for Obama’s rise. And it was that rise that offered me that chance to see that theory for the illusion that it was. Immersed in my reading, it became clear to me that the common theory of providential progress, of the inevitable reconciliation between the sin of slavery and the democratic ideal, was myth. Marking the moment of awakening is like marking the moment one fell in love. If forced I would say I took my tumble with the dark vision of historian Edmund Morgan’s book American Slavery, American Freedom. Certainly slavery was contrary to America’s stated democratic precepts, conceded Morgan, but in fact, it was slavery that allowed American democracy to exist in the first place. It was slavery that gifted much of the south with a working class that lived outside of all protections and could be driven, beaten and traded into generational perpetuity. Profits pulled from these workers, repression of the normal angst of labour, and the ability to employ this labour on abundant land stolen from Native Americans formed a foundation for democratic equality among a people who came to see skin colour and hair textures as defining features. Morgan showed the process in motion through the law – rights gradually awarded to the mass of European poor and oppressed, at precisely the same time they were being stripped from enslaved Africans and their descendants. It was not just Edmund Morgan. It was James McPherson. It was Barbara Fields. It was David Blight. Together they guided me through the history of slavery and its cataclysmic resolution. I became obsessed and insufferable. Civil war podcasts were always booming through the house. I’d drag Kenyatta and our son, Samori, to the sites of battles – Gettysburg, Petersburg, the Wilderness – audiobooks playing the whole way. I went to Tennessee. I saw Shiloh. I saw Fort Donelson. I saw Island No 10. At every stop I was moved. The stories of suffering, limbs amputated, men burned alive, the bravery and gallantry, all of it seeped up out of the ground and enveloped me. But something else accompanied this hallowed feeling: a sense that the story, as it was told on these sites, as it was interpreted by visitors – most of them white – was incomplete, and this incompletion was not thoughtless but essential. The tactics of the war were always up for discussion, but the animating cause of those tactics, with but a few exceptions, went unsaid. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Former slaves working as labourers for the Union war effort at White House Landing, Virginia, 1863. Photograph: Andrew J Russell/Medford Historical Society Col By then, I knew. The history books spoke where tourism could not. The four million enslaved bodies, at the start of the civil war, represented an inconceivable financial interest – $75bn in today’s dollars – and the cotton that passed through their hands represented 60% of the country’s exports. In 1860, the largest concentration of multimillionaires in the country could be found in the Mississippi River valley, where the estates of large planters loomed. Any fair consideration of the depth and width of enslavement tempts insanity. First conjure the crime – the generational destruction of human bodies – and all of its related offences – domestic terrorism, poll taxes, mass incarceration. But then try to imagine being an individual born among the remnants of that crime, among the wronged, among the plundered, and feeling the gravity of that crime all around and seeing it in the sideways glances of the perpetrators of that crime and overhearing it in their whispers and watching these people, at best, denying their power to address the crime and, at worst, denying that any crime had occurred at all, even as their entire lives revolve around the fact of a robbery so large that it is written in our very names. This is not a thought experiment. America is literally unimaginable without plundered labour shackled to plundered land, without the organising principle of whiteness as citizenship, without the culture crafted by the plundered, and without that culture itself being plundered. White dependency on slavery extended from the economic to the social, and the rights of whites were largely seen as dependent on the degradation of blacks. “White men,” wrote Mississippi senator and eventual president of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis, “have an equality resulting from a presence of a lower caste, which cannot exist were white men to fill the position here occupied by the servile race.” Antebellum Georgia governor Joseph E Brown made the same point: “Among us the poor white laborer is respected as an equal. His family is treated with kindness, consideration and respect. He does not belong to the menial class. The negro is in no sense of the term his equal. He feels and knows this. He belongs to the only true aristocracy, the race of white men. He blacks no master’s boots, and bows the knee to no one save God alone. He receives higher wages for his labor than does the laborer of any other portion of the world, and he raises up his children, with the knowledge that they belong to no inferior caste; but that the highest members of the society in which he lives, will, if their conduct is good, respect and treat them as equals.” Enslavement provided not merely the foundation of white economic prosperity, but the foundation of white social equality, and thus the foundation of American democracy. But that was 150 years ago. And the slave south lost the war, after all. Was it not the America of Frederick Douglass that had prevailed and the Confederacy of Jefferson Davis that had been banished? Were we not a new country exalting in Martin Luther King Jr’s dream? I was never quite that far gone. But I had been wrong about the possibility of Barack Obama. And it seemed fair to consider that I might be wrong about a good deal more. But the same year I began my exploration of the civil war and the same summer I finished American Slavery, American Freedom, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates was arrested. Gates was returning from a long trip. He was having trouble with the lock on his front door and so was attempting to force his way into his home. Someone saw this and called the police. They arrived and, after an exchange of words, Sgt James Crowley arrested, charged and jailed Gates for disorderly conduct. It caused a minor sensation. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Henry Louis Gates, Sgt James Crowley and Barack Obama drink beer in the White House garden, July 2009. Photograph: The White House/Getty Images Commenting on the arrest, Obama asserted that anyone in Gates’s situation would be “pretty angry” if they were arrested in their own home. Obama added that “the Cambridge police acted stupidly.” He then cited the “long history” of “African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately”. I don’t know why I expected this would go over well. I don’t know why I thought this mild criticism from a new president in defence of one of the most respected academics at our country’s most lauded university in a case of obvious but still bloodless injustice might be heard by the broader country and if not agreed with, at least grappled with. In fact, there would be no grappling. Obama was denounced for having attacked the police, and the furore grew so great that it momentarily threatened to waylay his agenda. The president beat a hasty retreat. He apologised to the police officer, then invited Crowley and Gates to the White House for a beer. It was absurd. It was spectacle. But it cohered to the common theory, it appealed to the redemptive spirit and reduced the horror of being detained by an armed officer of the state, and all of the history of that horror, to something that could be resolved over a beer. And now the lies of the civil war and the lies of these post-racial years began to resonate with each other, and I could now see history, awful and undead, reaching out from the grave. America had a biography, and in that biography, the shackling of black people – slaves and free – featured prominently. I could not yet draw literal connections, though that would come. But what I sensed was a country trying to skip out on a bill, trying to stave off a terrible accounting. Adapted from We Were Eight Years in Power: An American Tragedy by Ta-Nehisi Coates, which will be published by Hamish Hamilton on 5 October at £16.99. To buy it for £14.44, got to go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £10, online orders only. Phone orders min p&p of £1.99. • Follow the Long Read on Twitter at @gdnlongread, or sign up to the long read weekly email here.

www.theguardian.com

left

qMTanbYTwcgZF8l8

test

2z8Vu637ayfDOass

nuclear_weapons

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-41452173

Iran nuclear deal: Tehran expects US to ditch agreement, says FM

Iran 's foreign minister has said he assumes that the US will abandon the international deal restricting his country 's nuclear activities . But Mohammad Javad Zarif said he hoped Europe would keep the agreement alive . US President Donald Trump - a stern critic of the deal - will announce next month whether he believes Iran has adhered to its terms . If he says it has failed to do so , US Congress will begin the process of reimposing sanctions on Iran . Mr Trump said the agreement was an `` embarrassment '' in a speech to the United Nations this month . France , Germany and the UK - which along with Russia and China signed the deal - have recently defended it . In an interview with two British newspapers , Mr Zarif said that if the deal collapsed , Iran would no longer have to follow its limitations on uranium enrichment , centrifuge numbers and the production of plutonium . But he insisted Iran would only use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes . `` You either live by it [ the deal ] or you set it aside , '' Mr Zarif told the Financial Times and the Guardian . `` You can not be half pregnant . '' `` My assumption and guess is that he [ Trump ] will not certify and then will allow Congress to take the decision , '' Mr Zarif said during the interview at the Iranian UN mission 's residence in New York . `` The deal allowed Iran to continue its research and development . So we have improved our technological base . If we decide to walk away from the deal we would be walking away with better technology . '' He said of Mr Trump : `` I think he has made a policy of being unpredictable , and now he 's turning that into being unreliable as well . He has violated the letter , spirit , everything of the deal . '' Mr Zarif said Iran 's options `` will depend on how the rest of the international community deal with the United States '' . `` If Europe and Japan and Russia and China decided to go along with the US , then I think that will be the end of the deal , '' he said . `` Europe should lead . `` European Union officials have said they could act to legally protect European investors in Iran if the US reimposes sanctions . But , in line with the US , they have also criticised Iran over its non-nuclear activities in the region .

Image copyright Reuters Image caption Mr Zarif: "You either live by it or you set it aside - you cannot be half pregnant" Iran's foreign minister has said he assumes that the US will abandon the international deal restricting his country's nuclear activities. But Mohammad Javad Zarif said he hoped Europe would keep the agreement alive. US President Donald Trump - a stern critic of the deal - will announce next month whether he believes Iran has adhered to its terms. If he says it has failed to do so, US Congress will begin the process of reimposing sanctions on Iran. Mr Trump said the agreement was an "embarrassment" in a speech to the United Nations this month. France, Germany and the UK - which along with Russia and China signed the deal - have recently defended it. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption President Trump and Iran's President Rouhani traded insults at the UN In an interview with two British newspapers, Mr Zarif said that if the deal collapsed, Iran would no longer have to follow its limitations on uranium enrichment, centrifuge numbers and the production of plutonium. But he insisted Iran would only use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. "You either live by it [the deal] or you set it aside," Mr Zarif told the Financial Times and the Guardian. "You cannot be half pregnant." "My assumption and guess is that he [Trump] will not certify and then will allow Congress to take the decision," Mr Zarif said during the interview at the Iranian UN mission's residence in New York. "The deal allowed Iran to continue its research and development. So we have improved our technological base. If we decide to walk away from the deal we would be walking away with better technology." He said of Mr Trump: "I think he has made a policy of being unpredictable, and now he's turning that into being unreliable as well. He has violated the letter, spirit, everything of the deal." Mr Zarif said Iran's options "will depend on how the rest of the international community deal with the United States"."If Europe and Japan and Russia and China decided to go along with the US, then I think that will be the end of the deal," he said. "Europe should lead."European Union officials have said they could act to legally protect European investors in Iran if the US reimposes sanctions. But, in line with the US, they have also criticised Iran over its non-nuclear activities in the region.

www.bbc.com

center

2z8Vu637ayfDOass

test

Ob8GvuE3z7I4JOsd

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/04/did-trump-obstruct-justice-does-it-matte

Did Trump Obstruct Justice? Does It Matter?

2018-06-04

Jacob Sullum, Zuri Davis, Christian Britschgi, Josh Blackman, Cosmo Wenman, Joe Setyon

In a January 29 letter to Special Counsel Robert Mueller that The New York Times published on Saturday , Donald Trump 's lawyers explain in detail why he is not guilty of obstructing justice . They are probably right , and it probably does not matter . The 20-page letter focuses on the two purported incidents of obstruction that have received the most attention : Trump 's alleged request that FBI Director James Comey go easy on National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and Trump 's subsequent decision to fire Comey . In both cases , attorneys John Dowd and Jay Sekulow argue , Trump did not do what people claim , and even if he had it would be within his constitutional authority as president and outside the scope of the relevant obstruction statutes . `` It remains our position , '' they write , `` that the President 's actions here , by virtue of his position as the chief law enforcement officer , could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself . '' That position has provoked a strong response from Trump 's critics , who argue that it places him `` above the law . '' Since the president legally could have ordered Comey to leave Flynn alone or halt the Russia investigation , Dowd and Sekulow say , anything short of that direct approach can not be obstruction , even if the goal was protecting Trump . If the president has the legal authority to do something , in other words , his motive can not make it a crime . That 's a pretty bold claim , and it is debatable given the broad definition of obstruction in the statute that seems most apposite . Under 18 USC 1512 , someone can commit obstruction by `` corruptly '' destroying records , `` corruptly '' persuading someone , or `` corruptly '' doing anything else that `` obstructs , influences , or impedes any official proceeding , or attempts to do so . '' The law defines corruptly as `` acting with an improper purpose . '' Hence actions that would otherwise be legal—e.g. , deleting email , treating someone to a fancy dinner , or simply talking to him—become a crime when done with `` an improper purpose . '' Dowd and Sekulow are claiming the president , by virtue of his role as `` the chief law enforcement officer , '' is special in that regard . Some legal scholars agree ; many others do not . Dowd and Sekulow are on firmer ground in arguing that Trump could not have committed obstruction by interfering with an FBI investigation because an FBI investigation does not qualify as an `` official proceeding . '' According to the U.S . Attorneys ' Manual , FBI investigations do n't count as `` proceedings '' under 18 USC 1505 , another obstruction provision . Whether they count as official proceedings under Section 1512 is unsettled , but in 2013 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit concluded that they do not . Even assuming that interceding with Comey on Flynn 's behalf or firing Comey could qualify as obstruction , proving corrupt intent is not as straightforward as it might seem . Trump 's alleged comment to Comey about Flynn ( which Trump denies making ) was ambiguous and could be attributed to personal concern : `` I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go , to letting Flynn go . He is a good guy . I hope you can let this go . '' While Comey said he interpreted the statement as an instruction , it was one he did not follow , and he did not express any concern about its propriety to Trump , to Attorney General Jeff Sessions , or to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein . The initial explanation for firing Comey—his unfairness to Hillary Clinton in the way he handled the investigation of her email practices as secretary of state—was hard to buy given that Trump had always complained that she got off too easily . But Sessions and Rosenstein were both complicit in that pretense , putting Rosenstein , who appointed Mueller , in the odd situation of overseeing an obstruction investigation that hinges to a large extent on a motive he himself helped obscure . Trump dropped the cover story within a few days of dismissing Comey , when he admitted in an interview with NBC 's Lester Holt that he had already made the decision before receiving guidance from Sessions and Rosenstein . Trump also conceded that the Russia investigation had been on his mind . But Dowd and Sekulow argue that his rambling comments to Holt were misinterpreted . What the president meant , they say , is that he fired Comey even though he knew that doing so might prolong the investigation . That interpretation is consistent with this excerpt from the interview : As far as I 'm concerned , I want that thing [ the Russia investigation ] to be absolutely done properly . When I did this now , I said I probably maybe will confuse people . Maybe I 'll expand that—you know , I 'll lengthen the time because it should be over with . It should—in my opinion , should 've been over with a long time ago because it—all it is [ is ] an excuse . But I said to myself I might even lengthen out the investigation . But I have to do the right thing for the American people . He 's the wrong man for that position . Firing Comey , of course , did not actually end the Russia investigation . To the contrary , it was followed by Mueller 's appointment , which probably made the probe broader and longer than it otherwise would have been , just as Trump feared . That upshot casts considerable doubt on whether Trump 's dismissal of Comey was such that `` its natural and probable effect would be the interference with the due administration of justice , '' as required to make an obstruction charge stick . It seems likely that Trump fired Comey for a mixture of reasons , one of them being his anger at the FBI director 's refusal to publicly state that he was not a target of the Russia investigation . Given the alternative explanations , proving a specific intent to obstruct justice would be difficult . Even if Trump did tell Russian officials that getting rid of that `` real nut job '' relieved `` great pressure because of Russia , '' Dowd and Sekulow note , that comment ( which Trump denies ) `` does not establish that the termination was because of the Russia investigation . '' Mueller , however , does not have to worry about proving that the president obstructed justice , because he wo n't be prosecuting Trump . The Justice Department takes the position that a sitting president can not be indicted , and Mueller 's office has told Trump 's lawyers he will abide by that policy . In practice , then , it does not matter whether Trump broke the law ; what matters is whether Congress decides that he abused his powers egregiously enough to warrant impeachment and removal , which might be true even if his actions do not meet the legal criteria for an obstruction charge . Although `` high crimes and misdemeanors '' can involve provable violations of the law , Congress has the power to define the phrase on a case-by-case basis . The question of whether Trump could pre-emptively pardon himself , which he brought up on Twitter this morning , illustrates the distinction between what the president can legally do and what he can do without getting impeached . `` I have the absolute right to PARDON myself , '' Trump tweeted , `` but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong ? '' On ABC 's This Week yesterday , Rudy Giuliani , who joined Trump 's legal team after Dowd quit in March , agreed that Trump `` probably does '' have the legal authority to pardon himself , since the Constitution does not qualify that power . But on NBC 's Meet the Press , Giuliani added that `` pardoning himself would just be unthinkable '' and `` would lead to probably an immediate impeachment . ''

In a January 29 letter to Special Counsel Robert Mueller that The New York Times published on Saturday, Donald Trump's lawyers explain in detail why he is not guilty of obstructing justice. They are probably right, and it probably does not matter. The 20-page letter focuses on the two purported incidents of obstruction that have received the most attention: Trump's alleged request that FBI Director James Comey go easy on National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and Trump's subsequent decision to fire Comey. In both cases, attorneys John Dowd and Jay Sekulow argue, Trump did not do what people claim, and even if he had it would be within his constitutional authority as president and outside the scope of the relevant obstruction statutes. "It remains our position," they write, "that the President's actions here, by virtue of his position as the chief law enforcement officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself." That position has provoked a strong response from Trump's critics, who argue that it places him "above the law." Since the president legally could have ordered Comey to leave Flynn alone or halt the Russia investigation, Dowd and Sekulow say, anything short of that direct approach cannot be obstruction, even if the goal was protecting Trump. If the president has the legal authority to do something, in other words, his motive cannot make it a crime. That's a pretty bold claim, and it is debatable given the broad definition of obstruction in the statute that seems most apposite. Under 18 USC 1512, someone can commit obstruction by "corruptly" destroying records, "corruptly" persuading someone, or "corruptly" doing anything else that "obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so." The law defines corruptly as "acting with an improper purpose." Hence actions that would otherwise be legal—e.g., deleting email, treating someone to a fancy dinner, or simply talking to him—become a crime when done with "an improper purpose." Dowd and Sekulow are claiming the president, by virtue of his role as "the chief law enforcement officer," is special in that regard. Some legal scholars agree; many others do not. Dowd and Sekulow are on firmer ground in arguing that Trump could not have committed obstruction by interfering with an FBI investigation because an FBI investigation does not qualify as an "official proceeding." According to the U.S. Attorneys' Manual, FBI investigations don't count as "proceedings" under 18 USC 1505, another obstruction provision. Whether they count as official proceedings under Section 1512 is unsettled, but in 2013 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit concluded that they do not. Even assuming that interceding with Comey on Flynn's behalf or firing Comey could qualify as obstruction, proving corrupt intent is not as straightforward as it might seem. Trump's alleged comment to Comey about Flynn (which Trump denies making) was ambiguous and could be attributed to personal concern: "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." While Comey said he interpreted the statement as an instruction, it was one he did not follow, and he did not express any concern about its propriety to Trump, to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, or to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The initial explanation for firing Comey—his unfairness to Hillary Clinton in the way he handled the investigation of her email practices as secretary of state—was hard to buy given that Trump had always complained that she got off too easily. But Sessions and Rosenstein were both complicit in that pretense, putting Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller, in the odd situation of overseeing an obstruction investigation that hinges to a large extent on a motive he himself helped obscure. Trump dropped the cover story within a few days of dismissing Comey, when he admitted in an interview with NBC's Lester Holt that he had already made the decision before receiving guidance from Sessions and Rosenstein. Trump also conceded that the Russia investigation had been on his mind. But Dowd and Sekulow argue that his rambling comments to Holt were misinterpreted. What the president meant, they say, is that he fired Comey even though he knew that doing so might prolong the investigation. That interpretation is consistent with this excerpt from the interview: As far as I'm concerned, I want that thing [the Russia investigation] to be absolutely done properly. When I did this now, I said I probably maybe will confuse people. Maybe I'll expand that—you know, I'll lengthen the time because it should be over with. It should—in my opinion, should've been over with a long time ago because it—all it is [is] an excuse. But I said to myself I might even lengthen out the investigation. But I have to do the right thing for the American people. He's the wrong man for that position. Firing Comey, of course, did not actually end the Russia investigation. To the contrary, it was followed by Mueller's appointment, which probably made the probe broader and longer than it otherwise would have been, just as Trump feared. That upshot casts considerable doubt on whether Trump's dismissal of Comey was such that "its natural and probable effect would be the interference with the due administration of justice," as required to make an obstruction charge stick. It seems likely that Trump fired Comey for a mixture of reasons, one of them being his anger at the FBI director's refusal to publicly state that he was not a target of the Russia investigation. Given the alternative explanations, proving a specific intent to obstruct justice would be difficult. Even if Trump did tell Russian officials that getting rid of that "real nut job" relieved "great pressure because of Russia," Dowd and Sekulow note, that comment (which Trump denies) "does not establish that the termination was because of the Russia investigation." Mueller, however, does not have to worry about proving that the president obstructed justice, because he won't be prosecuting Trump. The Justice Department takes the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted, and Mueller's office has told Trump's lawyers he will abide by that policy. In practice, then, it does not matter whether Trump broke the law; what matters is whether Congress decides that he abused his powers egregiously enough to warrant impeachment and removal, which might be true even if his actions do not meet the legal criteria for an obstruction charge. Although "high crimes and misdemeanors" can involve provable violations of the law, Congress has the power to define the phrase on a case-by-case basis. The question of whether Trump could pre-emptively pardon himself, which he brought up on Twitter this morning, illustrates the distinction between what the president can legally do and what he can do without getting impeached. "I have the absolute right to PARDON myself," Trump tweeted, "but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?" On ABC's This Week yesterday, Rudy Giuliani, who joined Trump's legal team after Dowd quit in March, agreed that Trump "probably does" have the legal authority to pardon himself, since the Constitution does not qualify that power. But on NBC's Meet the Press, Giuliani added that "pardoning himself would just be unthinkable" and "would lead to probably an immediate impeachment."

www.reason.com

right

Ob8GvuE3z7I4JOsd

test

5tvysWonBSy3EMQ9

fbi

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/31/first-on-cnn-new-fbi-director-to-face-gop-heat-for-benghazi-investigation/?hpt=po_c2

New FBI director to face GOP heat

2013-07-31

Washington ( CNN ) - Labeling the Obama administration 's investigation of the September 2012 Benghazi attacks `` simply unacceptable , '' eight Republican lawmakers are demanding more aggressive steps from the new FBI Director James Comey and asking that he brief Congress within 30 days . `` It has been more than 10 months since the attacks , '' the GOP lawmakers said in a draft of a letter to Comey obtained by CNN . `` We appear to be no closer to knowing who was responsible today than we were in the early weeks following the attack . This is simply unacceptable . '' The letter was initiated by GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina , two of the fiercest critics of the administration 's Benghazi response . Others who have agreed to sign the missive to Comey include Sens . John McCain of Arizona , Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin . On the House side , GOP Reps. Darrell Issa , the chairman of the committee leading the House Benghazi investigation , Trey Gowdy of South Carolina and Jim Jordan of Ohio , signed the letter . The eight GOP lawmakers signed off on the text of the letter late Tuesday , and planned to send it to Director Comey on Wednesday or Thursday , according to GOP sources who provided the draft to CNN on condition of anonymity because the final timing decision has not been made . `` Rumors continue to swirl about the whereabouts of suspects involved in the attack , '' the lawmakers write in their letter to Comey , who was just confirmed to replace Robert Mueller as FBI director . `` The FBI continues to add pictures of potential assailants to its website and asks the Libyan people to assist with identifying the alleged perpetrators . We struggle to understand why we don ’ t know more about those who attacked two U.S. compounds and murdered four brave Americans. `` Among those identified as a suspect or person of high interest from the hours after the Sept. 11 , 2012 attack – by both U.S. and Libyan officials – is Ahmed Abu Khattalah , a leader of the Islamist organization Ansar al-Sharia . But in a recent conversation with CNN 's Arwa Damon , Khattalah acknowledged being at the U.S. diplomatic mission after the attack but denied any involvement . In that conversation – in Benghazi – Khattalah told CNN he has not been questioned by either Libyan authorities or the FBI . In their letter , the lawmakers write , `` We encourage you to be aggressive in your investigation to properly hold accountable those who attacked our compounds in Benghazi . We owe the families of those killed , and the people of this nation , answers to who was responsible and ensure they are held accountable . ''

6 years ago Washington (CNN) - Labeling the Obama administration's investigation of the September 2012 Benghazi attacks "simply unacceptable," eight Republican lawmakers are demanding more aggressive steps from the new FBI Director James Comey and asking that he brief Congress within 30 days. "It has been more than 10 months since the attacks," the GOP lawmakers said in a draft of a letter to Comey obtained by CNN. "We appear to be no closer to knowing who was responsible today than we were in the early weeks following the attack. This is simply unacceptable." The letter was initiated by GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, two of the fiercest critics of the administration's Benghazi response. Others who have agreed to sign the missive to Comey include Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. On the House side, GOP Reps. Darrell Issa, the chairman of the committee leading the House Benghazi investigation, Trey Gowdy of South Carolina and Jim Jordan of Ohio, signed the letter. The eight GOP lawmakers signed off on the text of the letter late Tuesday, and planned to send it to Director Comey on Wednesday or Thursday, according to GOP sources who provided the draft to CNN on condition of anonymity because the final timing decision has not been made. "Rumors continue to swirl about the whereabouts of suspects involved in the attack," the lawmakers write in their letter to Comey, who was just confirmed to replace Robert Mueller as FBI director. "The FBI continues to add pictures of potential assailants to its website and asks the Libyan people to assist with identifying the alleged perpetrators. We struggle to understand why we don’t know more about those who attacked two U.S. compounds and murdered four brave Americans. " Among those identified as a suspect or person of high interest from the hours after the Sept. 11, 2012 attack – by both U.S. and Libyan officials – is Ahmed Abu Khattalah, a leader of the Islamist organization Ansar al-Sharia. But in a recent conversation with CNN's Arwa Damon, Khattalah acknowledged being at the U.S. diplomatic mission after the attack but denied any involvement. In that conversation – in Benghazi – Khattalah told CNN he has not been questioned by either Libyan authorities or the FBI. In their letter, the lawmakers write, "We encourage you to be aggressive in your investigation to properly hold accountable those who attacked our compounds in Benghazi. We owe the families of those killed, and the people of this nation, answers to who was responsible and ensure they are held accountable."

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

5tvysWonBSy3EMQ9

test

NhgyBungZQN7xfDx

fbi

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/30/hillary-clinton-lose-election-fbi-email-investigation

Will Hillary Clinton lose the US election because of the FBI email investigation?

2016-10-30

Dan Roberts, Thomas Frank, Richard Wolffe

Pollsters and observers think not , but as election day looms the Democratic nominee is losing support just as Donald Trump is experiencing a resurgence A week ago , the US election looked to be over . Hillary Clinton was riding so high in the polls after a disastrous series of gaffes by Donald Trump that few could conceive of a Republican path to victory on 8 November . Friday ’ s shock intervention by the FBI may not be enough to change that outcome on its own , but it has certainly set political imaginations running wild . The worry for Democrats is that fresh inquiries regarding Clinton ’ s use of a private email server while secretary of state come at a difficult time . Not only is it hard to prove a negative and re-establish her innocence with barely a week to go until the election , but the letter to congressional officials from director James Comey capped a tricky run of news that was already making a sizable dent in her polling lead . Momentum for Trump began to recover first thanks to another set of emails , the contents of which perhaps explain why the Clintons risked so much to try to retain control of her electronic communications in the first place . Released by WikiLeaks , a factor that US intelligence agencies have blamed on Russian hackers , these emails to and from campaign chairman John Podesta have been trickling out for weeks , with mostly embarrassing rather than damaging content . Hillary Clinton 's email controversy explained : what we know so far Read more That changed on Wednesday with the release of a report that appeared to confirm just how much the Clinton family has blurred the boundaries between its business , charitable and political interests . Though almost all of the new information related to Bill rather than Hillary , it gave Trump supporters fresh ammunition at a moment when they were desperate to shift attention from their candidate ’ s own scandals over taxes and alleged inappropriate behaviour towards women . In an election that many pollsters describe as an unpopularity contest , it does not take much to swing the mood of independent voters . By Friday , the combination of no news from Trump and bad news from Clinton had halved her average lead in the polls since the last presidential debate . “ When the attention was on Trump , Clinton was winning . Now , the attention is on Clinton , ” said political consultant Frank Luntz , who has predicted the winner in 2016 will be the campaign that keeps the focus on its opponent . Sunday ’ s average lead for Clinton in national polls of 3.4 % ought still to be a healthy safety margin . Bill Clinton ’ s lead over George Bush shrank from 11 points to just three in the last two weeks of the 1992 election , yet he won by nearly double that margin . When the attention was on Trump , Clinton was winning . Now , the attention is on Clinton Frank Luntz , political consultant But among Democrats , a cause for concern – if not yet panic – is that very few polls published so far were carried out after news broke about the FBI and the emails . One reputable survey that got close , an ABC News-Washington Post tracking poll released on Sunday , showed just a one-point overall lead for Clinton . It asked some voters on Friday evening what they thought and found the news had mostly hardened existing opinions but could also play a role at the margins . “ About a third of likely voters say they are less likely to support Clinton given FBI director James Comey ’ s disclosure , ” said pollster Gary Langer . “ Given other considerations , 63 % say it makes no difference . ” Only 7 % of Clinton supporters felt it would make any difference , but this rises “ much higher among groups already predisposed not to vote for her ” , the poll found . “ The potential for a pullback in motivation of Clinton supporters , or further resurgence among Trump ’ s , may cause concern in the Clinton camp – especially because this dynamic already was under way , ” Langer added . “ Intention to vote has grown in Trump support groups in the past week as the intensity of criticisms about him has ebbed . ” The notion that the FBI may not change any minds but will bolster opinion , and thus perhaps turnout , was also supported in a poll of voters in 13 battleground states . This CBS poll showed just 5 % of Democrats said the issue might make them less likely to support Clinton , compared with more than a quarter of registered Republicans . This risk also helps explain the ferocity of Democratic calls for the FBI to urgently exonerate Clinton . Many loyalists are convinced the latest trove of emails , discovered on equipment shared by Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her estranged husband Anthony Weiner , are an irrelevance . Even if some show more classified information passed its way through the private server , it should not change the FBI ’ s earlier decision that a criminal charge would be unfair without evidence of intent or coverup . But so long as this is not categorically established , there may be a nagging doubt in some minds that the FBI suspects otherwise . Not everyone will be prepared to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt . Some studies have shown just 11 % of voters describe Clinton as “ honest and trustworthy ” , lower even than Trump ’ s score of 16 % . While it may not be enough to the tip the balance , running for president while facing potential criminal investigation is never a good look .

Pollsters and observers think not, but as election day looms the Democratic nominee is losing support just as Donald Trump is experiencing a resurgence A week ago, the US election looked to be over. Hillary Clinton was riding so high in the polls after a disastrous series of gaffes by Donald Trump that few could conceive of a Republican path to victory on 8 November. Friday’s shock intervention by the FBI may not be enough to change that outcome on its own, but it has certainly set political imaginations running wild. The worry for Democrats is that fresh inquiries regarding Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state come at a difficult time. Not only is it hard to prove a negative and re-establish her innocence with barely a week to go until the election, but the letter to congressional officials from director James Comey capped a tricky run of news that was already making a sizable dent in her polling lead. Momentum for Trump began to recover first thanks to another set of emails, the contents of which perhaps explain why the Clintons risked so much to try to retain control of her electronic communications in the first place. Released by WikiLeaks, a factor that US intelligence agencies have blamed on Russian hackers, these emails to and from campaign chairman John Podesta have been trickling out for weeks, with mostly embarrassing rather than damaging content. Hillary Clinton's email controversy explained: what we know so far Read more That changed on Wednesday with the release of a report that appeared to confirm just how much the Clinton family has blurred the boundaries between its business, charitable and political interests. Though almost all of the new information related to Bill rather than Hillary, it gave Trump supporters fresh ammunition at a moment when they were desperate to shift attention from their candidate’s own scandals over taxes and alleged inappropriate behaviour towards women. In an election that many pollsters describe as an unpopularity contest, it does not take much to swing the mood of independent voters. By Friday, the combination of no news from Trump and bad news from Clinton had halved her average lead in the polls since the last presidential debate. “When the attention was on Trump, Clinton was winning. Now, the attention is on Clinton,” said political consultant Frank Luntz, who has predicted the winner in 2016 will be the campaign that keeps the focus on its opponent. Sunday’s average lead for Clinton in national polls of 3.4% ought still to be a healthy safety margin. Bill Clinton’s lead over George Bush shrank from 11 points to just three in the last two weeks of the 1992 election, yet he won by nearly double that margin. When the attention was on Trump, Clinton was winning. Now, the attention is on Clinton Frank Luntz, political consultant But among Democrats, a cause for concern – if not yet panic – is that very few polls published so far were carried out after news broke about the FBI and the emails. One reputable survey that got close, an ABC News-Washington Post tracking poll released on Sunday, showed just a one-point overall lead for Clinton. It asked some voters on Friday evening what they thought and found the news had mostly hardened existing opinions but could also play a role at the margins. “About a third of likely voters say they are less likely to support Clinton given FBI director James Comey’s disclosure,” said pollster Gary Langer. “Given other considerations, 63% say it makes no difference.” Only 7% of Clinton supporters felt it would make any difference, but this rises “much higher among groups already predisposed not to vote for her”, the poll found. “The potential for a pullback in motivation of Clinton supporters, or further resurgence among Trump’s, may cause concern in the Clinton camp – especially because this dynamic already was under way,” Langer added. “Intention to vote has grown in Trump support groups in the past week as the intensity of criticisms about him has ebbed.” The notion that the FBI may not change any minds but will bolster opinion, and thus perhaps turnout, was also supported in a poll of voters in 13 battleground states. This CBS poll showed just 5% of Democrats said the issue might make them less likely to support Clinton, compared with more than a quarter of registered Republicans. This risk also helps explain the ferocity of Democratic calls for the FBI to urgently exonerate Clinton. Many loyalists are convinced the latest trove of emails, discovered on equipment shared by Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her estranged husband Anthony Weiner, are an irrelevance. Even if some show more classified information passed its way through the private server, it should not change the FBI’s earlier decision that a criminal charge would be unfair without evidence of intent or coverup. But so long as this is not categorically established, there may be a nagging doubt in some minds that the FBI suspects otherwise. Not everyone will be prepared to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt. Some studies have shown just 11% of voters describe Clinton as “honest and trustworthy”, lower even than Trump’s score of 16%. While it may not be enough to the tip the balance, running for president while facing potential criminal investigation is never a good look.

www.theguardian.com

left

NhgyBungZQN7xfDx

test

zN49UvsLHLqUQoA9

lgbt_rights

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-Alabama-Chief-Justice/2016/05/06/id/727659/

Alabama's Top Judge Faces Ethics Charges Over Gay-Marriage Order

2016-05-06

Kim Chandler

Alabama 's Supreme Court Chief Justice was suspended on Friday as he faces possible removal from the bench for ordering state probate judges not to grant marriage licenses to gay couples , despite contrary rulings by a federal court and the U.S. Supreme Court . The Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission charged Chief Justice Roy Moore , an outspoken opponent of same-sex unions , with violating the state 's judicial ethics laws , an allegation that could potentially remove him from office , according to news website AL.com . The legality of gay marriage had been at the center of a national debate for years until the Supreme Court ruled in June that the U.S. Constitution provides same-sex couples the right to marry , handing a historic triumph to the American gay rights movement . Despite the ruling and a federal court ruling that made gay marriage legal in Alabama , Moore issued in January an administrative order to state probate judges , ordering them not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples , according to court documents . `` Chief Justice Moore flagrantly disregarded and abused his authority , '' the complaint said . `` Moore knowingly ordered [ probate judges ] to commit violations ... knowingly subjecting them to potential prosecution and removal from office . '' Moore said in a statement that the commission has no authority over administrative orders or the court 's ability to prohibit probate judges from issuing same-sex marriage licenses . `` We intend to fight this agenda vigorously and expect to prevail , '' he said . Moore wrote in his order that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling was at odds with a decision in March 2015 by the Alabama Supreme Court that instructed probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples . The conflicting opinions had resulted in `` confusion and uncertainty , '' Moore said , with many probate judges issuing marriage licenses to gay couples while others refused to do so . Until the Alabama Supreme Court decides the matter , probate judges `` have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license , '' he said . The complaint said Moore 's order `` was contrary to clear and determined law about which there is no confusion or unsettled question . '' Moore , a Republican , has been a hero of conservative causes before . In 2003 , he was removed from office after a federal judge ruled he was placing himself above the law by refusing to take down a Ten Commandments monument . He won the chief justice job back in 2012 , vowing not to do anything to create further friction with the federal courts .

Alabama's Supreme Court Chief Justice was suspended on Friday as he faces possible removal from the bench for ordering state probate judges not to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, despite contrary rulings by a federal court and the U.S. Supreme Court. The Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission charged Chief Justice Roy Moore, an outspoken opponent of same-sex unions, with violating the state's judicial ethics laws, an allegation that could potentially remove him from office, according to news website AL.com. The legality of gay marriage had been at the center of a national debate for years until the Supreme Court ruled in June that the U.S. Constitution provides same-sex couples the right to marry, handing a historic triumph to the American gay rights movement. Despite the ruling and a federal court ruling that made gay marriage legal in Alabama, Moore issued in January an administrative order to state probate judges, ordering them not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, according to court documents. "Chief Justice Moore flagrantly disregarded and abused his authority," the complaint said. "Moore knowingly ordered [probate judges] to commit violations...knowingly subjecting them to potential prosecution and removal from office." Moore said in a statement that the commission has no authority over administrative orders or the court's ability to prohibit probate judges from issuing same-sex marriage licenses. "We intend to fight this agenda vigorously and expect to prevail," he said. Moore wrote in his order that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling was at odds with a decision in March 2015 by the Alabama Supreme Court that instructed probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The conflicting opinions had resulted in "confusion and uncertainty," Moore said, with many probate judges issuing marriage licenses to gay couples while others refused to do so. Until the Alabama Supreme Court decides the matter, probate judges "have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license," he said. The complaint said Moore's order "was contrary to clear and determined law about which there is no confusion or unsettled question." Moore, a Republican, has been a hero of conservative causes before. In 2003, he was removed from office after a federal judge ruled he was placing himself above the law by refusing to take down a Ten Commandments monument. He won the chief justice job back in 2012, vowing not to do anything to create further friction with the federal courts.

www.newsmax.com

right

zN49UvsLHLqUQoA9

test

f0dKIjaqYu74tReL

polarization

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-water-trump-polarization-grows-poll/story?id=33461702

Clinton Goes Under Water; Trump Polarization Grows (POLL)

Gary Langer

Negative views of Hillary Clinton have jumped to nearly their highest on record in ███/Washington Post polls , while Donald Trump ’ s personal popularity has grown more polarized along racial and ethnic lines . Clinton ’ s favorability has burbled back under water : 45 percent of Americans now see her favorably , down 7 percentage points since midsummer , while 53 percent rate her unfavorably , up 8 . Her unfavorable score is a single point from its highest in ABC/Post polls dating back 23 years ; that came in April 2008 , in the midst of her last presidential campaign . Trump is much farther under water than Clinton , rated favorably by 37 percent of Americans and unfavorably by 59 percent . That reflects a slight 4-point rise in favorability since mid-July , entirely among whites , +6 points . Nonwhites see Trump negatively by a vast 17-79 percent , unchanged among Hispanics and more negative among blacks , by 16 points , since midsummer . That said , whites are the majority group –- 64 percent of the adult population -– and they now divide evenly on Trump , 48-49 percent , favorable-unfavorable . Clinton , by contrast , is far more unpopular than Trump among whites , 34-65 percent . So while racial and ethnic polarization is on the rise in views of Trump , it remains even higher for Clinton . Given their support profiles -– Clinton ’ s more popular in groups that are less likely to be registered -– the difference in her and Trump ’ s popularity narrows among registered voters . In this group Clinton ’ s favorable-unfavorable score is 43-56 percent ( -13 points ) ; Trump ’ s is 40-58 percent ( -18 ) . Negative views of Clinton among registered voters are up by 10 points from July , while Trump ’ s ratings in this group are essentially unchanged . Two others were tested in this survey , produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates : Jeb Bush , even while generating far less controversy than Trump , is seen almost as negatively , by 17 points overall , 38-55 percent . Bush ’ s favorable rating is flat while his unfavorable score is up 8 points since July , including 9-point increases among Republicans and independents alike . He ’ s also lost ground among conservatives , and is especially weak among strong conservatives , a group in which Trump far surpasses Bush.Joe Biden lands an even score , 46-46 percent . He hasn ’ t announced candidacy , a move that can sharpen divisions as candidates start staking out positions on controversial issues , catching flak and aiming some of their own . Favorability taps into a public figure ’ s basic overall image ; a negative score indicates thin ice . Clinton ’ s has been especially uneven , from as high as 67 percent favorable during her tenure as secretary of state to as low as 44 percent in spring 2008 and 45 percent now . Clinton was somewhat better rated at roughly this time in the 2008 cycle : In November 2007 she had a 50-46 percent favorable-unfavorable rating . Barack Obama ’ s was 51-36 percent , John McCain ’ s 43-42 percent . All , then , were better off than Clinton , Trump or Bush today . Among other factors –- including increasing partisan and political polarization – this was before the economic collapse of 2008 that pushed public frustration into a deep trough from which it has yet to recover in full . Hispanics divide about evenly on Bush , 43-46 percent , a much less negative rating than Trump ’ s but still a 15-point increase in unfavorable views since July . That said , Bush ’ s negative rating is up among whites as well , by 9 points . Clinton is seen far more positively by Hispanics than are Trump , Bush or even Biden ; she ’ s also highly popular among blacks . But , after a period of missteps chiefly focused on her handling of e-mails as secretary of state , her unfavorable rating is up by 14 points even among blacks . Her main trouble , regardless , rests in the fact that she ’ s so broadly unpopular among whites . Clinton is particularly strong in her party , seen favorably by 80 percent of Democrats . But her unfavorable rating has increased by 10 points among independents since midsummer , moving from an even split in July to a 20-point net negative score in this group now . Only Bush does worse among independents . Trump and Bush alike continue to be seen more favorably than unfavorably within their party , by 59-38 and 57-39 percent , respectively . But that ’ s far behind Clinton ’ s intramural score , as well as Biden ’ s ( 70 percent favorable among Democrats ) . While negative views of Bush have gained among Republicans and independents , Trump ’ s held steady within the party , and his +6 in favorability among independents , while not statistically significant , is directionally opposite from Bush . Among other groups , Bush ’ s unfavorable rating has increased by 14 points among conservatives since midsummer , he ’ s at 44-50 percent favorable-unfavorable in this group , while Trump ’ s held more or less steady at 52-44 percent . The gap is especially wide among strong conservatives -– a 39-57 percent score for Bush , negative by 18 points , vs. 61-37 percent for Trump , positive by 24 points . Additional trouble for Clinton , meanwhile , is reflected in 11-point increases in her unfavorable rating among women and liberals . And among Trump ’ s challenges is a decidedly poor rating among young adults ; 70 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds see Trump unfavorably , up 12 points since midsummer . Strength of sentiment is more negative than positive for all these figures . While 21 percent of Americans see Clinton “ strongly ” favorably , more , 39 percent see her strongly unfavorably , an 18-point gap . It ’ s an 11-point gap for Biden ( 15 percent strongly favorable , 26 percent strongly unfavorable ) and 22 points for Bush ( just 7 percent strongly favorable , 29 percent strongly unfavorable ) . But the gap is biggest for Trump : Sixteen percent of Americans see him strongly favorably while 43 percent see him strongly unfavorably , a 27-point margin for strongly negative sentiment . This ███/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and cell phone Aug. 26-30 , 2015 , in English and Spanish , among a random national sample of 1,005 adults . Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points . The survey was produced for ███ by Langer Research Associates of New York , N.Y. , with sampling , data collection and tabulation by SSRS of Media , Pa. See details on the survey ’ s methodology here .

Negative views of Hillary Clinton have jumped to nearly their highest on record in ABC News/Washington Post polls, while Donald Trump’s personal popularity has grown more polarized along racial and ethnic lines. Clinton’s favorability has burbled back under water: 45 percent of Americans now see her favorably, down 7 percentage points since midsummer, while 53 percent rate her unfavorably, up 8. Her unfavorable score is a single point from its highest in ABC/Post polls dating back 23 years; that came in April 2008, in the midst of her last presidential campaign. See PDF with full results, charts and tables here. Trump is much farther under water than Clinton, rated favorably by 37 percent of Americans and unfavorably by 59 percent. That reflects a slight 4-point rise in favorability since mid-July, entirely among whites, +6 points. Nonwhites see Trump negatively by a vast 17-79 percent, unchanged among Hispanics and more negative among blacks, by 16 points, since midsummer. That said, whites are the majority group –- 64 percent of the adult population -– and they now divide evenly on Trump, 48-49 percent, favorable-unfavorable. Clinton, by contrast, is far more unpopular than Trump among whites, 34-65 percent. So while racial and ethnic polarization is on the rise in views of Trump, it remains even higher for Clinton. Given their support profiles -– Clinton’s more popular in groups that are less likely to be registered -– the difference in her and Trump’s popularity narrows among registered voters. In this group Clinton’s favorable-unfavorable score is 43-56 percent (-13 points); Trump’s is 40-58 percent (-18). Negative views of Clinton among registered voters are up by 10 points from July, while Trump’s ratings in this group are essentially unchanged. Two others were tested in this survey, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates: Jeb Bush, even while generating far less controversy than Trump, is seen almost as negatively, by 17 points overall, 38-55 percent. Bush’s favorable rating is flat while his unfavorable score is up 8 points since July, including 9-point increases among Republicans and independents alike. He’s also lost ground among conservatives, and is especially weak among strong conservatives, a group in which Trump far surpasses Bush.Joe Biden lands an even score, 46-46 percent. He hasn’t announced candidacy, a move that can sharpen divisions as candidates start staking out positions on controversial issues, catching flak and aiming some of their own. Favorability taps into a public figure’s basic overall image; a negative score indicates thin ice. Clinton’s has been especially uneven, from as high as 67 percent favorable during her tenure as secretary of state to as low as 44 percent in spring 2008 and 45 percent now. Clinton was somewhat better rated at roughly this time in the 2008 cycle: In November 2007 she had a 50-46 percent favorable-unfavorable rating. Barack Obama’s was 51-36 percent, John McCain’s 43-42 percent. All, then, were better off than Clinton, Trump or Bush today. Among other factors –- including increasing partisan and political polarization – this was before the economic collapse of 2008 that pushed public frustration into a deep trough from which it has yet to recover in full. More Race/Ethnicity Hispanics divide about evenly on Bush, 43-46 percent, a much less negative rating than Trump’s but still a 15-point increase in unfavorable views since July. That said, Bush’s negative rating is up among whites as well, by 9 points. Clinton is seen far more positively by Hispanics than are Trump, Bush or even Biden; she’s also highly popular among blacks. But, after a period of missteps chiefly focused on her handling of e-mails as secretary of state, her unfavorable rating is up by 14 points even among blacks. Her main trouble, regardless, rests in the fact that she’s so broadly unpopular among whites. Party ID Clinton is particularly strong in her party, seen favorably by 80 percent of Democrats. But her unfavorable rating has increased by 10 points among independents since midsummer, moving from an even split in July to a 20-point net negative score in this group now. Only Bush does worse among independents. Trump and Bush alike continue to be seen more favorably than unfavorably within their party, by 59-38 and 57-39 percent, respectively. But that’s far behind Clinton’s intramural score, as well as Biden’s (70 percent favorable among Democrats). While negative views of Bush have gained among Republicans and independents, Trump’s held steady within the party, and his +6 in favorability among independents, while not statistically significant, is directionally opposite from Bush. Other Groups Among other groups, Bush’s unfavorable rating has increased by 14 points among conservatives since midsummer, he’s at 44-50 percent favorable-unfavorable in this group, while Trump’s held more or less steady at 52-44 percent. The gap is especially wide among strong conservatives -– a 39-57 percent score for Bush, negative by 18 points, vs. 61-37 percent for Trump, positive by 24 points. Additional trouble for Clinton, meanwhile, is reflected in 11-point increases in her unfavorable rating among women and liberals. And among Trump’s challenges is a decidedly poor rating among young adults; 70 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds see Trump unfavorably, up 12 points since midsummer. Strength of Sentiment Strength of sentiment is more negative than positive for all these figures. While 21 percent of Americans see Clinton “strongly” favorably, more, 39 percent see her strongly unfavorably, an 18-point gap. It’s an 11-point gap for Biden (15 percent strongly favorable, 26 percent strongly unfavorable) and 22 points for Bush (just 7 percent strongly favorable, 29 percent strongly unfavorable). But the gap is biggest for Trump: Sixteen percent of Americans see him strongly favorably while 43 percent see him strongly unfavorably, a 27-point margin for strongly negative sentiment. See additional data tables here. Methodology This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and cell phone Aug. 26-30, 2015, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 1,005 adults. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points. The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by SSRS of Media, Pa. See details on the survey’s methodology here.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

f0dKIjaqYu74tReL

test

mtQ1iDI33bhwKX13

palestine

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/20/i%E2%80%99m_glad_that_he_won_the_surprising_palestinian_reaction_to_netanyahus_win/

“I’m glad that he won”: The surprising Palestinian reaction to Netanyahu’s win

2015-03-20

Bethan Staton

He ’ s a hawkish right-winger who presided over more than 2,100 deaths in Gaza this summer , campaigned on the promise that he 'd prevent a Palestinian state , and swept to victory with the warning that Arab citizens of Israel were “ voting in droves . ” But Benjamin Netanyahu ’ s reelection was regarded with apathy by many Palestinians in the West Bank , and some even welcomed the news – albeit as the best of several bad options . “ Under Netanyahu things will deteriorate . But if it can ’ t get any better , it might as well get worse , ” Ahmad , who declined to give his full name , told ███ . His customers , browsing for phone accessories in central Ramallah , agreed . When you ’ re in the West Bank it doesn ’ t much matter who ’ s in the Knesset : settlement expansion , military crackdowns and wars have taken place on the watch of both the left and right , and there ’ s been realistic progress toward statehood under neither . “ The experience of the Palestinians is clear . Since the assassination of Rabin , nothing in Israeli politics has brought something good , ” Huneida Ghanem , the general director of the Palestinian Forum for Israeli Studies ( MADAR ) , told ███ . “ Time and time again , election after election after election has just brought something worse . Palestinians see this and in their head , they understand that nothing is going to change , that it will just get worse and worse . ” This year , Ghanem said , some did hope that Herzog and Livni had the potential to change things – a wish that only makes Netanyahu ’ s win even more disappointing . But she also believes that any trust in the pair ’ s center-left Zionist Union , which until the election ’ s final hours was billed as a likely winner , is misplaced . The sense is echoed across the West Bank , where most dismiss the Israeli opposition with a laugh , refusing to refer to it as “ left wing ” in any meaningful sense . “ Netanyahu , Herzog , Lieberman : if anyone from those Zionist parties become prime minister it wo n't make any difference . They all have the same strategy to fulfill their ideology , ” Bassam Shweiki told ███ . A literature enthusiast and activist , Shweiki speaks English with a London twang despite the fact he ’ s lived most of his life in Hebron . A West Bank city carved up by Israeli settlement enclaves and military closures , the city barely featured in election campaigns aside from a pro-settlement visit by right-winger Avigdor Lieberman . “ The Zionist ideology says Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people that God promised , so there ’ s no place for any other nations in the promised land , ” Shweiki continued . “ The strategy is to hold the peace process without announcing its death , while continuing to establish settlements , demolishing homes , confiscating Palestinian lands and so on , while deceiving the world by saying that there are negotiations . ” Shweiki ’ s view that expansion is inevitable in Zionism is shared by most in the West Bank , and it ’ s the reason many are even pleased at Netanyahu ’ s win . Unlike other leaders , they believe , he won ’ t obscure that fact , and with policies of occupation laid bare , pressure on Israel for a just solution can only increase . “ Personally I ’ m glad that he won . This proves to the world that it is Israel and its people that do not want peace , ” Amer Khader , a postgraduate nutritionist from Ramallah , told ███ . “ His speech was clearly stating that if he wins the Palestinian State will not see the light , that Jerusalem is forever the capital of the state of Israel , and for the continuation of the illegal settlements in the West Bank . “ What ’ s the worst that can happen ? More houses to be taken when more than 2,000 have been demolished in East Jerusalem ? Another war on Gaza ? It ’ s already destroyed . More settlements ? Let it be . It is just more isolation of Israel through its racist discriminatory apartheid policies . ” The bleak irony in Khader ’ s view comes from long experience . Even for those Palestinians who are able to vote – those citizens of Israel who make up some 20 percent of its population – the achievements of this election have transpired partly from the country ’ s right wing shooting itself in the foot . Last year , Israeli lawmakers raised the electoral threshold , a move supported in part by right-wingers who hoped it would push small Arab parties out of representation altogether . Instead , several Palestinian and left-wing parties banded together to create the Joint List , a broad coalition that won 14 seats and made Arab Israelis the third biggest power in the Knesset . Even as they bemoaned the Knesset ’ s rightward tilt , its leaders celebrated a new era of Palestinian political involvement on election night . “ I came here to see resistance and to be proud of my community , to get the best for us and to further our aims of two states , ” 18-year-old Razi Misherqui , wearing a party T-shirt and draped in a Palestinian flag , told ███ as the results came in . “ I think Arab unity is really important and we can use this to show that we can make change and challenge what ’ s going on . ” In Ramallah , Ghanem called the Joint List victory the “ surprise story ” of the election , and it was the only reason that many Palestinians bothered to watch the political news at all . But that doesn ’ t mean it ’ s a game-changer . Many Arab Israelis , believing any political activity in the Knesset is doomed to fail , still boycott the elections and even the Joint List ’ s most ardent supporters are measured in their optimism . Even as he pledged to challenge the consensus of the election , leading Joint List MK Ahmad Tibi bemoaned a “ disappointing ” result in which the “ extreme right-wing got the upper hand . ” And in the West Bank , where Palestinians haven ’ t been able to vote for their own representation in nearly a decade , hope for any changes the joint list might make is guarded . With peace negotiations bearing only bitter fruit , an occupation with no clear end and a political mood characterized by frustration and extremism , the only sure thing about the path to a solution is that it will be tough . “ Nothing is going to come from the Israeli state if the Israelis don ’ t feel they don ’ t pay any price for the Israeli occupation , ” Ghanem told ███ . “ The last 10 years they ’ ve been building up this right-wing narrative , this plan for Eretz Israel in the political scene . Things that were once unacceptable to talk about are now part of the hegemonic discourse in Israel . And I ’ m not talking about buses on Shabbat , I ’ m talking about fascist , discriminatory policies – the settlement enterprise , the occupation . “ People feel very failed by the international community , ” she added . “ As they ’ ve grown older they put so much hope into the peace process . Over the years they ’ ve tried violence , and that didn ’ t work ; the intifada , and that didn ’ t work ; peaceful resistance , and none of it worked . And then the international community came to them saying if you do this , if you do this , you can have a state . But they 've done that , and it ’ s led nowhere . ” Still , there ’ s a strong feeling in the West Bank that change from the outside looks more likely than from within the Israeli state . Real international pressure and action , Ghanem said , with a strong stress on the word “ real , ” is the best hope for statehood . If that ’ s the case , Khader said , than a Netanyahu win might be a blessing in disguise . “ Netanyahu is the worst for the economy of Israel and its international relations . And the only way Israel will get weaker is through screwing their own relations , which is happening , ” he told ███ . “ Let it be . It won ’ t get any better till it is screwed . ”

He’s a hawkish right-winger who presided over more than 2,100 deaths in Gaza this summer, campaigned on the promise that he'd prevent a Palestinian state, and swept to victory with the warning that Arab citizens of Israel were “voting in droves.” But Benjamin Netanyahu’s reelection was regarded with apathy by many Palestinians in the West Bank, and some even welcomed the news – albeit as the best of several bad options. Advertisement: “Under Netanyahu things will deteriorate. But if it can’t get any better, it might as well get worse,” Ahmad, who declined to give his full name, told Salon. His customers, browsing for phone accessories in central Ramallah, agreed. When you’re in the West Bank it doesn’t much matter who’s in the Knesset: settlement expansion, military crackdowns and wars have taken place on the watch of both the left and right, and there’s been realistic progress toward statehood under neither. “The experience of the Palestinians is clear. Since the assassination of Rabin, nothing in Israeli politics has brought something good,” Huneida Ghanem, the general director of the Palestinian Forum for Israeli Studies (MADAR), told Salon. “Time and time again, election after election after election has just brought something worse. Palestinians see this and in their head, they understand that nothing is going to change, that it will just get worse and worse.” This year, Ghanem said, some did hope that Herzog and Livni had the potential to change things – a wish that only makes Netanyahu’s win even more disappointing. But she also believes that any trust in the pair’s center-left Zionist Union, which until the election’s final hours was billed as a likely winner, is misplaced. The sense is echoed across the West Bank, where most dismiss the Israeli opposition with a laugh, refusing to refer to it as “left wing” in any meaningful sense. Advertisement: “Netanyahu, Herzog, Lieberman: if anyone from those Zionist parties become prime minister it won't make any difference. They all have the same strategy to fulfill their ideology,” Bassam Shweiki told Salon. A literature enthusiast and activist, Shweiki speaks English with a London twang despite the fact he’s lived most of his life in Hebron. A West Bank city carved up by Israeli settlement enclaves and military closures, the city barely featured in election campaigns aside from a pro-settlement visit by right-winger Avigdor Lieberman. “The Zionist ideology says Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people that God promised, so there’s no place for any other nations in the promised land,” Shweiki continued. “The strategy is to hold the peace process without announcing its death, while continuing to establish settlements, demolishing homes, confiscating Palestinian lands and so on, while deceiving the world by saying that there are negotiations.” Shweiki’s view that expansion is inevitable in Zionism is shared by most in the West Bank, and it’s the reason many are even pleased at Netanyahu’s win. Unlike other leaders, they believe, he won’t obscure that fact, and with policies of occupation laid bare, pressure on Israel for a just solution can only increase. Advertisement: “Personally I’m glad that he won. This proves to the world that it is Israel and its people that do not want peace,” Amer Khader, a postgraduate nutritionist from Ramallah, told Salon. “His speech was clearly stating that if he wins the Palestinian State will not see the light, that Jerusalem is forever the capital of the state of Israel, and for the continuation of the illegal settlements in the West Bank. “What’s the worst that can happen? More houses to be taken when more than 2,000 have been demolished in East Jerusalem? Another war on Gaza? It’s already destroyed. More settlements? Let it be. It is just more isolation of Israel through its racist discriminatory apartheid policies.” Advertisement: The bleak irony in Khader’s view comes from long experience. Even for those Palestinians who are able to vote – those citizens of Israel who make up some 20 percent of its population – the achievements of this election have transpired partly from the country’s right wing shooting itself in the foot. Last year, Israeli lawmakers raised the electoral threshold, a move supported in part by right-wingers who hoped it would push small Arab parties out of representation altogether. Instead, several Palestinian and left-wing parties banded together to create the Joint List, a broad coalition that won 14 seats and made Arab Israelis the third biggest power in the Knesset. Even as they bemoaned the Knesset’s rightward tilt, its leaders celebrated a new era of Palestinian political involvement on election night. “I came here to see resistance and to be proud of my community, to get the best for us and to further our aims of two states,” 18-year-old Razi Misherqui, wearing a party T-shirt and draped in a Palestinian flag, told Salon as the results came in. “I think Arab unity is really important and we can use this to show that we can make change and challenge what’s going on.” Advertisement: In Ramallah, Ghanem called the Joint List victory the “surprise story” of the election, and it was the only reason that many Palestinians bothered to watch the political news at all. But that doesn’t mean it’s a game-changer. Many Arab Israelis, believing any political activity in the Knesset is doomed to fail, still boycott the elections and even the Joint List’s most ardent supporters are measured in their optimism. Even as he pledged to challenge the consensus of the election, leading Joint List MK Ahmad Tibi bemoaned a “disappointing” result in which the “extreme right-wing got the upper hand.” And in the West Bank, where Palestinians haven’t been able to vote for their own representation in nearly a decade, hope for any changes the joint list might make is guarded. With peace negotiations bearing only bitter fruit, an occupation with no clear end and a political mood characterized by frustration and extremism, the only sure thing about the path to a solution is that it will be tough. “Nothing is going to come from the Israeli state if the Israelis don’t feel they don’t pay any price for the Israeli occupation,” Ghanem told Salon. “The last 10 years they’ve been building up this right-wing narrative, this plan for Eretz Israel in the political scene. Things that were once unacceptable to talk about are now part of the hegemonic discourse in Israel. And I’m not talking about buses on Shabbat, I’m talking about fascist, discriminatory policies – the settlement enterprise, the occupation. Advertisement: “People feel very failed by the international community,” she added. “As they’ve grown older they put so much hope into the peace process. Over the years they’ve tried violence, and that didn’t work; the intifada, and that didn’t work; peaceful resistance, and none of it worked. And then the international community came to them saying if you do this, if you do this, you can have a state. But they've done that, and it’s led nowhere.” Still, there’s a strong feeling in the West Bank that change from the outside looks more likely than from within the Israeli state. Real international pressure and action, Ghanem said, with a strong stress on the word “real,” is the best hope for statehood. If that’s the case, Khader said, than a Netanyahu win might be a blessing in disguise. “Netanyahu is the worst for the economy of Israel and its international relations. And the only way Israel will get weaker is through screwing their own relations, which is happening,” he told Salon. “Let it be. It won’t get any better till it is screwed.”

www.salon.com

left

mtQ1iDI33bhwKX13

test

xoMMz1Ed9DmxAk0Q

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/11/ryan-budget-preview-energy-obamacare-welfare-and-taxes/?hpt=po_c1

Ryan budget preview: energy, Obamacare, welfare and taxes

2013-03-11

Washington ( CNN ) – Ahead of the release of his House GOP budget Tuesday , Rep. Paul Ryan previewed some of the plan ’ s key provisions , which he claims will lead to a balanced federal budget in a decade . `` On Tuesday , we 're introducing a budget that balances in 10 years - without raising taxes . How do we do it ? We stop spending money the government does n't have , '' Ryan wrote in an editorial published on the Wall Street Journal 's website Monday . Savings would come from a series of measures that have long been backed by Republicans . One is a repeal of President Barack Obama 's sweeping health care law , which continues to be implemented after being deemed constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer . Ryan 's plan would replace the law with what he called `` patient-centered reforms . '' One of those would be a major change to Medicare starting in 2024 , when Ryan 's plan stipulates seniors would have a choice of health care plans , including traditional Medicare . Seniors would receive support from the government toward paying their premiums based on their income level and health . In the op-ed , he writes , `` Those in or near retirement will see no changes , and future beneficiaries will inherit a program they can count on . '' Ryan recently backed off a proposal to make changes to Medicare for people under the age of 57 - GOP aides said an analysis of the two-year difference showed it would not save the federal government a significant amount of money . In his editorial , Ryan writes his plan would open government-owned land to energy development , and would include approval for the Keystone XL pipeline , a project that 's been delayed by the Obama administration . Ryan also says mimicking the welfare reform laws of the 1990s on other federal aid programs would save money and reduce the number of Americans dependent on the federal government . And he adds that tax reform that closes loopholes and consolidates rates would help Americans save billions of dollars per year . `` Our opponents will shout austerity , but let 's put this in perspective , '' Ryan writes . `` On the current path , we 'll spend $ 46 trillion over the next 10 years . Under our proposal , we 'll spend $ 41 trillion . On the current path , spending will increase by 5 % each year . Under our proposal , it will increase by 3.4 % . Because the U.S. economy will grow faster than spending , the budget will balance by 2023 , and debt held by the public will drop to just over half the size of the economy . '' Ryan 's full budget , with further details of his proposed measures and cuts , will be unveiled Tuesday morning .

7 years ago Washington (CNN) – Ahead of the release of his House GOP budget Tuesday, Rep. Paul Ryan previewed some of the plan’s key provisions, which he claims will lead to a balanced federal budget in a decade. "On Tuesday, we're introducing a budget that balances in 10 years - without raising taxes. How do we do it? We stop spending money the government doesn't have," Ryan wrote in an editorial published on the Wall Street Journal's website Monday. Savings would come from a series of measures that have long been backed by Republicans. One is a repeal of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care law, which continues to be implemented after being deemed constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer. Ryan's plan would replace the law with what he called "patient-centered reforms." One of those would be a major change to Medicare starting in 2024, when Ryan's plan stipulates seniors would have a choice of health care plans, including traditional Medicare. Seniors would receive support from the government toward paying their premiums based on their income level and health. In the op-ed, he writes, "Those in or near retirement will see no changes, and future beneficiaries will inherit a program they can count on." Ryan recently backed off a proposal to make changes to Medicare for people under the age of 57 - GOP aides said an analysis of the two-year difference showed it would not save the federal government a significant amount of money. In his editorial, Ryan writes his plan would open government-owned land to energy development, and would include approval for the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that's been delayed by the Obama administration. Ryan also says mimicking the welfare reform laws of the 1990s on other federal aid programs would save money and reduce the number of Americans dependent on the federal government. And he adds that tax reform that closes loopholes and consolidates rates would help Americans save billions of dollars per year. "Our opponents will shout austerity, but let's put this in perspective," Ryan writes. "On the current path, we'll spend $46 trillion over the next 10 years. Under our proposal, we'll spend $41 trillion. On the current path, spending will increase by 5% each year. Under our proposal, it will increase by 3.4%. Because the U.S. economy will grow faster than spending, the budget will balance by 2023, and debt held by the public will drop to just over half the size of the economy." Ryan's full budget, with further details of his proposed measures and cuts, will be unveiled Tuesday morning.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

xoMMz1Ed9DmxAk0Q

test

U2pyDCyejICPMe8Y

fbi

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/fbi-operating-surveillance-aircraft/2015/06/02/id/648132/

FBI Reveals It's Operating Own Surveillance Air Force Over US Cities

2015-06-02

The FBI is operating a small air force with scores of low-flying planes across the country carrying video and , at times , cellphone surveillance technology - all hidden behind fictitious companies that are fronts for the government , The Associated Press has learned . The planes ' surveillance equipment is generally used without a judge 's approval , and the FBI said the flights are used for specific , ongoing investigations . In a recent 30-day period , the agency flew above more than 30 cities in 11 states across the country , an AP review found . Aerial surveillance represents a changing frontier for law enforcement , providing what the government maintains is an important tool in criminal , terrorism or intelligence probes . But the program raises questions about whether there should be updated policies protecting civil liberties as new technologies pose intrusive opportunities for government spying . U.S. law enforcement officials confirmed for the first time the wide-scale use of the aircraft , which the AP traced to at least 13 fake companies , such as FVX Research , KQM Aviation , NBR Aviation and PXW Services . Even basic aspects of the program are withheld from the public in censored versions of official reports from the Justice Department 's inspector general . `` The FBI 's aviation program is not secret , '' spokesman Christopher Allen said in a statement . `` Specific aircraft and their capabilities are protected for operational security purposes . '' Allen added that the FBI 's planes `` are not equipped , designed or used for bulk collection activities or mass surveillance . '' But the planes can capture video of unrelated criminal activity on the ground that could be handed over for prosecutions . Some of the aircraft can also be equipped with technology that can identify thousands of people below through the cellphones they carry , even if they 're not making a call or in public . Officials said that practice , which mimics cell towers and gets phones to reveal basic subscriber information , is rare . Details confirmed by the FBI track closely with published reports since at least 2003 that a government surveillance program might be behind suspicious-looking planes slowly circling neighborhoods . The AP traced at least 50 aircraft back to the FBI , and identified more than 100 flights since late April orbiting both major cities and rural areas . One of the planes , photographed in flight last week by the AP in northern Virginia , bristled with unusual antennas under its fuselage and a camera on its left side . A federal budget document from 2010 mentioned at least 115 planes , including 90 Cessna aircraft , in the FBI 's surveillance fleet . The FBI also occasionally helps local police with aerial support , such as during the recent disturbance in Baltimore that followed the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray , who sustained grievous injuries while in police custody . Those types of requests are reviewed by senior FBI officials . The surveillance flights comply with agency rules , an FBI spokesman said . Those rules , which are heavily redacted in publicly available documents , limit the types of equipment the agency can use , as well as the justifications and duration of the surveillance . Details about the flights come as the Justice Department seeks to navigate privacy concerns arising from aerial surveillance by unmanned aircrafts , or drones . President Barack Obama has said he welcomes a debate on government surveillance , and has called for more transparency about spying in the wake of disclosures about classified programs . `` These are not your grandparents ' surveillance aircraft , '' said Jay Stanley , a senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union , calling the flights significant `` if the federal government is maintaining a fleet of aircraft whose purpose is to circle over American cities , especially with the technology we know can be attached to those aircraft . '' During the past few weeks , the AP tracked planes from the FBI 's fleet on more than 100 flights over at least 11 states plus the District of Columbia , most with Cessna 182T Skylane aircraft . These included parts of Houston , Phoenix , Seattle , Chicago , Boston , Minneapolis and Southern California . Evolving technology can record higher-quality video from long distances , even at night , and can capture certain identifying information from cellphones using a device known as a `` cell-site simulator '' - or Stingray , to use one of the product 's brand names . These can trick pinpointed cellphones into revealing identification numbers of subscribers , including those not suspected of a crime . Officials say cellphone surveillance is rare , although the AP found in recent weeks FBI flights orbiting large , enclosed buildings for extended periods where aerial photography would be less effective than electronic signals collection . Those included above Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and the Mall of America in Bloomington , Minnesota . After The Washington Post revealed flights by two planes circling over Baltimore in early May , the AP began analyzing detailed flight data and aircraft-ownership registrations that shared similar addresses and flight patterns . That review found some FBI missions circled above at least 40,000 residents during a single flight over Anaheim , California , in late May , according to Census data and records provided by the website FlightRadar24.com . Most flight patterns occurred in counter-clockwise orbits up to several miles wide and roughly one mile above the ground at slow speeds . A 2003 newsletter from the company FLIR Systems Inc. , which makes camera technology such as seen on the planes , described flying slowly in left-handed patterns . `` Aircraft surveillance has become an indispensable intelligence collection and investigative technique which serves as a force multiplier to the ground teams , '' the FBI said in 2009 when it asked Congress for $ 5.1 million for the program . Recently , independent journalists and websites have cited companies traced to post office boxes in Virginia , including one shared with the Justice Department . The AP analyzed similar data since early May , while also drawing upon aircraft registration documents , business records and interviews with U.S. officials to understand the scope of the operations . The FBI asked the AP not to disclose the names of the fake companies it uncovered , saying that would saddle taxpayers with the expense of creating new cover companies to shield the government 's involvement , and could endanger the planes and integrity of the surveillance missions . The AP declined the FBI 's request because the companies ' names - as well as common addresses linked to the Justice Department - are listed on public documents and in government databases . At least 13 front companies that AP identified being actively used by the FBI are registered to post office boxes in Bristow , Virginia , which is near a regional airport used for private and charter flights . Only one of them appears in state business records . Included on most aircraft registrations is a mysterious name , Robert Lindley . He is listed as chief executive and has at least three distinct signatures among the companies . Two documents include a signature for Robert Taylor , which is strikingly similar to one of Lindley 's three handwriting patterns . The FBI would not say whether Lindley is a U.S. government employee . The AP unsuccessfully tried to reach Lindley at phone numbers registered to people of the same name in the Washington area since Monday . Law enforcement officials said Justice Department lawyers approved the decision to create fictitious companies to protect the flights ' operational security and that the Federal Aviation Administration was aware of the practice . One of the Lindley-headed companies shares a post office box openly used by the Justice Department . Such elusive practices have endured for decades . A 1990 report by the then-General Accounting Office noted that , in July 1988 , the FBI had moved its `` headquarters-operated '' aircraft into a company that was n't publicly linked to the bureau . The FBI does not generally obtain warrants to record video from its planes of people moving outside in the open , but it also said that under a new policy it has recently begun obtaining court orders to use cell-site simulators . The Obama administration had until recently been directing local authorities through secret agreements not to reveal their own use of the devices , even encouraging prosecutors to drop cases rather than disclose the technology 's use in open court . A Justice Department memo last month also expressly barred its component law enforcement agencies from using unmanned drones `` solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment '' and said they are to be used only in connection with authorized investigations and activities . A department spokeswoman said the policy applied only to unmanned aircraft systems rather than piloted airplanes .

The FBI is operating a small air force with scores of low-flying planes across the country carrying video and, at times, cellphone surveillance technology - all hidden behind fictitious companies that are fronts for the government, The Associated Press has learned. The planes' surveillance equipment is generally used without a judge's approval, and the FBI said the flights are used for specific, ongoing investigations. In a recent 30-day period, the agency flew above more than 30 cities in 11 states across the country, an AP review found. Aerial surveillance represents a changing frontier for law enforcement, providing what the government maintains is an important tool in criminal, terrorism or intelligence probes. But the program raises questions about whether there should be updated policies protecting civil liberties as new technologies pose intrusive opportunities for government spying. U.S. law enforcement officials confirmed for the first time the wide-scale use of the aircraft, which the AP traced to at least 13 fake companies, such as FVX Research, KQM Aviation, NBR Aviation and PXW Services. Even basic aspects of the program are withheld from the public in censored versions of official reports from the Justice Department's inspector general. "The FBI's aviation program is not secret," spokesman Christopher Allen said in a statement. "Specific aircraft and their capabilities are protected for operational security purposes." Allen added that the FBI's planes "are not equipped, designed or used for bulk collection activities or mass surveillance." But the planes can capture video of unrelated criminal activity on the ground that could be handed over for prosecutions. Some of the aircraft can also be equipped with technology that can identify thousands of people below through the cellphones they carry, even if they're not making a call or in public. Officials said that practice, which mimics cell towers and gets phones to reveal basic subscriber information, is rare. Details confirmed by the FBI track closely with published reports since at least 2003 that a government surveillance program might be behind suspicious-looking planes slowly circling neighborhoods. The AP traced at least 50 aircraft back to the FBI, and identified more than 100 flights since late April orbiting both major cities and rural areas. One of the planes, photographed in flight last week by the AP in northern Virginia, bristled with unusual antennas under its fuselage and a camera on its left side. A federal budget document from 2010 mentioned at least 115 planes, including 90 Cessna aircraft, in the FBI's surveillance fleet. The FBI also occasionally helps local police with aerial support, such as during the recent disturbance in Baltimore that followed the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray, who sustained grievous injuries while in police custody. Those types of requests are reviewed by senior FBI officials. The surveillance flights comply with agency rules, an FBI spokesman said. Those rules, which are heavily redacted in publicly available documents, limit the types of equipment the agency can use, as well as the justifications and duration of the surveillance. Details about the flights come as the Justice Department seeks to navigate privacy concerns arising from aerial surveillance by unmanned aircrafts, or drones. President Barack Obama has said he welcomes a debate on government surveillance, and has called for more transparency about spying in the wake of disclosures about classified programs. "These are not your grandparents' surveillance aircraft," said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union, calling the flights significant "if the federal government is maintaining a fleet of aircraft whose purpose is to circle over American cities, especially with the technology we know can be attached to those aircraft." During the past few weeks, the AP tracked planes from the FBI's fleet on more than 100 flights over at least 11 states plus the District of Columbia, most with Cessna 182T Skylane aircraft. These included parts of Houston, Phoenix, Seattle, Chicago, Boston, Minneapolis and Southern California. Evolving technology can record higher-quality video from long distances, even at night, and can capture certain identifying information from cellphones using a device known as a "cell-site simulator" - or Stingray, to use one of the product's brand names. These can trick pinpointed cellphones into revealing identification numbers of subscribers, including those not suspected of a crime. Officials say cellphone surveillance is rare, although the AP found in recent weeks FBI flights orbiting large, enclosed buildings for extended periods where aerial photography would be less effective than electronic signals collection. Those included above Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota. After The Washington Post revealed flights by two planes circling over Baltimore in early May, the AP began analyzing detailed flight data and aircraft-ownership registrations that shared similar addresses and flight patterns. That review found some FBI missions circled above at least 40,000 residents during a single flight over Anaheim, California, in late May, according to Census data and records provided by the website FlightRadar24.com. Most flight patterns occurred in counter-clockwise orbits up to several miles wide and roughly one mile above the ground at slow speeds. A 2003 newsletter from the company FLIR Systems Inc., which makes camera technology such as seen on the planes, described flying slowly in left-handed patterns. "Aircraft surveillance has become an indispensable intelligence collection and investigative technique which serves as a force multiplier to the ground teams," the FBI said in 2009 when it asked Congress for $5.1 million for the program. Recently, independent journalists and websites have cited companies traced to post office boxes in Virginia, including one shared with the Justice Department. The AP analyzed similar data since early May, while also drawing upon aircraft registration documents, business records and interviews with U.S. officials to understand the scope of the operations. The FBI asked the AP not to disclose the names of the fake companies it uncovered, saying that would saddle taxpayers with the expense of creating new cover companies to shield the government's involvement, and could endanger the planes and integrity of the surveillance missions. The AP declined the FBI's request because the companies' names - as well as common addresses linked to the Justice Department - are listed on public documents and in government databases. At least 13 front companies that AP identified being actively used by the FBI are registered to post office boxes in Bristow, Virginia, which is near a regional airport used for private and charter flights. Only one of them appears in state business records. Included on most aircraft registrations is a mysterious name, Robert Lindley. He is listed as chief executive and has at least three distinct signatures among the companies. Two documents include a signature for Robert Taylor, which is strikingly similar to one of Lindley's three handwriting patterns. The FBI would not say whether Lindley is a U.S. government employee. The AP unsuccessfully tried to reach Lindley at phone numbers registered to people of the same name in the Washington area since Monday. Law enforcement officials said Justice Department lawyers approved the decision to create fictitious companies to protect the flights' operational security and that the Federal Aviation Administration was aware of the practice. One of the Lindley-headed companies shares a post office box openly used by the Justice Department. Such elusive practices have endured for decades. A 1990 report by the then-General Accounting Office noted that, in July 1988, the FBI had moved its "headquarters-operated" aircraft into a company that wasn't publicly linked to the bureau. The FBI does not generally obtain warrants to record video from its planes of people moving outside in the open, but it also said that under a new policy it has recently begun obtaining court orders to use cell-site simulators. The Obama administration had until recently been directing local authorities through secret agreements not to reveal their own use of the devices, even encouraging prosecutors to drop cases rather than disclose the technology's use in open court. A Justice Department memo last month also expressly barred its component law enforcement agencies from using unmanned drones "solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment" and said they are to be used only in connection with authorized investigations and activities. A department spokeswoman said the policy applied only to unmanned aircraft systems rather than piloted airplanes. © 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

www.newsmax.com

right

U2pyDCyejICPMe8Y

test

8vukIMEWKJkKByQa

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/08/another-cnn-anonymous-source-proven-wrong-about-trump/

Another CNN Anonymous Source Proven Wrong About Trump

2017-07-08

All week , CNN anchors cited an anonymous source who claimed President Donald Trump would not confront Russian President Vladimir Putin about election meddling in their meeting at the G20 summit in Hamburg , Germany . Secretary of State Rex Tillerson , who was present at the two-hour Friday meeting , said Trump almost immediately “ pressed ” Putin on attempts to influence public opinion in the 2016 election . Tillerson said Trump “ pressed ” Putin on election meddling “ on more than one occasion. ” Putin denied Russia ever tried to interfere . “ The two leaders agreed that this is a substantial hindrance on the ability of us to move Russian-U.S. relationships forward and agreed to exchange further work regarding commitments of noninterference in the affairs of the United States and our democratic process as well as those of other countries , ” Tillerson said . “ So more work to be done in that regard , ” he said . That ’ s not good news for CNN , which had for days been citing an anonymous source who claimed Trump would not bring up Russian efforts to sway voters through cyber attacks and online messaging . CNN all week : An anonymous source says Trump won ’ t confront Putin about Russia meddling in the election ! Today : https : //t.co/ik4daHedVA pic.twitter.com/bVTdhlnXWn — Matt Wolking ( @ MattWolking ) July 7 , 2017 It ’ s another blow to CNN . The news network accepted the resignation of three journalists in late June after they reported a “ Russian investment fund with ties to Trump officials ” was under investigation . That report was based on the word of a single anonymous source . CNN was forced to retract the story after Trump campaign associate Anthony Scaramucci reportedly threatened to sue CNN over the poorly-sourced article . CNN reporters resigned shortly after .

All week, CNN anchors cited an anonymous source who claimed President Donald Trump would not confront Russian President Vladimir Putin about election meddling in their meeting at the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany. That source turned out to be dead wrong. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was present at the two-hour Friday meeting, said Trump almost immediately “pressed” Putin on attempts to influence public opinion in the 2016 election. Tillerson said Trump “pressed” Putin on election meddling “on more than one occasion.” Putin denied Russia ever tried to interfere. “The two leaders agreed that this is a substantial hindrance on the ability of us to move Russian-U.S. relationships forward and agreed to exchange further work regarding commitments of noninterference in the affairs of the United States and our democratic process as well as those of other countries,” Tillerson said. “So more work to be done in that regard,” he said. That’s not good news for CNN, which had for days been citing an anonymous source who claimed Trump would not bring up Russian efforts to sway voters through cyber attacks and online messaging. CNN all week: An anonymous source says Trump won’t confront Putin about Russia meddling in the election! Today: https://t.co/ik4daHedVA pic.twitter.com/bVTdhlnXWn — Matt Wolking (@MattWolking) July 7, 2017 It’s another blow to CNN. The news network accepted the resignation of three journalists in late June after they reported a “Russian investment fund with ties to Trump officials” was under investigation. That report was based on the word of a single anonymous source. CNN was forced to retract the story after Trump campaign associate Anthony Scaramucci reportedly threatened to sue CNN over the poorly-sourced article. CNN reporters resigned shortly after. Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter 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

8vukIMEWKJkKByQa

test

X2ddiH2jTasPdWX4

national_defense

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/07/13/rep-matt-gaetz-and-rep-ro-khanna-congress-should-welcome-troops-home-not-delay-their-return/

REP. MATT GAETZ And REP. RO KHANNA: Congress Should Welcome Troops Home — Not Delay Their Return

2020-07-13

After awakening from a deep slumber on war and peace , Congress is erecting new roadblocks to prevent our troops from returning home . As a pandemic endangers Americans at home and abroad , it ’ s all the more incumbent upon Congress to keep troops out of harm ’ s way . But instead of preventing us from getting into conflicts in the first place , lawmakers are fencing our troops in overseas bases and battlefields to fight unwinnable wars . The House Armed Services Committee included in its annual defense bill two measures restricting the president from withdrawing troops abroad . These amendments would handcuff the administration from bringing our troops home from Afghanistan and Germany without first certifying a dizzying maze of stipulations . Lawmakers voting for these restrictions cited Russian aggression as the latest justification to block President Trump ’ s planned withdrawals . But Putin must not get to determine the timeline for when American troops return home . After nearly two decades of shipping American flag-draped caskets from Afghanistan , the withdrawal of our brave men and women in uniform — while they are still alive — is long overdue . U.S. troop encampments at Cold War-style garrisons were designed to stop Soviet tanks from invading Germany — not to confront the challenge Russia poses in the 21st century . Neither the 34,500 U.S. troops in Germany nor the more than 25,000 NATO — including thousands of American — soldiers in Afghanistan have deterred Russia ’ s latest acts of aggression . Containing Moscow requires strengthening our capabilities to comprehensively counter potential cyberattacks , political interference and its hybrid warfare tactics in Crimea , eastern Ukraine and Syria . Troop withdrawals have long been championed by leaders across the partisan divide . After Reverend Jesse Jackson capped his historic 1988 presidential campaign , he addressed the Democratic National Convention , warning against “ spending $ 150 billion a year defending Europe and Japan 43 years after the war is over . ” During the Cold War , there were about 270,000 U.S. soldiers in Germany . Since the fall of the Berlin Wall , every American president has ordered troop withdrawals from the country . President Bush ordered the departure of 30,000 troops from Germany in 2004 , while President Obama ordered the withdrawal of thousands more . Congress must conduct meaningful oversight of any administration ’ s withdrawal decisions , to ensure that troop withdrawals are in the service of our national security rather than an attempt to either punish or reward another country . Lawmakers should encourage sustained diplomacy to secure regional stability — an element noticeably absent from these provisions included in the Armed Services Committee ’ s defense policy bill . We should encourage responsible withdrawals and avoid impetuous decisions . But it is the height of irresponsibility to obligate our troops to fight unwinnable wars and delay their return indefinitely . Fortunately , a re-energized coalition of progressives and conservatives is galvanized to bring our troops home . One of us is one of the President ’ s leading critics , and the other is one of his closest allies . We are united in our conviction that Congress should lead efforts to disentangle our troops from bloody and costly endless wars . The same night these anti-withdrawal measures passed in the Armed Services Committee markup , we teamed up on an amendment blocking U.S. support perpetuating the Saudi-led war in Yemen . In last year ’ s defense bill , we co-led a provision with overwhelming bipartisan support to prevent an unconstitutional war against Iran . These victories are only possible because millions of Americans are mobilizing for change . From conservative advocates like Concerned Veterans for America and Americans for Prosperity to progressive champions like Win Without War and FCNL , the American people are demanding Congress bring our troops home and focus on the threats facing Americans today . Under pressure from Washington ’ s armchair hawks , troops withdrawn from bases in Germany and battlefields in Afghanistan may simply be re-deployed to other wars and military bases abroad . The task of ending a nearly two decade , two-trillion-dollar war , and re-evaluating America ’ s troop presence in Europe faces stiff opposition from the Washington blob that cut its teeth on antiquated Cold War politics of yesteryear . Yet , unlike those beating the drums for war , we have the American people on our side . Americans of every political stripe are calling on Congress to celebrate , rather than shun , our troops ’ well-deserved homecoming . Rep. Ro Khanna , a Democrat , represents Silicon Valley in the U.S. House of Representatives , and serves on the House Armed Services , Budget and Oversight Committees . Rep. Matt Gaetz , a Republican , represents Florida ’ s 1st congressional district and serves on the House Armed Services and Judiciary Committees .

After awakening from a deep slumber on war and peace, Congress is erecting new roadblocks to prevent our troops from returning home. As a pandemic endangers Americans at home and abroad, it’s all the more incumbent upon Congress to keep troops out of harm’s way. But instead of preventing us from getting into conflicts in the first place, lawmakers are fencing our troops in overseas bases and battlefields to fight unwinnable wars. The House Armed Services Committee included in its annual defense bill two measures restricting the president from withdrawing troops abroad. These amendments would handcuff the administration from bringing our troops home from Afghanistan and Germany without first certifying a dizzying maze of stipulations. Lawmakers voting for these restrictions cited Russian aggression as the latest justification to block President Trump’s planned withdrawals. But Putin must not get to determine the timeline for when American troops return home. After nearly two decades of shipping American flag-draped caskets from Afghanistan, the withdrawal of our brave men and women in uniform — while they are still alive — is long overdue. U.S. troop encampments at Cold War-style garrisons were designed to stop Soviet tanks from invading Germany — not to confront the challenge Russia poses in the 21st century. Neither the 34,500 U.S. troops in Germany nor the more than 25,000 NATO — including thousands of American — soldiers in Afghanistan have deterred Russia’s latest acts of aggression. Containing Moscow requires strengthening our capabilities to comprehensively counter potential cyberattacks, political interference and its hybrid warfare tactics in Crimea, eastern Ukraine and Syria. Troop withdrawals have long been championed by leaders across the partisan divide. After Reverend Jesse Jackson capped his historic 1988 presidential campaign, he addressed the Democratic National Convention, warning against “spending $150 billion a year defending Europe and Japan 43 years after the war is over.” During the Cold War, there were about 270,000 U.S. soldiers in Germany. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, every American president has ordered troop withdrawals from the country. President Bush ordered the departure of 30,000 troops from Germany in 2004, while President Obama ordered the withdrawal of thousands more. Congress must conduct meaningful oversight of any administration’s withdrawal decisions, to ensure that troop withdrawals are in the service of our national security rather than an attempt to either punish or reward another country. Lawmakers should encourage sustained diplomacy to secure regional stability — an element noticeably absent from these provisions included in the Armed Services Committee’s defense policy bill. We should encourage responsible withdrawals and avoid impetuous decisions. But it is the height of irresponsibility to obligate our troops to fight unwinnable wars and delay their return indefinitely. Fortunately, a re-energized coalition of progressives and conservatives is galvanized to bring our troops home. One of us is one of the President’s leading critics, and the other is one of his closest allies. We are united in our conviction that Congress should lead efforts to disentangle our troops from bloody and costly endless wars. The same night these anti-withdrawal measures passed in the Armed Services Committee markup, we teamed up on an amendment blocking U.S. support perpetuating the Saudi-led war in Yemen. In last year’s defense bill, we co-led a provision with overwhelming bipartisan support to prevent an unconstitutional war against Iran. These victories are only possible because millions of Americans are mobilizing for change. From conservative advocates like Concerned Veterans for America and Americans for Prosperity to progressive champions like Win Without War and FCNL, the American people are demanding Congress bring our troops home and focus on the threats facing Americans today. Under pressure from Washington’s armchair hawks, troops withdrawn from bases in Germany and battlefields in Afghanistan may simply be re-deployed to other wars and military bases abroad. The task of ending a nearly two decade, two-trillion-dollar war , and re-evaluating America’s troop presence in Europe faces stiff opposition from the Washington blob that cut its teeth on antiquated Cold War politics of yesteryear. Yet, unlike those beating the drums for war, we have the American people on our side. Americans of every political stripe are calling on Congress to celebrate, rather than shun, our troops’ well-deserved homecoming. Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat, represents Silicon Valley in the U.S. House of Representatives, and serves on the House Armed Services, Budget and Oversight Committees. Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Republican, represents Florida’s 1st congressional district and serves on the House Armed Services and Judiciary Committees.

www.dailycaller.com

right

X2ddiH2jTasPdWX4

test

rADJ6gOORFqPL2Tz

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2017/october/trump-drug-czar-nominee-rep-marino-withdrawing-his-name-heres-why

Trump: Drug Czar Nominee, Rep. Marino, Withdrawing His Name - Here's Why

2017-10-17

Washington – President Donald Trump on Tuesday said Rep. Tom Marino , R-Pa , has withdrawn his name from consideration for the nation 's drug czar . Rep.Tom Marino has informed me that he is withdrawing his name from consideration as drug czar . Tom is a fine man and a great Congressman ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) October 17 , 2017 The announcement follows a joint investigation by CBS `` 60 Minutes '' and The Washington Post , which reported that the lawmaker was the `` chief advocate '' behind the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act , a law which weakened the federal government 's authority to stop companies from the mass distribution of opioids . The report shows the bill had heavy support from drug company lobbyists and passed Congress by unanimous consent . President Barack Obama signed the bill into law in April 2016 . On Monday , Mr. Trump said he would `` make a change '' if he felt Marino 's nomination hurt the administration 's efforts to curb opioid abuse . `` He 's a great guy . I did see the report . We 're going to look into the report . We 're going to take it very seriously , '' Trump told reporters . Lawmakers like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y. , and Sen. Joe Manchin , D-W.Va. , had called for Trump to pull Marino 's nomination following the report . `` He is not going to be -- over my dead body will he be the drug czar , '' said Manchin . I look forward to working with @ realDonaldTrump to find a drug czar that will serve # WV and our entire country . — Senator Joe Manchin ( @ Sen_JoeManchin ) October 17 , 2017 More than 33,000 people died in 2015 from prescription opioids , heroin , and fentanyl , according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . The Trump administration has vowed to take on the opioid epidemic , hinting that at an announcement to tackle the crisis could come soon . `` We 're going to have a major announcement , probably next week , on the drug crisis and on the opioid massive problem . And I want to get that absolutely right . This country , and frankly the world , has a drug problem , '' Trump stated . ███ News reached out to Marino for comment , but he could not immediately be reached .

Washington – President Donald Trump on Tuesday said Rep. Tom Marino, R-Pa, has withdrawn his name from consideration for the nation's drug czar. Rep.Tom Marino has informed me that he is withdrawing his name from consideration as drug czar. Tom is a fine man and a great Congressman! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2017 The announcement follows a joint investigation by CBS "60 Minutes" and The Washington Post, which reported that the lawmaker was the "chief advocate" behind the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act, a law which weakened the federal government's authority to stop companies from the mass distribution of opioids. The report shows the bill had heavy support from drug company lobbyists and passed Congress by unanimous consent. President Barack Obama signed the bill into law in April 2016. On Monday, Mr. Trump said he would "make a change" if he felt Marino's nomination hurt the administration's efforts to curb opioid abuse. "He's a great guy. I did see the report. We're going to look into the report. We're going to take it very seriously," Trump told reporters. Lawmakers like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., had called for Trump to pull Marino's nomination following the report. "He is not going to be -- over my dead body will he be the drug czar," said Manchin. Manchin tweeted his support for Marino's resignation. I look forward to working with @realDonaldTrump to find a drug czar that will serve #WV and our entire country. — Senator Joe Manchin (@Sen_JoeManchin) October 17, 2017 More than 33,000 people died in 2015 from prescription opioids, heroin, and fentanyl, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Trump administration has vowed to take on the opioid epidemic, hinting that at an announcement to tackle the crisis could come soon. "We're going to have a major announcement, probably next week, on the drug crisis and on the opioid massive problem. And I want to get that absolutely right. This country, and frankly the world, has a drug problem," Trump stated. CBN News reached out to Marino for comment, but he could not immediately be reached.

www1.cbn.com

right

rADJ6gOORFqPL2Tz

test

u8G8FX0PTgN62VMr

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/07/bannon-trump-charlottesville-cbs-catholic-church-immigration

Steve Bannon defends Trump and calls Catholic church 'terrible' on immigration

2017-09-07

Joanna Walters, Lauren Gambino

Donald Trump ’ s widely criticised response to violence by neo-Nazis and white supremacists in Charlottesville , Virginia last month was an instance of the president “ taking it up to a higher level ” , former White House counselor Steve Bannon has said . Steve Bannon is back at Breitbart . But can his page of rage survive an ad boycott ? Read more In excerpts of an interview with CBS 60 Minutes host Charlie Rose set for broadcast on Sunday , Bannon also said Trump ’ s chief economic adviser Gary Cohn “ should resign ” and said the Catholic church was “ terrible ” on immigration issues such as the future of Dreamers because “ they need illegal aliens to fill the churches ” . One counter-protester was killed and many injured in Charlottesville after a man drove a car into a crowd . Trump said blame for the unrest rested “ on many sides ” and was slow to condemn the white supremacists who organized the event , a protest against the planned removal of a statue of Confederate general Robert E Lee . Trump belatedly condemned the militant white supremacists , yet insisted there were “ some good people ” attending their rally . He also lamented the removal of statues to Confederate leaders . Trump ’ s remarks provoked widespread uproar , not least among Republicans . Bannon said he was the only one of Trump ’ s staff to defend the president unequivocally , and said he had told White House chief of staff John Kelly how important that was . “ I was the only guy that said , ‘ He ’ s talking about something , taking it up to a higher level ’ , ” Bannon said . “ What he was trying to say is that people that support the monument staying there peacefully and people that oppose that , that ’ s the normal course of – of first amendment … “ All Donald Trump was saying is : ‘ Where does it end ? Does it end in taking down the Washington monument ? Does it end in taking down Mount Rushmore ? Does it end at taking Churchill ’ s bust out of the Oval Office ? ’ “ My problem – my problem , and I told General Kelly this – when you side with a man , you side with him . I was proud to come out and try to defend President Trump in the media that day . ” Bannon left the White House late in August and has returned to the far-right website Breitbart News , which he ran before joining Trump ’ s team . He said he would now be the president ’ s “ wingman outside for the entire time , to protect . ” “ No , our purpose is to support Donald Trump , ” Bannon said , “ to make sure his enemies know that there ’ s no free shot on goal . ” House Speaker Paul Ryan , a frequent critic of Trump if not an outright enemy , told the New York Times on Thursday he believes Trump was “ disgusted ” by the neo-Nazis and white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville . “ I know he ’ s disgusted by these people , ” Ryan said . “ His kids , his grandkids are Jewish . ” Ryan said he believed Trump “ made the right statements ” on Charlottesville when he condemned white supremacy by name but not when he retreated from that position and appeared to draw a moral equivalence between those neo-Nazis who marched and those who protested against them . “ The point is every single one of us needs to be really clear about this , ” he said . CBS said Rose ’ s interview took place in the Capitol Hill townhouse Bannon uses as his headquarters , which his team calls ‘ the embassy ” , and said its host sat in on a Breitbart editorial meeting and interviewed key staff . Rose asked Bannon if the media ’ s image of him from his time in the White House was correct . Bannon said it was . “ I ’ m a street fighter . ” “ By the way , ” he continued , “ I think that ’ s why Donald Trump and I get along so well . Trump ’ s a fighter . Great counter-puncher . ” Bannon also condemned leaks from the White House . He said : “ If you are going to break with [ Trump ] , you should resign . I ’ m talking , obviously , about Gary Cohn and some other people . That if you don ’ t like what he ’ s doing and you don ’ t agree with it , you have an obligation to resign . ” Cohn was the most senior administration official to condemn the president ’ s response to Charlottesville and was reported to have considered resigning . Meanwhile , noting that New York ’ s Catholic cardinal Timothy Dolan opposed Trump ’ s decision this week to end the Daca program to protect young people brought to the country illegally as children from being deported , Bannon said the church was “ terrible ” on immigration issues . “ You know why ? Because [ they have been ] unable to come to grips with the problems in the church , they need illegal aliens . They need illegal aliens to fill the churches . It ’ s obvious on the face of it , ” Bannon said . Dolan said in an interview on Thursday that it was “ a preposterous and rather insulting statement. ” He added that the Bible is “ so clear that to treat the immigrant with dignity and respect , to make sure that society is just in its treatment of the immigrant is Biblical mandate . ”

Donald Trump’s widely criticised response to violence by neo-Nazis and white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia last month was an instance of the president “taking it up to a higher level”, former White House counselor Steve Bannon has said. Steve Bannon is back at Breitbart. But can his page of rage survive an ad boycott? Read more In excerpts of an interview with CBS 60 Minutes host Charlie Rose set for broadcast on Sunday, Bannon also said Trump’s chief economic adviser Gary Cohn “should resign” and said the Catholic church was “terrible” on immigration issues such as the future of Dreamers because “they need illegal aliens to fill the churches”. One counter-protester was killed and many injured in Charlottesville after a man drove a car into a crowd. Trump said blame for the unrest rested “on many sides” and was slow to condemn the white supremacists who organized the event, a protest against the planned removal of a statue of Confederate general Robert E Lee. Trump belatedly condemned the militant white supremacists, yet insisted there were “some good people” attending their rally. He also lamented the removal of statues to Confederate leaders. Trump’s remarks provoked widespread uproar, not least among Republicans. Bannon said he was the only one of Trump’s staff to defend the president unequivocally, and said he had told White House chief of staff John Kelly how important that was. “I was the only guy that said, ‘He’s talking about something, taking it up to a higher level’,” Bannon said. “What he was trying to say is that people that support the monument staying there peacefully and people that oppose that, that’s the normal course of – of first amendment … “All Donald Trump was saying is: ‘Where does it end? Does it end in taking down the Washington monument? Does it end in taking down Mount Rushmore? Does it end at taking Churchill’s bust out of the Oval Office?’ “My problem – my problem, and I told General Kelly this – when you side with a man, you side with him. I was proud to come out and try to defend President Trump in the media that day.” Bannon left the White House late in August and has returned to the far-right website Breitbart News, which he ran before joining Trump’s team. He said he would now be the president’s “wingman outside for the entire time, to protect.” “You will not be attacking Donald Trump?” Rose asked. “No, our purpose is to support Donald Trump,” Bannon said, “to make sure his enemies know that there’s no free shot on goal.” House Speaker Paul Ryan, a frequent critic of Trump if not an outright enemy, told the New York Times on Thursday he believes Trump was “disgusted” by the neo-Nazis and white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville. “I know he’s disgusted by these people,” Ryan said. “His kids, his grandkids are Jewish.” Ryan said he believed Trump “made the right statements” on Charlottesville when he condemned white supremacy by name but not when he retreated from that position and appeared to draw a moral equivalence between those neo-Nazis who marched and those who protested against them. “The point is every single one of us needs to be really clear about this,” he said. CBS said Rose’s interview took place in the Capitol Hill townhouse Bannon uses as his headquarters, which his team calls ‘the embassy”, and said its host sat in on a Breitbart editorial meeting and interviewed key staff. Rose asked Bannon if the media’s image of him from his time in the White House was correct. Bannon said it was. “I’m a street fighter.” “By the way,” he continued, “I think that’s why Donald Trump and I get along so well. Trump’s a fighter. Great counter-puncher.” Bannon also condemned leaks from the White House. He said: “If you are going to break with [Trump], you should resign. I’m talking, obviously, about Gary Cohn and some other people. That if you don’t like what he’s doing and you don’t agree with it, you have an obligation to resign.” Cohn was the most senior administration official to condemn the president’s response to Charlottesville and was reported to have considered resigning. Meanwhile, noting that New York’s Catholic cardinal Timothy Dolan opposed Trump’s decision this week to end the Daca program to protect young people brought to the country illegally as children from being deported, Bannon said the church was “terrible” on immigration issues. “You know why? Because [they have been] unable to come to grips with the problems in the church, they need illegal aliens. They need illegal aliens to fill the churches. It’s obvious on the face of it,” Bannon said. Dolan said in an interview on Thursday that it was “a preposterous and rather insulting statement.” He added that the Bible is “so clear that to treat the immigrant with dignity and respect, to make sure that society is just in its treatment of the immigrant is Biblical mandate.”

www.theguardian.com

left

u8G8FX0PTgN62VMr

test

slxsm7bioN4cP4Ce

media_bias

Reason

http://reason.com/archives/2018/11/19/suppressing-trumps-bigotry-on-facebook

Suppressing Trump's Bigotry on Facebook Is Another Form of Bias

2018-11-19

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

Of all the grievances erupting against Facebook executives Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg , perhaps the most telling is the complaint that , back in 2015 , they failed to suppress presidential candidate Donald Trump 's call for `` a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States . '' This kvetch was expressed in a recent front-page The New York Times investigation , which griped , `` Trump 's call to arms—widely condemned by Democrats and some prominent Republicans—was shared more than 15,000 times on Facebook , an illustration of the site 's power to spread racist sentiment . '' The complaint demonstrates the ever-expanding definition of the word `` racist . '' Muslims , after all , can be of any race . Anti-Muslim bigotry is wrong , and racism is wrong , but even if the two biases have much in common , that does n't mean they are the same thing . The Soviet Communists pioneered the use of the racism slur to tar political enemies , championing the 1975 United Nations General Assembly resolution declaring `` Zionism is a form of racism . '' The Soviet Union was defeated and the resolution eventually repealed , but the tactic , alas , endures . The complaint also signals the persistence of the belief that the way to deal with offensive or incorrect speech is to smother it rather than to rebut it . This , too , is a view more compatible with totalitarianism that with freedom . It suggests an insecurity , a lack of confidence that one 's own ideas are strong enough to overcome alternative views . It leads to the establishment of central authorities with power to decide which views are acceptable for publication or broadcast , and which are not . Relatedly , the complaint betrays a low opinion of the American electorate . One view of the situation might be , `` The American voters are n't bigots . If the voters see a politician making a racist appeal , that appeal is likely to backfire by hurting the candidate politically . Hiding the appeal just helps the racist politician by covering up his racist blunder . '' Call that the idealistic view . Another view would be , `` The American voters are a bunch of bigots . If the voters see a politician making a racist appeal , that appeal is likely to help the candidate politically . Hiding the appeal hurts the racist politician by restricting his ability to communicate his racist message with the vast audience of racist voters . '' Call that the cynical view . Facebook and other large media organizations had an opportunity earlier this month for a re-do of this episode , or at least a chance to make a new decision about something arguably similar . This time around , they chose the suppression route . NBC , Facebook , CNN , and Fox News all in the end chose to reject a Trump campaign commercial that CNN described as `` racist . '' The ad featured the migrant caravan moving through Mexico and also a convicted cop-killer named Luis Bracamontes who is an illegal immigrant from Mexico . In the critiques of the caravan-cop-killer commercial , as in those of the Muslim-ban Facebook post , there 's an expansive definition of racism . Hispanics , after all , can be of any race . Anti-immigrant bigotry is wrong , and racism is wrong , but that does n't mean they are the same thing . Here , too , there 's an implicit low estimation of American voters , a fear that they are so susceptible to racist appeals , so easily swayed , that they 've got to be kept far away from such a commercial . And there 's a quaint reliance on the idea of central authority—as if , just by preventing this ad from airing on CNN , Facebook , and Fox News , it 's also going to be somehow kept off YouTube , or Twitter , or email , or newspaper front pages . Both the Muslim ban and the caravan ad go to genuine political issues—the threats of extremist Islamist terrorism , of illegal immigration , and of violent crime . These are issues that both parties have struggled to solve completely . Declaring peremptorily that voters concerned about such issues are racist , that these issues are outside the bounds of acceptable discourse , or that emotional appeals by political candidates on these issues should be suppressed seems a recipe for a politics that is even more volatile . It 's `` basket of deplorables '' and `` bitter clingers , '' the domestic politics of contempt all over again . That does n't mean that there are n't some real racists out there , or that businesses ca n't choose for themselves to impose standards for acceptable advertising . But it does mean that those who have a real interest in promoting tolerance , or reciprocity , toward immigrants , whether Mexican or Muslim , might do that cause some service by examining their own biases and stereotypical assumptions about their fellow American voters . Ira Stoll is editor of FutureOfCapitalism.com and author of JFK , Conservative .

Of all the grievances erupting against Facebook executives Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, perhaps the most telling is the complaint that, back in 2015, they failed to suppress presidential candidate Donald Trump's call for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." This kvetch was expressed in a recent front-page The New York Times investigation, which griped, "Trump's call to arms—widely condemned by Democrats and some prominent Republicans—was shared more than 15,000 times on Facebook, an illustration of the site's power to spread racist sentiment." The complaint demonstrates the ever-expanding definition of the word "racist." Muslims, after all, can be of any race. Anti-Muslim bigotry is wrong, and racism is wrong, but even if the two biases have much in common, that doesn't mean they are the same thing. The Soviet Communists pioneered the use of the racism slur to tar political enemies, championing the 1975 United Nations General Assembly resolution declaring "Zionism is a form of racism." The Soviet Union was defeated and the resolution eventually repealed, but the tactic, alas, endures. The complaint also signals the persistence of the belief that the way to deal with offensive or incorrect speech is to smother it rather than to rebut it. This, too, is a view more compatible with totalitarianism that with freedom. It suggests an insecurity, a lack of confidence that one's own ideas are strong enough to overcome alternative views. It leads to the establishment of central authorities with power to decide which views are acceptable for publication or broadcast, and which are not. Relatedly, the complaint betrays a low opinion of the American electorate. One view of the situation might be, "The American voters aren't bigots. If the voters see a politician making a racist appeal, that appeal is likely to backfire by hurting the candidate politically. Hiding the appeal just helps the racist politician by covering up his racist blunder." Call that the idealistic view. Another view would be, "The American voters are a bunch of bigots. If the voters see a politician making a racist appeal, that appeal is likely to help the candidate politically. Hiding the appeal hurts the racist politician by restricting his ability to communicate his racist message with the vast audience of racist voters." Call that the cynical view. Facebook and other large media organizations had an opportunity earlier this month for a re-do of this episode, or at least a chance to make a new decision about something arguably similar. This time around, they chose the suppression route. NBC, Facebook, CNN, and Fox News all in the end chose to reject a Trump campaign commercial that CNN described as "racist." The ad featured the migrant caravan moving through Mexico and also a convicted cop-killer named Luis Bracamontes who is an illegal immigrant from Mexico. In the critiques of the caravan-cop-killer commercial, as in those of the Muslim-ban Facebook post, there's an expansive definition of racism. Hispanics, after all, can be of any race. Anti-immigrant bigotry is wrong, and racism is wrong, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. Here, too, there's an implicit low estimation of American voters, a fear that they are so susceptible to racist appeals, so easily swayed, that they've got to be kept far away from such a commercial. And there's a quaint reliance on the idea of central authority—as if, just by preventing this ad from airing on CNN, Facebook, and Fox News, it's also going to be somehow kept off YouTube, or Twitter, or email, or newspaper front pages. Both the Muslim ban and the caravan ad go to genuine political issues—the threats of extremist Islamist terrorism, of illegal immigration, and of violent crime. These are issues that both parties have struggled to solve completely. Declaring peremptorily that voters concerned about such issues are racist, that these issues are outside the bounds of acceptable discourse, or that emotional appeals by political candidates on these issues should be suppressed seems a recipe for a politics that is even more volatile. It's "basket of deplorables" and "bitter clingers," the domestic politics of contempt all over again. That doesn't mean that there aren't some real racists out there, or that businesses can't choose for themselves to impose standards for acceptable advertising. But it does mean that those who have a real interest in promoting tolerance, or reciprocity, toward immigrants, whether Mexican or Muslim, might do that cause some service by examining their own biases and stereotypical assumptions about their fellow American voters. Ira Stoll is editor of FutureOfCapitalism.com and author of JFK, Conservative.

www.reason.com

right

slxsm7bioN4cP4Ce

test

8uZe3KHltlTfS1xm

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/15/george-soros-big-banks-and-google-fund-anti-trump-resistance-group/

George Soros, Big Banks And Google Fund Anti-Trump Resistance Group

2016-12-15

The liberal think tank Center for American Progress ( CAP ) , now fashioning itself as a powerful anti-Trump force , is funded by George Soros , big banks and several large corporations . CAP , founded in 2003 by former Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta , has long been a prominent liberal think tank in Washington . Now , they look to be the leader of efforts on the left to fight against Donald Trump ’ s incoming administration though their advocacy wing , the Center for American Progress Action Fund ( CAPAF ) . The action fund is funded by the main group , CAP , according to their “ Our Supporters ” page . Other funders of CAPAF are the big Hollywood group Motion Picture Association of America and the labor union Service Employees International Union . The home page of CAPAF simply reads “ Resist , ” and has a button to “ Join the Resistance. ” On the actual page describing the resistance , posted Thursday , it says , “ RESIST HATE . RESIST CORRUPTION . RESIST INJUSTICE . FORGE PROGRESS . ” “ We believe Trump has no mandate and was propelled to victory through a combination of voter suppression and foreign interference by hostile nations like Russia . We will not stand by and watch as Trump tries to propagate his radical right-wing agenda on the American people after an election he won without the popular vote . We will fight back . ” Neera Tanden , President of both CAPAF and CAP said , “ Our goal is to be the central hub of the Trump resistance , to hold Trump accountable for the promises he made , ” Politico reports . And Harry Reid ’ s current deputy Chief of Staff , Adam Jentleson , is joining CAPAF specifically to be a part of anti-Trump effort . Jentleson said he intends to “ weaponize ” the organization and have a “ relentlessly aggressive attitude and orientation toward holding Trump accountable every single day . ” CAP itself , which shares staff with and heavily funds the action fund , is bankrolled by the George Soros-run group Open Society Foundation to the tune of over $ 1,000,000 . It is also funded by Walmart , Bank of America and Google . Citigroup has also been previously reported to have heavily contributed to CAP , and The Washington Post once described CAP ’ s donor list as a “ broad sampling of corporate interests , from tech firms and automakers to health-care companies , big banks , retailers and trade associations . ” CAPAF ’ s list of Trump ’ s ideas they plan on resisting includes “ his proposal to deport millions of undocumented immigrants and build a wall on the nation ’ s southern border ” and “ his attacks on Muslims ; women ; lesbian , gay , bisexual , and transgender , or LGBT , people ; and people of color . ”

The liberal think tank Center for American Progress (CAP), now fashioning itself as a powerful anti-Trump force, is funded by George Soros, big banks and several large corporations. CAP, founded in 2003 by former Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, has long been a prominent liberal think tank in Washington. Now, they look to be the leader of efforts on the left to fight against Donald Trump’s incoming administration though their advocacy wing, the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF). The action fund is funded by the main group, CAP, according to their “Our Supporters” page. Other funders of CAPAF are the big Hollywood group Motion Picture Association of America and the labor union Service Employees International Union. The home page of CAPAF simply reads “Resist,” and has a button to “Join the Resistance.” On the actual page describing the resistance, posted Thursday, it says, “RESIST HATE. RESIST CORRUPTION. RESIST INJUSTICE. FORGE PROGRESS.” The page also reads, “We believe Trump has no mandate and was propelled to victory through a combination of voter suppression and foreign interference by hostile nations like Russia. We will not stand by and watch as Trump tries to propagate his radical right-wing agenda on the American people after an election he won without the popular vote. We will fight back.” Neera Tanden, President of both CAPAF and CAP said, “Our goal is to be the central hub of the Trump resistance, to hold Trump accountable for the promises he made,” Politico reports. And Harry Reid’s current deputy Chief of Staff, Adam Jentleson, is joining CAPAF specifically to be a part of anti-Trump effort. Jentleson said he intends to “weaponize” the organization and have a “relentlessly aggressive attitude and orientation toward holding Trump accountable every single day.” CAP itself, which shares staff with and heavily funds the action fund, is bankrolled by the George Soros-run group Open Society Foundation to the tune of over $1,000,000. It is also funded by Walmart, Bank of America and Google. Citigroup has also been previously reported to have heavily contributed to CAP, and The Washington Post once described CAP’s donor list as a “broad sampling of corporate interests, from tech firms and automakers to health-care companies, big banks, retailers and trade associations.” CAPAF’s list of Trump’s ideas they plan on resisting includes “his proposal to deport millions of undocumented immigrants and build a wall on the nation’s southern border” and “his attacks on Muslims; women; lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, or LGBT, people; and people of color.” Follow Justin on Twitter

www.dailycaller.com

right

8uZe3KHltlTfS1xm

test

ykRpOjtEXtJOzRtZ

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/obama-asks-for-prayer-on-budget-deal/

Obama Asks for Prayer on Budget Deal

Abc News, Mary Bruce

BANGKOK , Thailand - Taking a break from deficit negotiations for a whirlwind tour of southeast Asia , President Obama joked this afternoon as he toured a sacred Buddhist temple that he could use some prayer to help reach a budget deal . `` We 're working on this budget , we 're going to need a lot of prayer for that , '' the president told a monk at the Wat Pho Royal Monastery . The president later explained the quip at a joint press conference with Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra . `` I always believe in prayer , '' he said . `` If a Buddhist monk is wishing me well , I 'm going to take whatever good vibes he can give me to try to deal with some challenges back home . '' Shortly after arriving in Bangkok , Obama , accompanied by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton , toured the Viharn of the Reclining Buddha , one of the most famous sites in Thailand , and the Eastern Viharn Phra . Obama and Clinton talked softly with the robed monk as they walked , shoe-less , through the holy temple , Continuing their private tour through an ornate courtyard known as the Phra Maha Chedi Group Clinton remarked `` what a peaceful place '' it was . `` If you have 80,000 people here it 's not so peaceful , '' the president noted . `` This is kind of a treat . '' The president also met and exchanged gifts with ailing King Bhumibol Adulyadej . The president greeted the 84-year-old king at the Siriraj hospital , where he has lived since 2009 . `` It 's a great honor to meet with you , '' Obama said . `` Thank you so much for taking the time to do this . We send greetings from all the people of the United States who are so grateful for the friendship of our two countries and are great admirers of yours - your wisdom and your leadership . '' The king gave Obama several gifts including one for the First Lady . `` Oh , thank you , Michelle , my wife [ will ] appreciate it , '' Obama said . `` She 'll look very good in that color , Mr. President , '' Clinton remarked . In return , the president gave the king a photo album with pictures of all the U.S. presidents and first ladies he has met , starting with Dwight Eisenhower and continuing through George W Bush . `` We left the last page blank , '' Obama said , so they could add a photo of themselves .

AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster BANGKOK, Thailand - Taking a break from deficit negotiations for a whirlwind tour of southeast Asia, President Obama joked this afternoon as he toured a sacred Buddhist temple that he could use some prayer to help reach a budget deal. "We're working on this budget, we're going to need a lot of prayer for that," the president told a monk at the Wat Pho Royal Monastery. The president later explained the quip at a joint press conference with Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. "I always believe in prayer," he said. "If a Buddhist monk is wishing me well, I'm going to take whatever good vibes he can give me to try to deal with some challenges back home." Shortly after arriving in Bangkok, Obama, accompanied by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, toured the Viharn of the Reclining Buddha, one of the most famous sites in Thailand, and the Eastern Viharn Phra. Obama and Clinton talked softly with the robed monk as they walked, shoe-less, through the holy temple, Continuing their private tour through an ornate courtyard known as the Phra Maha Chedi Group Clinton remarked "what a peaceful place" it was. "If you have 80,000 people here it's not so peaceful," the president noted. "This is kind of a treat." The president also met and exchanged gifts with ailing King Bhumibol Adulyadej. The president greeted the 84-year-old king at the Siriraj hospital, where he has lived since 2009. "It's a great honor to meet with you," Obama said. "Thank you so much for taking the time to do this. We send greetings from all the people of the United States who are so grateful for the friendship of our two countries and are great admirers of yours - your wisdom and your leadership." The king gave Obama several gifts including one for the First Lady. "Oh, thank you, Michelle, my wife [will] appreciate it," Obama said. "She'll look very good in that color, Mr. President," Clinton remarked. In return, the president gave the king a photo album with pictures of all the U.S. presidents and first ladies he has met, starting with Dwight Eisenhower and continuing through George W Bush. "We left the last page blank," Obama said, so they could add a photo of themselves.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

ykRpOjtEXtJOzRtZ

test

5mGl3gV8UkgZGpWS

race_and_racism

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/entertainment/2020/july/actor-terry-crews-defends-his-decision-to-unite-with-good-people-no-matter-the-race

Actor Terry Crews Defends His Decision to 'Unite With Good People, No Matter The Race'

2020-07-06

Actor Terry Crews continues to speak out against the continued racial tensions across the country by reminding everyone that no race of people is better than another . Over the Fourth of July weekend , Crews tweeted that people of all races are guilty of sin but he has chosen to `` unite with good people , no matter the race , creed or ideology . '' Are all white people bad ? No . Are all black people good ? No . Knowing this reality- I stand on my decision to unite with good people , no matter the race , creed or ideology . Given the number of threats against this decision- I also decide to die on this hill . — terry crews ( @ terrycrews ) July 4 , 2020 The actor has been under the social media microscope for nearly a month now after sharing several of his comments about equality and justice . On June 30 , Crews warned Black Lives Matter activists against turning the movement into `` black lives are better . '' `` If you are a child of God , '' wrote the `` America 's Got Talent '' host , `` you are a brother and sister . I have family of every race , creed , and ideology . We must ensure # BlackLivesMatter does n't morph into # BlackLivesBetter . '' If you are a child of God , you are my brother and sister . I have family of every race , creed and ideology . We must ensure # blacklivesmatter doesn ’ t morph into # blacklivesbetter — terry crews ( @ terrycrews ) June 30 , 2020 And on June 7 , the 51-year-old insisted that we do n't need to be in a race war after tweeting , `` Defeating White supremacy without White people creates Black supremacy . Equality is the truth . Like it or not , we are all in this together . '' Defeating White supremacy without White people creates Black supremacy . Equality is the truth . Like it or not , we are all in this together . — terry crews ( @ terrycrews ) June 7 , 2020 Twitter user Benjamin Dixon said , `` Terry , all this does is reveal to the world that you 've spent the majority of your life not contemplating anything and you 've had your first epiphany . Sadly for you , it was a false epiphany . You 've decided to die on the hill of a false epiphany , and so let it be . '' Terry , all this does is reveal to the world that you 've spent the majority of your life not contemplating anything and you 've had your first epiphany . Sadly for you , it was a false epiphany . You 've decided to die on the hill of a false epiphany , and so let it be . — Benjamin Dixon ( @ BenjaminPDixon ) July 5 , 2020 Another follower wrote , `` I ca n't support you anymore with every tweet its like you just stab my heart . I 'd think you 'd stand for minorities and your black brothers/sisters but you just keep saying these undermining opinions like our pain means nothing . '' But former NFL star and author Burgess Owens agreed with Crews , tweeting , `` Thank you Terry . It 's absurd we live in a day where this even needs to be said . '' Twitter user David Jacobs wrote that it may take a while , `` but love always wins in the end . '' Terry Crews , you picked on honorable hill to die on . Every mixed race family , and everyone who loves their neighbor regardless of race is cheering for you . It takes time , but love always wins in the end. # terrycrews pic.twitter.com/JJQngTmLEu — David Jacobs ( @ DrJacobsRad ) July 4 , 2020 Another follower tweeted , `` It 's sad that you are in this situation . I pray for healing in this nation , however , I fear it has reached a point of no return . Thank you , sir , for taking your stand . '' Following the death of George Floyd , Crews posted an emotional video to Instagram . STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FREE ███ NEWS APP ! Click Here Get the App with Special Alerts on Breaking News and Live Events ! We encourage readers who wish to comment on our material to do so through our Facebook , Twitter , YouTube , and Instagram accounts . God bless you and keep you in His truth .

Actor Terry Crews continues to speak out against the continued racial tensions across the country by reminding everyone that no race of people is better than another. Over the Fourth of July weekend, Crews tweeted that people of all races are guilty of sin but he has chosen to "unite with good people, no matter the race, creed or ideology." Are all white people bad? No. Are all black people good? No. Knowing this reality- I stand on my decision to unite with good people, no matter the race, creed or ideology. Given the number of threats against this decision- I also decide to die on this hill. — terry crews (@terrycrews) July 4, 2020 The actor has been under the social media microscope for nearly a month now after sharing several of his comments about equality and justice. On June 30, Crews warned Black Lives Matter activists against turning the movement into "black lives are better." "If you are a child of God," wrote the "America's Got Talent" host, "you are a brother and sister. I have family of every race, creed, and ideology. We must ensure #BlackLivesMatter doesn't morph into #BlackLivesBetter." If you are a child of God, you are my brother and sister. I have family of every race, creed and ideology. We must ensure #blacklivesmatter doesn’t morph into #blacklivesbetter — terry crews (@terrycrews) June 30, 2020 And on June 7, the 51-year-old insisted that we don't need to be in a race war after tweeting, "Defeating White supremacy without White people creates Black supremacy. Equality is the truth. Like it or not, we are all in this together." Defeating White supremacy without White people creates Black supremacy. Equality is the truth. Like it or not, we are all in this together. — terry crews (@terrycrews) June 7, 2020 Crews' comments have drawn criticism and support. Twitter user Benjamin Dixon said, "Terry, all this does is reveal to the world that you've spent the majority of your life not contemplating anything and you've had your first epiphany. Sadly for you, it was a false epiphany. You've decided to die on the hill of a false epiphany, and so let it be." Terry, all this does is reveal to the world that you've spent the majority of your life not contemplating anything and you've had your first epiphany. Sadly for you, it was a false epiphany. You've decided to die on the hill of a false epiphany, and so let it be. — Benjamin Dixon (@BenjaminPDixon) July 5, 2020 Another follower wrote, "I can't support you anymore with every tweet its like you just stab my heart. I'd think you'd stand for minorities and your black brothers/sisters but you just keep saying these undermining opinions like our pain means nothing." But former NFL star and author Burgess Owens agreed with Crews, tweeting, "Thank you Terry. It's absurd we live in a day where this even needs to be said." Twitter user David Jacobs wrote that it may take a while, "but love always wins in the end." Terry Crews, you picked on honorable hill to die on. Every mixed race family, and everyone who loves their neighbor regardless of race is cheering for you. It takes time, but love always wins in the end.#terrycrews pic.twitter.com/JJQngTmLEu — David Jacobs (@DrJacobsRad) July 4, 2020 Another follower tweeted, "It's sad that you are in this situation. I pray for healing in this nation, however, I fear it has reached a point of no return. Thank you, sir, for taking your stand." Following the death of George Floyd, Crews posted an emotional video to Instagram. STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FREE CBN NEWS APP! Click Here Get the App with Special Alerts on Breaking News and Live Events! We encourage readers who wish to comment on our material to do so through our Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram accounts. God bless you and keep you in His truth.

www1.cbn.com

right

5mGl3gV8UkgZGpWS

test

7r9XPc6TUJUlAvzy

media_bias

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/backfire-the-new-york-times-attack-on-conservative-media/

Backfire: The New York Times Attack on Conservative Media

Jeffrey Lord, Greg Jones, Rael Jean Isaac, Karen Lehrman Bloch, F.H. Buckley, David Catron

The New York Times has decided to blame the El Paso murders not on the actual killer but on “ conservative media stars. ” As here . Specifically , by name , that would be the Fox News evening lineup of Tucker Carlson , Sean Hannity , and Laura Ingraham . Then it goes on to talk radio ’ s Rush Limbaugh , plus Fox and Friends ’ Brian Kilmeade , Fox ’ s Jeanine Pirro , and Ann Coulter . Thrown in along the way were “ outlets like Sinclair Broadcast Group and The Drudge Report to platforms like Breitbart News and Gateway Pundit , ” with a specific mention of Sinclair ’ s Boris Epshteyn . And oh yes , there was a reference to former Nixon and Reagan aide and columnist Pat Buchanan . Suffice to say , the smear instantly backfired on the Times itself . Big time . There is a striking degree of overlap between the words of right-wing media personalities and the language used by the Texas man who confessed to killing 22 people at a Walmart in El Paso this month . In a 2,300-word screed posted on the website 8chan , the killer wrote that he was “ simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion . ” Got that ? There was a “ striking degree of overlap ” between the language of these conservative media stars and “ the language used by ” the El Paso killer in his so-called “ manifesto . ” Well , now . What did the Times story mysteriously leave out ? This . To borrow from the Times , “ There is a striking degree of overlap between the words of left-wing Democratic presidential candidates and the New York Times and the language used by ” the Texas shooter . The inconvenient truth is that our leaders , both Democrat AND Republican , have been failing us for decades . They are either complacent or involved in one of the biggest betrayals of the American public in our history . The takeover of the United States government by unchecked corporations . Where would the killer get such an idea ? Where would he pick up such anti-corporate language ? He could start by reading this November 25 , 2018 column by New York Times opinion columnist David Leonhardt titled : The Monopolization of America In one industry after another , big companies have become more dominant over the past 15 years , new data show . In which the Times columnist says this ( bold print supplied ) : Hostility to corporate bigness animated Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt , as well as the labor movement , Granger movement , Progressive movement and more . Of course , monopolies and other corporate giants have fought back against these assaults on their power , and sometimes succeeded for years or decades at a time . It happened during the age of Rockefeller and Morgan . Over the past 40 years , it has happened again . The federal government , under presidents of both parties , has largely surrendered to monopoly power . “ The ‘ anti ’ in ‘ antitrust ’ has been discarded , ” as the legal scholar Tim Wu puts it in his new book , “ The Curse of Bigness. ” Washington allows most megamergers to proceed either straight up or with only fig-leaf changes . The government has also done nothing to prevent the emergence of dominant new technology companies that mimic the old AT & T monopoly . Then there was this language by another Times columnist , Farhad Manjoo , assailing five specific corporations : In which Manjoo says this of big corporations “ Amazon , Apple , Facebook , Microsoft and Alphabet , the parent company of Google ” : This is the most glaring and underappreciated fact of internet-age capitalism : We are , all of us , in inescapable thrall to one of the handful of American technology companies that now dominate much of the global economy . Manjoo closes by saying this of the dominance by these five giant corporations : “ It ’ s too late to escape . ” Not to be left out is this Times jewel assailing corporations , this one written by Steven Davidoff Solomon , identified as “ a professor of law at the University of California , Berkeley. ” The Times published Professor Solomon as saying this of big corporations and their use of “ corporate inversions ” : If you thought there was a problem with inversions — deals that allow American companies to relocate their headquarters to lower their tax bills — wait until you hear about the real secret to avoiding corporate taxes . It ’ s called earnings stripping , and it is a technique that the Obama administration has so far failed to stop . The public outcry over the use of inversions is now entering its third year . Pfizer is trying the biggest one yet , a $ 152 billion deal for Allergan , the maker of Botox , which is based in Dublin . The flight of American icons like Pfizer has led to complaints that corporations are gaming the system to lower the taxes they pay to Washington . At the same time , the companies stay in the United States , getting all the benefits of our country . One could go on and on with examples of New York Times language assailing the power of corporations , their evasions of taxes , and more . Language that matches exactly the language of the El Paso shooter . But let ’ s move on to Democratic presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders . Warren , it turns out , had a fan in the Dayton , Ohio , shooter . And Warren ’ s language on corporations and their power couldn ’ t be missed . Examples ? Here is the Atlantic running a piece on Warren ’ s views on corporate power as written by Stacy Mitchell , “ Co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. ” The headline : The Atlantic story says that Warren believes “ that big corporations ’ political influence and market dominance are killing smaller rivals , and that small-business owners share interests with other victims of corporate power . ” Replying to Mitt Romney ’ s statement in 2008 that “ corporations are people , ” Warren said : No , Governor Romney , corporations are not people . People have hearts , they have kids , they get jobs , they get sick , they love , and they die . And that matters . That matter because we don ’ t run this country for corporations , we run it for people . People feel the system is rigged against them . And here ’ s the painful part . They ’ re right . The system is rigged . Look around . Oil companies guzzle down billions in subsidies . Wall Street CEOs — the same ones who wrecked our economy and destroyed millions of jobs — still strut around Congress , no shame , demanding favors , and acting like we should thank them . There is infinitely more of Warren assailing corporate power , but let ’ s move to Bernie Sanders . Here is Sanders saying this on page 273 of his book Our Revolution : Corporate tax reform must start by preventing profitable companies from sheltering profits in tax haven countries like the Cayman Islands . In 2015 , I introduced legislation with Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii and Representative Jan Schakowsky of Illinois to do just that . The Corporate Tax Dodging Prevention Act would end the loophole that allows corporations to defer paying taxes on overseas profits . Instead , it would require corporations to pay U.S. taxes on offshore profits as they are earned . This bill would take away the tax incentives for corporations to shift profits and move jobs and factories offshore , by taxing their profits no matter where they are generated . American corporations would continue to get a credit against their U.S. tax liability for foreign taxes they pay , but they would have to pay the federal government the difference between the foreign rate and the U.S. rate . Also in the Sanders book was this attack on corporations and their control of the media : In 1983 the largest fifty corporations controlled 90 percent of the media . That ’ s a high level of concentration . Today , as a result of massive mergers and takeovers , six corporations control 90 percent of what we see , hear , and read . This is outrageous , and a real threat to our democracy . On and on and on I could go with attacks on corporations and corporate power by the New York Times and Senators Warren and Sanders — not to mention other Democratic presidential candidates . There is no question that in both exact language and certainly in sentiment the views repeatedly expressed by the Times , Warren , and Sanders matches exactly the language and sentiment of the El Paso killer on corporations and corporate power . Surprise ? In this not so-cleverly disguised attack on Tucker , Sean , Laura , Rush , and the rest , the Times mentions nary a peep of the similarity in language between the shooter ’ s “ manifesto ” and the Times itself , as well as Warren and Sanders . Say again : not … a … single … word . The obvious conclusion ? The left-wing paper wanted to shift responsibility for the shooting from the shooter and blame the stars of conservative media . But in playing this game the New York Times managed to hit a decidedly unintended target : the New York Times itself .

Backfire. The New York Times has decided to blame the El Paso murders not on the actual killer but on “conservative media stars.” As here. Specifically, by name, that would be the Fox News evening lineup of Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham. Then it goes on to talk radio’s Rush Limbaugh, plus Fox and Friends’ Brian Kilmeade, Fox’s Jeanine Pirro, and Ann Coulter. Thrown in along the way were “outlets like Sinclair Broadcast Group and The Drudge Report to platforms like Breitbart News and Gateway Pundit,” with a specific mention of Sinclair’s Boris Epshteyn. And oh yes, there was a reference to former Nixon and Reagan aide and columnist Pat Buchanan. Suffice to say, the smear instantly backfired on the Times itself. Big time. Let’s start with the Times’ reasoning on this smear: There is a striking degree of overlap between the words of right-wing media personalities and the language used by the Texas man who confessed to killing 22 people at a Walmart in El Paso this month. In a 2,300-word screed posted on the website 8chan, the killer wrote that he was “simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion.” Got that? There was a “striking degree of overlap” between the language of these conservative media stars and “the language used by” the El Paso killer in his so-called “manifesto.” Well, now. What did the Times story mysteriously leave out? This. To borrow from the Times, “There is a striking degree of overlap between the words of left-wing Democratic presidential candidates and the New York Times and the language used by” the Texas shooter. Let’s get specific. Says the killer: The inconvenient truth is that our leaders, both Democrat AND Republican, have been failing us for decades. They are either complacent or involved in one of the biggest betrayals of the American public in our history. The takeover of the United States government by unchecked corporations. Where would the killer get such an idea? Where would he pick up such anti-corporate language? He could start by reading this November 25, 2018 column by New York Times opinion columnist David Leonhardt titled: The Monopolization of America In one industry after another, big companies have become more dominant over the past 15 years, new data show. In which the Times columnist says this (bold print supplied): Hostility to corporate bigness animated Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt, as well as the labor movement, Granger movement, Progressive movement and more. Of course, monopolies and other corporate giants have fought back against these assaults on their power, and sometimes succeeded for years or decades at a time. It happened during the age of Rockefeller and Morgan. Over the past 40 years, it has happened again. The federal government, under presidents of both parties, has largely surrendered to monopoly power. “The ‘anti’ in ‘antitrust’ has been discarded,” as the legal scholar Tim Wu puts it in his new book, “The Curse of Bigness.” Washington allows most megamergers to proceed either straight up or with only fig-leaf changes. The government has also done nothing to prevent the emergence of dominant new technology companies that mimic the old AT&T monopoly. Then there was this language by another Times columnist, Farhad Manjoo, assailing five specific corporations: Tech’s Frightful Five: They’ve Got Us In which Manjoo says this of big corporations “Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Alphabet, the parent company of Google”: This is the most glaring and underappreciated fact of internet-age capitalism: We are, all of us, in inescapable thrall to one of the handful of American technology companies that now dominate much of the global economy. Manjoo closes by saying this of the dominance by these five giant corporations: “It’s too late to escape.” Not to be left out is this Times jewel assailing corporations, this one written by Steven Davidoff Solomon, identified as “a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley.” The Times published Professor Solomon as saying this of big corporations and their use of “corporate inversions”: If you thought there was a problem with inversions — deals that allow American companies to relocate their headquarters to lower their tax bills — wait until you hear about the real secret to avoiding corporate taxes. It’s called earnings stripping, and it is a technique that the Obama administration has so far failed to stop. The public outcry over the use of inversions is now entering its third year. Pfizer is trying the biggest one yet, a $152 billion deal for Allergan, the maker of Botox, which is based in Dublin. The flight of American icons like Pfizer has led to complaints that corporations are gaming the system to lower the taxes they pay to Washington. At the same time, the companies stay in the United States, getting all the benefits of our country. One could go on and on with examples of New York Times language assailing the power of corporations, their evasions of taxes, and more. Language that matches exactly the language of the El Paso shooter. But let’s move on to Democratic presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Warren, it turns out, had a fan in the Dayton, Ohio, shooter. And Warren’s language on corporations and their power couldn’t be missed. Examples? Here is the Atlantic running a piece on Warren’s views on corporate power as written by Stacy Mitchell, “Co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.” The headline: Elizabeth Warren Has a Theory About Corporate Power The Atlantic story says that Warren believes “that big corporations’ political influence and market dominance are killing smaller rivals, and that small-business owners share interests with other victims of corporate power.” Replying to Mitt Romney’s statement in 2008 that “corporations are people,” Warren said: No, Governor Romney, corporations are not people. People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs, they get sick, they love, and they die. And that matters. That matter because we don’t run this country for corporations, we run it for people. People feel the system is rigged against them. And here’s the painful part. They’re right. The system is rigged. Look around. Oil companies guzzle down billions in subsidies. Wall Street CEOs — the same ones who wrecked our economy and destroyed millions of jobs — still strut around Congress, no shame, demanding favors, and acting like we should thank them. There is infinitely more of Warren assailing corporate power, but let’s move to Bernie Sanders. Here is Sanders saying this on page 273 of his book Our Revolution: Corporate tax reform must start by preventing profitable companies from sheltering profits in tax haven countries like the Cayman Islands. In 2015, I introduced legislation with Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii and Representative Jan Schakowsky of Illinois to do just that. The Corporate Tax Dodging Prevention Act would end the loophole that allows corporations to defer paying taxes on overseas profits. Instead, it would require corporations to pay U.S. taxes on offshore profits as they are earned. This bill would take away the tax incentives for corporations to shift profits and move jobs and factories offshore, by taxing their profits no matter where they are generated. American corporations would continue to get a credit against their U.S. tax liability for foreign taxes they pay, but they would have to pay the federal government the difference between the foreign rate and the U.S. rate. Also in the Sanders book was this attack on corporations and their control of the media: In 1983 the largest fifty corporations controlled 90 percent of the media. That’s a high level of concentration. Today, as a result of massive mergers and takeovers, six corporations control 90 percent of what we see, hear, and read. This is outrageous, and a real threat to our democracy. On and on and on I could go with attacks on corporations and corporate power by the New York Times and Senators Warren and Sanders — not to mention other Democratic presidential candidates. There is no question that in both exact language and certainly in sentiment the views repeatedly expressed by the Times, Warren, and Sanders matches exactly the language and sentiment of the El Paso killer on corporations and corporate power. Surprise? In this not so-cleverly disguised attack on Tucker, Sean, Laura, Rush, and the rest, the Times mentions nary a peep of the similarity in language between the shooter’s “manifesto” and the Times itself, as well as Warren and Sanders. Say again: not … a … single … word. The obvious conclusion? The left-wing paper wanted to shift responsibility for the shooting from the shooter and blame the stars of conservative media. But in playing this game the New York Times managed to hit a decidedly unintended target: the New York Times itself. Oops!

www.spectator.org

right

7r9XPc6TUJUlAvzy

test

FMB8vAt5lVI9kpFJ

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/31/here-are-the-18-things-hillary-blames-for-her-election-defeat/

Here Are The 18 Things Hillary Blames For Her Election Defeat

2017-05-31

Hillary Clinton blamed the Democratic National Committee , Facebook , and conspiracy site Infowars Wednesday for her election defeat during an interview in which she pointed at a total of 18 alleged guilty parties for her big loss . At a conference held by technology news site Recode , Clinton said that she inherited “ nothing ” from the DNC after winning the nomination . “ It was bankrupt , ” the failed presidential candidate and former first lady said . Clinton also blamed alleged Russian election interference for his loss . “ The Russians , in my opinion , and based on the intel and counter-intel people I ’ ve talked to , could not have known how best to weaponize that information unless they had been guided…by Americans , ” Clinton said in reference to fake news websites . She went on to add that the content of her campaign chairman John Podesta ’ s emails released by WikiLeaks were boring , but that “ allies ” like Infowars pulled out “ outrageous ” and “ absurd ” lies from them . The WikiLeaks emails did reveal much about Hillary Clinton and her campaign , including that she thinks people who oppose immigration are “ un-American , ” that her “ dream is open borders , ” and multiple incidents of collusion with journalists . ( RELATED : The 44 Most Damning Stories From WikiLeaks ) During the same event , Clinton also attacked Facebook , Twitter bots , The New York Times , Steve Bannon , and the media in general . She said the “ vast majority of news items ” about her on Facebook were fake and said that the Times covered her use of a private email server like it was “ Pearl Harbor . ” Clinton stated that the coverage of her at some point bled “ over into misogyny. ” In her first profile since losing the election , Clinton and her allies also reiterated that sexism was a factor to blame for her loss . “ I think a lot of people didn ’ t believe those of us who were yelling that it was hard to elect a woman president , ” Jess McIntosh , her campaign ’ s director of communications outreach , told New York magazine . The failed presidential candidate added that former FBI Director James Comey “ was more than happy to talk about my emails , but he wouldn ’ t talk about investigation of the Russians. ” The Washington Free Beacon ’ s Alex Griswold documented that Clinton also blamed Wisconsin Gov . Scott , Walker , writer Nate Silver , voter suppression , racism , and Google .

Hillary Clinton blamed the Democratic National Committee, Facebook, and conspiracy site Infowars Wednesday for her election defeat during an interview in which she pointed at a total of 18 alleged guilty parties for her big loss. At a conference held by technology news site Recode, Clinton said that she inherited “nothing” from the DNC after winning the nomination. “It was bankrupt,” the failed presidential candidate and former first lady said. Clinton also blamed alleged Russian election interference for his loss. “The Russians, in my opinion, and based on the intel and counter-intel people I’ve talked to, could not have known how best to weaponize that information unless they had been guided…by Americans,” Clinton said in reference to fake news websites. She went on to add that the content of her campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails released by WikiLeaks were boring, but that “allies” like Infowars pulled out “outrageous” and “absurd” lies from them. The WikiLeaks emails did reveal much about Hillary Clinton and her campaign, including that she thinks people who oppose immigration are “un-American,” that her “dream is open borders,” and multiple incidents of collusion with journalists. (RELATED: The 44 Most Damning Stories From WikiLeaks) During the same event, Clinton also attacked Facebook, Twitter bots, The New York Times, Steve Bannon, and the media in general. She said the “vast majority of news items” about her on Facebook were fake and said that the Times covered her use of a private email server like it was “Pearl Harbor.” Clinton stated that the coverage of her at some point bled “over into misogyny.” In her first profile since losing the election, Clinton and her allies also reiterated that sexism was a factor to blame for her loss. “I think a lot of people didn’t believe those of us who were yelling that it was hard to elect a woman president,” Jess McIntosh, her campaign’s director of communications outreach, told New York magazine. The failed presidential candidate added that former FBI Director James Comey “was more than happy to talk about my emails, but he wouldn’t talk about investigation of the Russians.” The Washington Free Beacon’s Alex Griswold documented that Clinton also blamed Wisconsin Gov. Scott, Walker, writer Nate Silver, voter suppression, racism, and Google.

www.dailycaller.com

right

FMB8vAt5lVI9kpFJ

test

4c1RAB1Ba7egT5Th

lgbt_rights

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/18/transgender-brazilian-wax-jessica-yaniv-predator/

Trans Woman Shutters Immigrant’s Business For Refusing To Wax Male Genitalia

2019-07-18

Jessica Yaniv , a transgender Canadian woman , has filed over a dozen gender-identity discrimination complaints against women in the Vancouver area who have refused to perform Brazilian bikini wax procedures on her male genitalia . Yaniv ’ s identity was revealed Wednesday after the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal overturned an order protecting Yaniv ’ s identity from being disclosed by the Canadian press . However , Yaniv ’ s identity has long been suspected by the public , according to John Carpay , President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms , which is representing five women Yaniv has filed complaints against . One proud lesbian . I ’ ll never give up fighting for human rights equality . # LGBTQoftwitter pic.twitter.com/sKyjJ0Um39 — Jessica Yaniv ( @ trustednerd ) June 16 , 2019 Carpay says the women Yaniv has filed complaints against are mostly poor immigrant women who speak English as a second language . He believes multiple women have likely been forced to shut down their businesses as a result of Yaniv ’ s complaints , as he told ███ . In the hearing Wednesday , Maria Da Silva , an immigrant from Brazil with young children , testified that Yaniv ’ s complaint forced her to close the Brazilian wax business she operated out of her home . The women who refused Yaniv the procedure say they are not qualified to perform a Brazilian wax service on male genitalia , as it is entirely different from the service intended for women . An esthetician who does perform Brazilian waxes on men testified at an earlier hearing that this service requires completely different expertise . The Human Rights Tribunal has not announced their decision on the cases , and will not do so until a few weeks or months have passed , according to Carpay . Besides being unqualified for the procedure , Carpay says the women facing complaints have religious and safety reasons for denying Yaniv the service . Esthetician Sukhi Hehar Gill , a practicing Sikh , says she denied Yaniv ’ s request for the procedure because it is contrary to her faith to travel to a client ’ s house if they are biologically male , according to the Justice Centre . Yaniv posted a tweet Thursday arguing the refusal of women to wax her genitalia is “ about businesses and individuals using their religion and culture to refuse service to protected groups . ” This is not about waxing . This is about businesses and individuals using their religion and culture to refuse service to protected groups because -they- don ’ t agree with it or the person and use that to illegally discriminate contrary to the BC Human Rights Code and the CHRC . https : //t.co/34XIklXXbh — Jessica Yaniv ( @ trustednerd ) July 18 , 2019 It is “ certainly very traumatic ” for these women to go before the Human Rights Tribunal , said Carpay . “ Some of my clients have been very significantly affected on a personal level . [ Another client also ] closed her business , she has been depressed , anxious , sleepless and that has gone on for a period of many many months , ” said Justice Centre lawyer Jay Cameron , according to the Post Millennial . Even if the women are successful in defending themselves against the allegations of discrimination in violation of section eight of the British Columbia Human Rights Code , the complaint could cost them $ 10,000 , $ 20,000 or even $ 30,000 in legal fees , said Carpay . He also believes some women have already paid Yaniv thousands of dollars in settlement money to avoid going to court . The Justice Centre is providing representation to the women free of charge . The Justice Centre testified in the hearing that Yaniv has a history of withdrawing complaints against estheticians when a woman has legal representation . According to Carpay , the tribunal said they found this pattern “ disconcerting . ” Derogatory comments Yaniv has made towards people of Indian ancestry were introduced in the proceedings as part of assessing Yaniv ’ s credibility as a witness , given that the accused estheticians are immigrants , said Carpay . Yaniv called people of Indian ancestry “ curry shoving crapheads , ” among other negative statements towards immigrants . The tribunal said it is “ troubled that some of Yaniv ’ s comments , made within this process and online , ” suggest that Yaniv “ holds stereotypical and negative views about immigrants to Canada , ” according to the Justice Centre . In addition , comments Yaniv has made regarding girls and tampons and girls in locker rooms were introduced in the hearing to assess Yaniv ’ s credibility as a witness , according to Carpay . Dozens of texts by “ Jonathan Yaniv , ” which are publicly online , show Yaniv discussing girls as young as 10 to 12 in extremely disturbing terms . “ if I notice a girl that ’ s nude below and has a tampon string coming out when I ’ m changing and doing my stuff , is it weird to approach her to ask her for a tampon ? or pad ? Just to bond with her a bit over period stuff… . I really want to make friends in there , that ’ s kinda a goal of mine , ” Yaniv said . “ If there ’ s like 30 girls in the change room , how many of them would you say are out there changing freely with their vaginas and tits out ? ” Jessica Yaniv said under the name “ Jonathan Yaniv . ” When a Twitter user asked Yaniv : “ Have you asked any young girls if they want help inserting their tampon recently ? ” , Yaniv responded that she had not ever done so . * she , and no , I didn ’ t — Jessica Yaniv ( @ trustednerd ) July 15 , 2019 Yaniv also faces accusations of online predatory behavior towards underage girls , but this was not introduced in court proceedings . Morgane Oger , a transgender woman who is a candidate for the Vancouver-Centre National Democratic Party nomination and is a transgender activist , says she spent months researching allegations of inappropriate online predatory behavior by Yaniv , according to her April 2019 blog post . Oger says she spoke to women and girls who have accused Yaniv of predatory behavior . “ I tracked down and heard witnesses with first-person accounts of Jessica ’ s online behaviour spanning 2013 to 2018 , ” Oger said . “ Their stories included reports and evidence of outrageously inappropriate acts , some towards children who are tweens and teens . Some of the material has survived as screenshots , and what I saw shows what strikes me as a pattern of predatory behaviour . ” Oger says she “ urged each woman to make a complaint with police , ” about Jessica Yaniv ’ s alleged behavior towards them . As a transgender woman herself , Oger was careful to stress her belief that Yaniv ’ s behavior is entirely separate from her transgender identity , and to condemn those who echoed the allegations in a way that was “ steeped in transphobia. ” Oger noted the allegations against Yaniv have not been proven or ruled on by a court . Oger says Yaniv told her the allegedly predatorial statements were taken out of context . Oger added that to her knowledge , Yaniv has never come publicly clean about this behavior . Twitter screenshots show Yaniv asking women or girls ( their age is unknown ) how old they are in 2011 . Multiple women , including Meghan Murphy , Canadian journalist and founder of Feminist Current , and Lindsay Shepherd , Canadian columnist and free speech advocate , have been banned from Twitter because of their statements towards Jessica Yaniv . Meghan Murphy tweeted : “ Is it true that the man responsible for trying to extort money from estheticians who refused to give him a Brazilian bikini wax is @ trustednerd [ Jessica Yaniv ] ? Why the f * * * is the court/media protecting this guy ’ s identity either way ? The women he targeted don ’ t get that luxury . ” Murphy was banned from Twitter after she tweeted in response to her earlier question : “ Yeah it ’ s him , ” which was classified as “ hate speech. ” Twitter has a policy against intentionally misgendering people . Murphy had previously been suspended for statements that called transgender women “ men. ” ( Related : Feminist Banned By Twitter Fires Back With Lawsuit ) Carpay expressed confidence in the arguments the estheticians made . “ We believe the women have strong grounds for having refused the request , ” he told ███ . “ We think we have a strong argument . ”

Jessica Yaniv, a transgender Canadian woman, has filed over a dozen gender-identity discrimination complaints against women in the Vancouver area who have refused to perform Brazilian bikini wax procedures on her male genitalia. Yaniv’s identity was revealed Wednesday after the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal overturned an order protecting Yaniv’s identity from being disclosed by the Canadian press. However, Yaniv’s identity has long been suspected by the public, according to John Carpay, President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which is representing five women Yaniv has filed complaints against. One proud lesbian. I’ll never give up fighting for human rights equality. #LGBTQoftwitter pic.twitter.com/sKyjJ0Um39 — Jessica Yaniv (@trustednerd) June 16, 2019 Carpay says the women Yaniv has filed complaints against are mostly poor immigrant women who speak English as a second language. He believes multiple women have likely been forced to shut down their businesses as a result of Yaniv’s complaints, as he told the Daily Caller. In the hearing Wednesday, Maria Da Silva, an immigrant from Brazil with young children, testified that Yaniv’s complaint forced her to close the Brazilian wax business she operated out of her home. The women who refused Yaniv the procedure say they are not qualified to perform a Brazilian wax service on male genitalia, as it is entirely different from the service intended for women. An esthetician who does perform Brazilian waxes on men testified at an earlier hearing that this service requires completely different expertise. The Human Rights Tribunal has not announced their decision on the cases, and will not do so until a few weeks or months have passed, according to Carpay. Besides being unqualified for the procedure, Carpay says the women facing complaints have religious and safety reasons for denying Yaniv the service. Esthetician Sukhi Hehar Gill, a practicing Sikh, says she denied Yaniv’s request for the procedure because it is contrary to her faith to travel to a client’s house if they are biologically male, according to the Justice Centre. Yaniv posted a tweet Thursday arguing the refusal of women to wax her genitalia is “about businesses and individuals using their religion and culture to refuse service to protected groups.” This is not about waxing. This is about businesses and individuals using their religion and culture to refuse service to protected groups because -they- don’t agree with it or the person and use that to illegally discriminate contrary to the BC Human Rights Code and the CHRC. https://t.co/34XIklXXbh — Jessica Yaniv (@trustednerd) July 18, 2019 It is “certainly very traumatic” for these women to go before the Human Rights Tribunal, said Carpay. “Some of my clients have been very significantly affected on a personal level. [Another client also] closed her business, she has been depressed, anxious, sleepless and that has gone on for a period of many many months,” said Justice Centre lawyer Jay Cameron, according to the Post Millennial. Even if the women are successful in defending themselves against the allegations of discrimination in violation of section eight of the British Columbia Human Rights Code, the complaint could cost them $10,000, $20,000 or even $30,000 in legal fees, said Carpay. He also believes some women have already paid Yaniv thousands of dollars in settlement money to avoid going to court. The Justice Centre is providing representation to the women free of charge. The Justice Centre testified in the hearing that Yaniv has a history of withdrawing complaints against estheticians when a woman has legal representation. According to Carpay, the tribunal said they found this pattern “disconcerting.” Derogatory comments Yaniv has made towards people of Indian ancestry were introduced in the proceedings as part of assessing Yaniv’s credibility as a witness, given that the accused estheticians are immigrants, said Carpay. Yaniv called people of Indian ancestry “curry shoving crapheads,” among other negative statements towards immigrants. The tribunal said it is “troubled that some of Yaniv’s comments, made within this process and online,” suggest that Yaniv “holds stereotypical and negative views about immigrants to Canada,” according to the Justice Centre. In addition, comments Yaniv has made regarding girls and tampons and girls in locker rooms were introduced in the hearing to assess Yaniv’s credibility as a witness, according to Carpay. Dozens of texts by “Jonathan Yaniv,” which are publicly online, show Yaniv discussing girls as young as 10 to 12 in extremely disturbing terms. “if I notice a girl that’s nude below and has a tampon string coming out when I’m changing and doing my stuff, is it weird to approach her to ask her for a tampon? or pad? Just to bond with her a bit over period stuff…. I really want to make friends in there, that’s kinda a goal of mine,” Yaniv said. “If there’s like 30 girls in the change room, how many of them would you say are out there changing freely with their vaginas and tits out?” Jessica Yaniv said under the name “Jonathan Yaniv.” When a Twitter user asked Yaniv: “Have you asked any young girls if they want help inserting their tampon recently?”, Yaniv responded that she had not ever done so. *she, and no, I didn’t — Jessica Yaniv (@trustednerd) July 15, 2019 Yaniv also faces accusations of online predatory behavior towards underage girls, but this was not introduced in court proceedings. Morgane Oger, a transgender woman who is a candidate for the Vancouver-Centre National Democratic Party nomination and is a transgender activist, says she spent months researching allegations of inappropriate online predatory behavior by Yaniv, according to her April 2019 blog post. Oger says she spoke to women and girls who have accused Yaniv of predatory behavior. “I tracked down and heard witnesses with first-person accounts of Jessica’s online behaviour spanning 2013 to 2018,” Oger said. “Their stories included reports and evidence of outrageously inappropriate acts, some towards children who are tweens and teens. Some of the material has survived as screenshots, and what I saw shows what strikes me as a pattern of predatory behaviour.” Oger says she “urged each woman to make a complaint with police,” about Jessica Yaniv’s alleged behavior towards them. As a transgender woman herself, Oger was careful to stress her belief that Yaniv’s behavior is entirely separate from her transgender identity, and to condemn those who echoed the allegations in a way that was “steeped in transphobia.” Oger noted the allegations against Yaniv have not been proven or ruled on by a court. Oger says Yaniv told her the allegedly predatorial statements were taken out of context. Oger added that to her knowledge, Yaniv has never come publicly clean about this behavior. Twitter screenshots show Yaniv asking women or girls (their age is unknown) how old they are in 2011. Multiple women, including Meghan Murphy, Canadian journalist and founder of Feminist Current, and Lindsay Shepherd, Canadian columnist and free speech advocate, have been banned from Twitter because of their statements towards Jessica Yaniv. Meghan Murphy tweeted: “Is it true that the man responsible for trying to extort money from estheticians who refused to give him a Brazilian bikini wax is @trustednerd [Jessica Yaniv]? Why the f*** is the court/media protecting this guy’s identity either way? The women he targeted don’t get that luxury.” Murphy was banned from Twitter after she tweeted in response to her earlier question: “Yeah it’s him,” which was classified as “hate speech.” Twitter has a policy against intentionally misgendering people. Murphy had previously been suspended for statements that called transgender women “men.” (Related: Feminist Banned By Twitter Fires Back With Lawsuit) Carpay expressed confidence in the arguments the estheticians made. “We believe the women have strong grounds for having refused the request,” he told the Daily Caller. “We think we have a strong argument.”

www.dailycaller.com

right

4c1RAB1Ba7egT5Th

test

cVhYvD5ROIhjU6DZ

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48990760

Theresa May condemns Trump's 'go back' remark to congresswomen

UK Prime Minister Theresa May has criticised US President Donald Trump for calling on several Democratic congresswomen of colour to `` go back '' . The outgoing PM called Mr Trump 's words `` completely unacceptable '' , according to her spokesperson . Mr Trump said the women `` originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe '' . He was referring to four congresswomen - three who were born in the US and one who came as a child refugee . His remarks were widely condemned as racist , and as having gone beyond previous statements and actions by the president that drew allegations of racism . Prospective Democratic presidential candidates denounced Mr Trump 's tweets as racist and divisive . Republican Party representatives largely kept quiet . Despite the criticism , President Trump launched another Twitter tirade on Monday morning , calling on the women themselves to apologise . The women - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley , and Ilhan Omar , who came to the US as a refugee aged 12 - all called the president racist and were backed by members of the Democratic Party . Ms Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Bronx in New York , approximately 12 miles away from the Queens hospital where Mr Trump was born . Mrs May resigned as leader of the UK 's governing Conservative Party in June after being unable to get a Brexit deal through parliament . Two candidates are currently vying to replace her as prime minister . In Sunday 's three-tweet thread , Mr Trump accused the congresswomen of `` viciously '' criticising him and the US . The president did not explicitly name the women , but the context - and references to Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - made a clear link . He said Ms Pelosi would happily organise for them to leave the country . A week ago , Ms Pelosi clashed with the four women - sometimes nicknamed `` the squad '' - but she has since come to their defence following his tweets . The president wrote : `` So interesting to see 'progressive ' Democrat congresswomen , who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe , the worst , most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world ( if they even have a functioning government at all ) , now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States , the greatest and most powerful nation on earth , how our government is to be run . `` Why do n't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came . Then come back and show us how it is done . `` These places need your help badly , you ca n't leave fast enough . I 'm sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements ! '' There have been internal feuds among Democrats over a border funding package , with Ms Pelosi arguing in favour of the package , and the four women - all newcomers to Congress with a progressive agenda - voting against . Last week , Ms Ocasio-Cortez accused Ms Pelosi of singling out these women of colour for criticism . On Monday , Mr Trump lashed out again in two tweets . `` When will the Radical Left Congresswomen apologise to our country , the people of Israel and even to the office of the President , for the foul language they have used , and the terrible things they have said . So many people are angry at them and their horrible and disgusting actions , '' he said . `` If Democrats want to unite around the foul language and racist hatred spewed from the mouths and actions of these very unpopular and unrepresentative Congresswomen , it will be interesting to see how it plays out . I can tell you that they have made Israel feel abandoned by the US . '' Mr Trump was referring to a prior row with Ms Omar , who has faced accusations of anti-Semitism over comments she made about Israel and pro-Israel lobbyists earlier this year . Ms Tlaib , the other Muslim serving in Congress , has also had to defend herself from calls of anti-Semitism from Republicans after she discussed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on a Yahoo News Podcast in May . Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau signalled his dislike of Mr Trump 's comments , saying on Monday : `` That is not how we do things in Canada . '' `` I think Canadians and indeed people around the world know exactly what I think about those particular comments , '' he said , adding : `` A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian '' . Ms Pelosi quoted Mr Trump 's tweets and described them as `` xenophobic '' . `` When @ realDonaldTrump tells four American congresswomen to go back to their countries , he reaffirms his plan to 'Make America Great Again ' has always been about making America white again . Our diversity is our strength and our unity is our power , '' she wrote . Ms Tlaib , congresswoman for Michigan 's 13th district , tweeted calling for Mr Trump 's impeachment . Ms Ocasio-Cortez tweeted at Mr Trump : `` On top of not accepting an America that elected us , you can not accept that we do n't fear you either . '' Ms Omar told the president that he was `` stoking white nationalism because you are angry that people like us are serving in Congress and fighting against your hate-filled agenda '' . And Ms Pressley shared a screenshot of Mr Trump 's tweet , adding : `` THIS is what racism looks like . WE are what democracy looks like . '' Candidates for the Democrat presidential nomination , including Elizabeth Warren , Beto O'Rourke and Bernie Sanders , condemned Mr Trump 's remarks as racist . Senior Republicans have declined to comment , although one , Senator Lindsey Graham , advised President Trump to `` aim higher '' . In an interview with Fox Television on Monday , he said the women were US citizens who were `` duly elected '' and said the president should take issue with their policies instead of making personal attacks . However , he also described the women as `` a bunch of communists '' . Mr Trump did not specifically mention a link to recent news events , but immigration at the southern border was a dominant topic in US news at the weekend . On Friday , Ms Ocasio-Cortez , Ms Tlaib and Ms Pressley testified to a House committee about conditions in a migrant detention centre they had visited . They expressed horror about alleged mistreatment happening `` under American flags '' . Ms Ocasio-Cortez said migrants told her they had drunk water from toilets because sinks were broken . Vice-President Mike Pence also toured a facility on Friday . He said everyone was being `` well cared for '' . The president tweeted that children 's detention centres had had `` great reviews '' and the adult male areas were `` loaded up with a big percentage of criminals '' . Mr Trump has been accused of racism before in connection with different incidents . For years , he made false claims that former President Barack Obama was not born in the US - propagating the racist `` birther '' conspiracy . He has also made numerous slurs against Central American migrants , calling them criminals and rapists . In 2018 , he faced criticism from both Democrats and Republicans after reports said that during a meeting at the White House he called African nations `` shitholes '' . When white supremacists marched in Charlottesville , Virginia , resulting in the death of 32-year-old counter protester Heather Heyer , the president said there were `` good people on both sides '' . Mr Trump and his father Fred Trump were sued by the Department of Justice in 1973 for discrimination against African Americans in their renting practices . They settled the case without admitting guilt in 1975 but were accused again by the justice department in 1978 of an `` underlying pattern of discrimination '' against black tenants . In 2018 , President Trump told a reporter : `` I am not a racist . I 'm the least racist person you have ever interviewed '' .

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (left), Rashida Tlaib (centre) and Ayanna Pressley (right) UK Prime Minister Theresa May has criticised US President Donald Trump for calling on several Democratic congresswomen of colour to "go back". The outgoing PM called Mr Trump's words "completely unacceptable", according to her spokesperson. Mr Trump said the women "originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe". He was referring to four congresswomen - three who were born in the US and one who came as a child refugee. His remarks were widely condemned as racist, and as having gone beyond previous statements and actions by the president that drew allegations of racism. Prospective Democratic presidential candidates denounced Mr Trump's tweets as racist and divisive. Republican Party representatives largely kept quiet. Despite the criticism, President Trump launched another Twitter tirade on Monday morning, calling on the women themselves to apologise. The women - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley, and Ilhan Omar, who came to the US as a refugee aged 12 - all called the president racist and were backed by members of the Democratic Party. Ms Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Bronx in New York, approximately 12 miles away from the Queens hospital where Mr Trump was born. Mrs May resigned as leader of the UK's governing Conservative Party in June after being unable to get a Brexit deal through parliament. Two candidates are currently vying to replace her as prime minister. What did the president say? In Sunday's three-tweet thread, Mr Trump accused the congresswomen of "viciously" criticising him and the US. The president did not explicitly name the women, but the context - and references to Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - made a clear link. He said Ms Pelosi would happily organise for them to leave the country. A week ago, Ms Pelosi clashed with the four women - sometimes nicknamed "the squad" - but she has since come to their defence following his tweets. The president wrote: "So interesting to see 'progressive' Democrat congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful nation on earth, how our government is to be run. "Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. "These places need your help badly, you can't leave fast enough. I'm sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!" Image copyright AFP Image caption President Trump has been accused of racism and white nationalism There have been internal feuds among Democrats over a border funding package, with Ms Pelosi arguing in favour of the package, and the four women - all newcomers to Congress with a progressive agenda - voting against. Last week, Ms Ocasio-Cortez accused Ms Pelosi of singling out these women of colour for criticism. On Monday, Mr Trump lashed out again in two tweets. "When will the Radical Left Congresswomen apologise to our country, the people of Israel and even to the office of the President, for the foul language they have used, and the terrible things they have said. So many people are angry at them and their horrible and disgusting actions," he said. "If Democrats want to unite around the foul language and racist hatred spewed from the mouths and actions of these very unpopular and unrepresentative Congresswomen, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I can tell you that they have made Israel feel abandoned by the US." Mr Trump was referring to a prior row with Ms Omar, who has faced accusations of anti-Semitism over comments she made about Israel and pro-Israel lobbyists earlier this year. Ms Tlaib, the other Muslim serving in Congress, has also had to defend herself from calls of anti-Semitism from Republicans after she discussed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on a Yahoo News Podcast in May. What response was there? Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau signalled his dislike of Mr Trump's comments, saying on Monday: "That is not how we do things in Canada." "I think Canadians and indeed people around the world know exactly what I think about those particular comments," he said, adding: "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian". Ms Pelosi quoted Mr Trump's tweets and described them as "xenophobic". "When @realDonaldTrump tells four American congresswomen to go back to their countries, he reaffirms his plan to 'Make America Great Again' has always been about making America white again. Our diversity is our strength and our unity is our power," she wrote. Ms Tlaib, congresswoman for Michigan's 13th district, tweeted calling for Mr Trump's impeachment. Ms Ocasio-Cortez tweeted at Mr Trump: "On top of not accepting an America that elected us, you cannot accept that we don't fear you either." Ms Omar told the president that he was "stoking white nationalism because you are angry that people like us are serving in Congress and fighting against your hate-filled agenda". And Ms Pressley shared a screenshot of Mr Trump's tweet, adding: "THIS is what racism looks like. WE are what democracy looks like." Candidates for the Democrat presidential nomination, including Elizabeth Warren, Beto O'Rourke and Bernie Sanders, condemned Mr Trump's remarks as racist. Senior Republicans have declined to comment, although one, Senator Lindsey Graham, advised President Trump to "aim higher". In an interview with Fox Television on Monday, he said the women were US citizens who were "duly elected" and said the president should take issue with their policies instead of making personal attacks. However, he also described the women as "a bunch of communists". What sparked Trump's tweets? Mr Trump did not specifically mention a link to recent news events, but immigration at the southern border was a dominant topic in US news at the weekend. On Friday, Ms Ocasio-Cortez, Ms Tlaib and Ms Pressley testified to a House committee about conditions in a migrant detention centre they had visited. They expressed horror about alleged mistreatment happening "under American flags". Ms Ocasio-Cortez said migrants told her they had drunk water from toilets because sinks were broken. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Ocasio-Cortez on detained migrants: 'The women were told to drink out of a toilet bowl' Vice-President Mike Pence also toured a facility on Friday. He said everyone was being "well cared for". The president tweeted that children's detention centres had had "great reviews" and the adult male areas were "loaded up with a big percentage of criminals". The president on race Mr Trump has been accused of racism before in connection with different incidents. For years, he made false claims that former President Barack Obama was not born in the US - propagating the racist "birther" conspiracy. He has also made numerous slurs against Central American migrants, calling them criminals and rapists. In 2018, he faced criticism from both Democrats and Republicans after reports said that during a meeting at the White House he called African nations "shitholes". When white supremacists marched in Charlottesville, Virginia, resulting in the death of 32-year-old counter protester Heather Heyer, the president said there were "good people on both sides". Mr Trump and his father Fred Trump were sued by the Department of Justice in 1973 for discrimination against African Americans in their renting practices. They settled the case without admitting guilt in 1975 but were accused again by the justice department in 1978 of an "underlying pattern of discrimination" against black tenants. In 2018, President Trump told a reporter: "I am not a racist. I'm the least racist person you have ever interviewed".

www.bbc.com

center

cVhYvD5ROIhjU6DZ

test

9dkWpgD0nA2IZgte

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/30/what-is-the-washington-post-hiding-about-its-jared-kushner-story/

What Is the Washington Post Hiding About Its Jared Kushner Story?

2017-05-30

The Washington Post editors refuse to publicly release the smoking gun “ anonymous letter ” that serves as the foundation of their sensational charge that White House advisor Jared Kushner sought a secret , back-channel to Russian officials . The “ anonymous letter ” was part of a front-page article claiming the president ’ s son-in-law sought to set up a private communications channel to Russian officials during a discussion with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak . The piece was published Sunday and received high profile coverage throughout the long Memorial Day weekend . “ The Post was first alerted in mid-December to the meeting by an anonymous letter , which said , among other things , that Kushner had talked to Kislyak about setting up the communications channel , ” the article ’ s three authors stated . WaPo also claimed American intelligence agencies discovered the ploy through an intercepted open phone call by Kislyak to Moscow . Observers have noted that Kislyak , a seasoned spy , made the phone call on an “ open line , ” and therefore knew it was likely to be intercepted . To date , there has been no independent verification the letter is real or that WaPo ’ s description of its contents is accurate . The Washington Post editors also never explain why they withheld the letter . ███ News Foundation ’ s Investigative Group contacted The Post ’ s national desk over the weekend , seeking a copy of the letter and an explanation why their editors withheld it from the public . WaPo did not reply to either TheDCNF ’ s email or phone inquiries . The story is weakened further since its reporters only cite unnamed government officials to confirm the anonymous letter ’ s charges . WaPo stated the letter ’ s allegations were affirmed by unnamed officials “ who reviewed the letter and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence . ” As a general rule , TheDCNF does not post documents if it endangers genuine whistleblowers , ongoing law enforcement or military operations , human life , or public safety . Otherwise , TheDCNF emphasizes openness and transparency , which is especially important for original source documents related to its articles . And if it does not publicly link a document , it explicitly explains to readers the reasons why it has not released a key document . The Post ’ s secrecy has produced its doubters . Over the weekend , Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham , who serves on the Senate Committees on Armed Services and the Judiciary , said he believed The Post ’ s account was bogus . “ I don ’ t trust this story as far as I can throw it , ” the South Carolina Republican said on CNN ’ s “ State of the Union . ” Graham , who served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence between 2007 to 2009 , doubted the Russian Ambassador would transmit the Kushner proposal via an open line , saying it “ made no sense ” since Kislyak would know U.S. intelligence authorities were monitoring the communication . “ I don ’ t know who leaked this information , but just think about it this way — you ’ ve got the ambassador of Russia reporting back to Moscow on an open channel , ‘ Hey , Jared Kushner ’ s going to move into the embassy , ' ” Graham said on CNN . Former U.S. Attorney Joseph DiGenova told TheDCNF other unreleased parts of the letter could undermine the credibility of the author and discredit the allegations about Kushner . “ Here ’ s the problem : we don ’ t know what else is in the letter . The letter may be so outrageous in its claims that if we read it all , it would throw doubt onto this particular allegation . And it may very well be that the letter is so scurrilous and outrageous that they won ’ t release it because it will make them look bad for relying on it at all , ” he told TheDCNF in an interview . Tom Fitton , president of Judicial Watch , a nonpartisan government watchdog group dedicated to openness and transparency , said he thought there could be references that show the letter ’ s author had a partisan agenda , which WaPo reporters wanted to hide . “ Are they coloring their documents in any way ? ” he asked during an interview with TheDCNF . “ The way you figure that out is whether they disclose their politics or their agendas . We don ’ t know if the characterization of the underlying documents is accurate or if it ’ s being slanted . ” Former Air Force Col. James Waurishuk , a senior intelligence and political-military affairs advisor who served on the National Security Council and worked with news organizations , told TheDCNF journalistic integrity has evaporated in Washington . “ We ’ ve been turning the corner for some time on journalistic integrity . I remember in my career a time when a press organization would not release anything to jeopardize a source , jeopardizing a military operation or some ongoing political dialogue . I think those days are gone , ” he told TheDCNF . Another issue testing the credibility of mainstream news organizations is a May 16 New York Times article claiming a memo former FBI Director James Comey wrote revealed President Donald Trump asked him to drop his investigation of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn . But The NYTimes never possessed the Comey memo . According to the newspaper , “ The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo , which is unclassified , but one of Mr. Comey ’ s associates read parts of it to a Times reporter . ” “ I ’ ve released documents for decades , ” he said . “ I could never get a reporter to write a story from a document that I ’ m reading to them without providing them with the full document . ” Brant Houston , who for a decade was the executive editor of the nonprofit Investigative Reporters and Editors , told TheDCNF that in the end , it ’ s up to readers to decide if anonymous sources or unseen documents appear credible . “ The great thing about journalism is it ’ s out there for everybody to see . Readers , viewers and fellow journalists will make their own judgments as to whether uses of anonymity was the appropriate thing to do , ” he said .

The Washington Post editors refuse to publicly release the smoking gun “anonymous letter” that serves as the foundation of their sensational charge that White House advisor Jared Kushner sought a secret, back-channel to Russian officials. The “anonymous letter” was part of a front-page article claiming the president’s son-in-law sought to set up a private communications channel to Russian officials during a discussion with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The piece was published Sunday and received high profile coverage throughout the long Memorial Day weekend. “The Post was first alerted in mid-December to the meeting by an anonymous letter, which said, among other things, that Kushner had talked to Kislyak about setting up the communications channel,” the article’s three authors stated. WaPo also claimed American intelligence agencies discovered the ploy through an intercepted open phone call by Kislyak to Moscow. Observers have noted that Kislyak, a seasoned spy, made the phone call on an “open line,” and therefore knew it was likely to be intercepted. To date, there has been no independent verification the letter is real or that WaPo’s description of its contents is accurate. The Washington Post editors also never explain why they withheld the letter. The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group contacted The Post’s national desk over the weekend, seeking a copy of the letter and an explanation why their editors withheld it from the public. WaPo did not reply to either TheDCNF’s email or phone inquiries. The question is, what is The Washington Post hiding? The story is weakened further since its reporters only cite unnamed government officials to confirm the anonymous letter’s charges. WaPo stated the letter’s allegations were affirmed by unnamed officials “who reviewed the letter and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence.” As a general rule, TheDCNF does not post documents if it endangers genuine whistleblowers, ongoing law enforcement or military operations, human life, or public safety. Otherwise, TheDCNF emphasizes openness and transparency, which is especially important for original source documents related to its articles. And if it does not publicly link a document, it explicitly explains to readers the reasons why it has not released a key document. The Post’s secrecy has produced its doubters. Over the weekend, Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who serves on the Senate Committees on Armed Services and the Judiciary, said he believed The Post’s account was bogus. “I don’t trust this story as far as I can throw it,” the South Carolina Republican said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Graham, who served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence between 2007 to 2009, doubted the Russian Ambassador would transmit the Kushner proposal via an open line, saying it “made no sense” since Kislyak would know U.S. intelligence authorities were monitoring the communication. “I don’t know who leaked this information, but just think about it this way — you’ve got the ambassador of Russia reporting back to Moscow on an open channel, ‘Hey, Jared Kushner’s going to move into the embassy,'” Graham said on CNN. Former U.S. Attorney Joseph DiGenova told TheDCNF other unreleased parts of the letter could undermine the credibility of the author and discredit the allegations about Kushner. “Here’s the problem: we don’t know what else is in the letter. The letter may be so outrageous in its claims that if we read it all, it would throw doubt onto this particular allegation. And it may very well be that the letter is so scurrilous and outrageous that they won’t release it because it will make them look bad for relying on it at all,” he told TheDCNF in an interview. Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan government watchdog group dedicated to openness and transparency, said he thought there could be references that show the letter’s author had a partisan agenda, which WaPo reporters wanted to hide. “Are they coloring their documents in any way?” he asked during an interview with TheDCNF. “The way you figure that out is whether they disclose their politics or their agendas. We don’t know if the characterization of the underlying documents is accurate or if it’s being slanted.” Former Air Force Col. James Waurishuk, a senior intelligence and political-military affairs advisor who served on the National Security Council and worked with news organizations, told TheDCNF journalistic integrity has evaporated in Washington. “We’ve been turning the corner for some time on journalistic integrity. I remember in my career a time when a press organization would not release anything to jeopardize a source, jeopardizing a military operation or some ongoing political dialogue. I think those days are gone,” he told TheDCNF. Another issue testing the credibility of mainstream news organizations is a May 16 New York Times article claiming a memo former FBI Director James Comey wrote revealed President Donald Trump asked him to drop his investigation of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. But The NYTimes never possessed the Comey memo. According to the newspaper, “The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of it to a Times reporter.” Fitton faulted The Times on the Comey memos. “I’ve released documents for decades,” he said. “I could never get a reporter to write a story from a document that I’m reading to them without providing them with the full document.” Brant Houston, who for a decade was the executive editor of the nonprofit Investigative Reporters and Editors, told TheDCNF that in the end, it’s up to readers to decide if anonymous sources or unseen documents appear credible. “The great thing about journalism is it’s out there for everybody to see. Readers, viewers and fellow journalists will make their own judgments as to whether uses of anonymity was the appropriate thing to do,” he said. Follow Richard on Twitter 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. 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

9dkWpgD0nA2IZgte

test

AdxNygKHiZfyhQQb

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/howard-dean-emails-scandal/2015/08/21/id/671286/

Howard Dean: 'No Substance' to Hillary Email Saga

2015-08-21

Jason Devaney

Howard Dean , a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee , thinks Hillary Clinton 's email scandal is largely being fueled by a `` media feeding frenzy '' — and the story itself has `` no substance . `` Dean spoke about the Clinton controversy on `` MSNBC Live '' Friday morning . `` Well , I think part of it is the media feeding frenzy . This is pact journalism at its worst , '' Dean said when asked why a recent poll showed two-thirds of American voters do n't trust Clinton . `` I had to experience this when I was running for president . This is what the media does . They go after the front-runner . There 's really no substance to this story at all . `` Host Craig Melvin pressed the issue with Dean , pointing out that a federal judge this week said Clinton broke the rules and that the FBI needs to continue its investigation into her use of a private email setup while she served as secretary of state.Reports say Clinton may have exchanged hundreds of emails on the non-government system that contained classified information . `` It 's not clear that that 's true , actually . All due respect to the federal judge , the federal judge does n't have any better idea of what 's going on here than anybody else . And violating policy is not violating the law , '' Dean said . `` Look , if the argument is that Hillary Clinton committed treason , then let 's have that discussion . This is innuendo . This is nonsense . There was no dishonesty . She did not send any emails marked classified . This is a classic press feeding frenzy . I might add by the right wing . And I think it 's disappointing . As I said before , The New York Times ran two stories about this . One about the Clinton Foundation supposedly involved with some kind of Russian uranium mine , that was totally untrue , and then this story saying she was under criminal investigation . `` `` I think the press has to do a better job of pushing back against a coordinated right wing attack and that 's what this is . '' The FBI is poring over Clinton 's email server , which had been wiped clean before the bureau took possession of it.Some experts think Clinton will be indicted for passing classified information over her unorthodox email system , which at one point was maintained by a small company in Denver whose office was in a converted loft apartment . Clinton 's server was located in a bathroom closet .

Howard Dean, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, thinks Hillary Clinton's email scandal is largely being fueled by a "media feeding frenzy" — and the story itself has "no substance."Dean spoke about the Clinton controversy on "MSNBC Live" Friday morning."Well, I think part of it is the media feeding frenzy. This is pact journalism at its worst," Dean said when asked why a recent poll showed two-thirds of American voters don't trust Clinton. "I had to experience this when I was running for president. This is what the media does. They go after the front-runner. There's really no substance to this story at all."Host Craig Melvin pressed the issue with Dean, pointing out that a federal judge this week said Clinton broke the rules and that the FBI needs to continue its investigation into her use of a private email setup while she served as secretary of state.Reports say Clinton may have exchanged hundreds of emails on the non-government system that contained classified information."It's not clear that that's true, actually. All due respect to the federal judge, the federal judge doesn't have any better idea of what's going on here than anybody else. And violating policy is not violating the law," Dean said."Look, if the argument is that Hillary Clinton committed treason, then let's have that discussion. This is innuendo. This is nonsense. There was no dishonesty. She did not send any emails marked classified. This is a classic press feeding frenzy. I might add by the right wing. And I think it's disappointing. As I said before, The New York Times ran two stories about this. One about the Clinton Foundation supposedly involved with some kind of Russian uranium mine, that was totally untrue, and then this story saying she was under criminal investigation.""I think the press has to do a better job of pushing back against a coordinated right wing attack and that's what this is." The FBI is poring over Clinton's email server, which had been wiped clean before the bureau took possession of it.Some experts think Clinton will be indicted for passing classified information over her unorthodox email system, which at one point was maintained by a small company in Denver whose office was in a converted loft apartment. Clinton's server was located in a bathroom closet.

www.newsmax.com

right

AdxNygKHiZfyhQQb

test