Datasets:

cjziems

/

Article-Bias-Prediction

like 1

YxPcWEaSldJnXe2x

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Dianne-Feinstein-Clinton-Email-Probe-Enough/2016/05/30/id/731337/

Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Clinton's Email Scandal: 'Enough Is Enough'

2016-05-30

Brian Freeman

Sen. Dianne Feinstein downplayed the significance of the State Department 's Office of the Inspector General report on Hillary Clinton 's private email server , saying the criticism against her is taken out of context and that she broke no laws.Speaking on ABC News ' `` This Week '' program , Feinstein , who is one of Clinton 's strongest supporters in Congress , tried to deflect any blame away from the Democratic front-runner and said it is time to stop concentrating on the episode . `` The conclusion of the report… says that the department does not handle these electronic platform operations well and needs to do better , '' Feinstein said . `` We 're reaching the final stages of a primary . Hillary Clinton is going to win this primary . I say enough is enough . Let 's get to the major problems facing this nation . `` Feinstein dismissed critics who said Clinton was trying to hide something and explained away the entire episode by saying it is about a `` woman who wants a little bit of a private life . She wants to be able to communicate with husband , with daughter , with friends , and not have somebody looking over her shoulder into her emails . `` The California senator also said it was time for Clinton rival Sen. Bernie Sanders to end his campaign in the Democratic primary.Conceding that he has the right to continue to run , Feinstein said the question really is , `` why does n't he do those things , which bring all Democrats together so that we can have a convention that 's positive , not negative , so that we can have a platform that all this great wide , broad-based party can say , 'This is my platform . I am proud of it . ' '' And the Democrats together can march to victory in November . `` Feinstein also commented on Donald Trump 's contention that her home state could go Republican in the presidential elections for the first time since 1988 . `` I would bet that would not happen , '' she said . `` There are 7 million to 4 million Democrats to Republicans [ in California ] . So I do n't think that will happen . ''

Sen. Dianne Feinstein downplayed the significance of the State Department's Office of the Inspector General report on Hillary Clinton's private email server, saying the criticism against her is taken out of context and that she broke no laws.Speaking on ABC News' "This Week" program, Feinstein, who is one of Clinton's strongest supporters in Congress, tried to deflect any blame away from the Democratic front-runner and said it is time to stop concentrating on the episode."The conclusion of the report… says that the department does not handle these electronic platform operations well and needs to do better," Feinstein said. "We're reaching the final stages of a primary. Hillary Clinton is going to win this primary. I say enough is enough. Let's get to the major problems facing this nation."Feinstein dismissed critics who said Clinton was trying to hide something and explained away the entire episode by saying it is about a "woman who wants a little bit of a private life. She wants to be able to communicate with husband, with daughter, with friends, and not have somebody looking over her shoulder into her emails."The California senator also said it was time for Clinton rival Sen. Bernie Sanders to end his campaign in the Democratic primary.Conceding that he has the right to continue to run, Feinstein said the question really is, "why doesn't he do those things, which bring all Democrats together so that we can have a convention that's positive, not negative, so that we can have a platform that all this great wide, broad-based party can say, 'This is my platform. I am proud of it.'"And the Democrats together can march to victory in November."Feinstein also commented on Donald Trump's contention that her home state could go Republican in the presidential elections for the first time since 1988."I would bet that would not happen," she said. "There are 7 million to 4 million Democrats to Republicans [in California]. So I don't think that will happen."

www.newsmax.com

right

YxPcWEaSldJnXe2x

test

0eZdTybz1pyfxrBI

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45389738

John McCain funeral: Senator laid to rest at US Naval Academy

Senator John McCain has been buried at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis , Maryland , after a small private ceremony . A military flypast was performed with the squadron one plane short , to symbolise the dead senator . Mr McCain graduated from the elite Naval Academy in 1958 , later serving in Vietnam as a fighter jet pilot . Family and friends were joined by his classmates and the current midshipmen for a service at the school 's chapel . It caps a week of memorials for Mr McCain , who died on 25 August , aged 81 , from the effects of brain cancer . On Saturday , heavyweights from across the political spectrum gathered at the Washington National Cathedral to remember the Arizona senator , who became one of America 's most high-profile politicians . Two former presidents - George W Bush and Barack Obama - paid tribute to Mr McCain 's courage and sense of honour . A eulogy by the statesman 's daughter Meghan , one of his seven children , included a thinly veiled swipe at President Donald Trump . `` The America of John McCain has no need to be made great again , because America was always great , '' she said . Crowds lined the route as the senator 's final motorcade travelled to the academy in Annapolis . Mr McCain was buried next to his classmate and friend , Admiral Chuck Larson , who reserved four plots in the idyllic cemetery for the pair and their wives before his death in 2014 . `` Chuck has his wingman back now , '' the late admiral 's widow , Sarah Larson , told CNN . Mr McCain 's sons Jack and Don were scheduled to pay tribute to him at the Sunday ceremony , alongside retired Army General David Petraeus and Senator Lindsey Graham , a long-time friend . President Trump - who had major personal and political differences with Mr McCain - has spent the weekend at his private golf course in Virginia , and did not attend . Former US Senator Joseph Lieberman , a friend and colleague of Mr McCain who also gave a eulogy at Saturday 's service , told CNN on Sunday : `` I say goodbye and my heart will be heavy . I 'll shed a tear and yet I 'll thank God that I knew a man like John McCain so well . ''

Image copyright Reuters Image caption John McCain's funeral procession heads to the cemetery at the US Naval Academy Senator John McCain has been buried at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, after a small private ceremony. A military flypast was performed with the squadron one plane short, to symbolise the dead senator. Mr McCain graduated from the elite Naval Academy in 1958, later serving in Vietnam as a fighter jet pilot. Family and friends were joined by his classmates and the current midshipmen for a service at the school's chapel. It caps a week of memorials for Mr McCain, who died on 25 August, aged 81, from the effects of brain cancer. Image copyright Reuters Image caption John McCain will be buried next to an old friend, in the grounds of the US Naval Academy On Saturday, heavyweights from across the political spectrum gathered at the Washington National Cathedral to remember the Arizona senator, who became one of America's most high-profile politicians. Two former presidents - George W Bush and Barack Obama - paid tribute to Mr McCain's courage and sense of honour. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Barack Obama on John McCain's "last laugh" A eulogy by the statesman's daughter Meghan, one of his seven children, included a thinly veiled swipe at President Donald Trump. "The America of John McCain has no need to be made great again, because America was always great," she said. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Meghan McCain: "We gather here to mourn the passing of American greatness" Crowds lined the route as the senator's final motorcade travelled to the academy in Annapolis. Mr McCain was buried next to his classmate and friend, Admiral Chuck Larson, who reserved four plots in the idyllic cemetery for the pair and their wives before his death in 2014. "Chuck has his wingman back now," the late admiral's widow, Sarah Larson, told CNN. Image copyright Reuters Image caption Mourners lined the route as Mr McCain's hearse made its way to his final resting place Mr McCain's sons Jack and Don were scheduled to pay tribute to him at the Sunday ceremony, alongside retired Army General David Petraeus and Senator Lindsey Graham, a long-time friend. President Trump - who had major personal and political differences with Mr McCain - has spent the weekend at his private golf course in Virginia, and did not attend. Former US Senator Joseph Lieberman, a friend and colleague of Mr McCain who also gave a eulogy at Saturday's service, told CNN on Sunday: "I say goodbye and my heart will be heavy. I'll shed a tear and yet I'll thank God that I knew a man like John McCain so well."

www.bbc.com

center

0eZdTybz1pyfxrBI

test

K6MNLdxL0KewGXIi

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/22/emails-reveal-hillary-clinton-had-change-of-heart-on-spontaneous-benghazi-attack/

Emails Reveal Hillary Clinton Had Change of Heart on "Spontaneous" Benghazi Attack

2015-05-22

John Sexton

Newly released emails suggest Hillary Clinton ’ s view of the Benghazi attack shifted over time . Then-Secretary of State Clinton decided to duck out on a series of Sunday morning news shows discussing the attack in Benghazi , allowing Ambassador Susan Rice to take her place . However , emails published this Friday by the State Department show that Hillary ’ s staff checked the transcripts of each appearance to insure Rice stayed on message . On the afternoon of September 16th , Hillary ’ s Deputy Chief of Staff Jacob Sullivan sent her the transcript of Rice ’ s appearance on ABC ’ s “ This Week with Jake Tapper. ” Sullivan says of Rice ’ s performance , “ she did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved . ” In fact , here is what Susan Rice said on “ This Week ” [ emphasis added ] : Our current best assessment , based on the information that we have at present , is that , in fact , what this began as , it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo . In Cairo , as you know , a few hours earlier , there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated . We believe that folks in Benghazi , a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate , rather , to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo . And then as that unfolded , it seems to have been hijacked , let us say , by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons , weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible . And it then evolved from there . Just over a week later , Hillary appears to have been concerned that she might have said something similar to Rice ’ s public comments . On September 24th , Deputy Chief of Staff Sullivan once again emailed Hillary after reviewing all of her public statements on the attack . He writes , “ You never said spontaneous or characterized the motives . ” In a background briefing conference call given by the State Dept . on October 9th , a reporter asked , “ What in all of these events that you ’ ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video ? ” The unnamed State Dept . spokesman replied , “ That is a question that you would have to ask others . That was not our conclusion . I ’ m not saying that we had a conclusion , but we outlined what happened . ” Recently revealed emails demonstrate that there was an alternative explanation which was also circulating throughout the Obama administration within days after the attack . According to some intelligence , the attack had been pre-planned as revenge for the death of al-Qaeda terrorist Abu Yahya al-Libi . Both the State Department and the White House decided to press the video explanation of the event instead . It took weeks before the president finally called the incident a terrorist attack . A thorough Senate investigation released last year found the attack in Benghazi was preventable . Finding # 1 in the report stated there was “ ample strategic warning that the security situation in eastern Libya was deteriorating. ” Yet only weeks later , Hillary—while admitting it was her biggest regret as secretary—claimed it was an “ unpredictable ” event .

Newly released emails suggest Hillary Clinton’s view of the Benghazi attack shifted over time. Then-Secretary of State Clinton decided to duck out on a series of Sunday morning news shows discussing the attack in Benghazi, allowing Ambassador Susan Rice to take her place. However, emails published this Friday by the State Department show that Hillary’s staff checked the transcripts of each appearance to insure Rice stayed on message. On the afternoon of September 16th, Hillary’s Deputy Chief of Staff Jacob Sullivan sent her the transcript of Rice’s appearance on ABC’s “This Week with Jake Tapper.” Sullivan says of Rice’s performance, “she did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved.” In fact, here is what Susan Rice said on “This Week” [emphasis added]: Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated. We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there. Just over a week later, Hillary appears to have been concerned that she might have said something similar to Rice’s public comments. On September 24th, Deputy Chief of Staff Sullivan once again emailed Hillary after reviewing all of her public statements on the attack. He writes, “You never said spontaneous or characterized the motives.” In a background briefing conference call given by the State Dept. on October 9th, a reporter asked, “What in all of these events that you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?” The unnamed State Dept. spokesman replied, “That is a question that you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion. I’m not saying that we had a conclusion, but we outlined what happened.” Recently revealed emails demonstrate that there was an alternative explanation which was also circulating throughout the Obama administration within days after the attack. According to some intelligence, the attack had been pre-planned as revenge for the death of al-Qaeda terrorist Abu Yahya al-Libi. Both the State Department and the White House decided to press the video explanation of the event instead. It took weeks before the president finally called the incident a terrorist attack. A thorough Senate investigation released last year found the attack in Benghazi was preventable. Finding #1 in the report stated there was “ample strategic warning that the security situation in eastern Libya was deteriorating.” Yet only weeks later, Hillary—while admitting it was her biggest regret as secretary—claimed it was an “unpredictable” event.

www.breitbart.com

right

K6MNLdxL0KewGXIi

test

Lwob7OTKvSwvDllA

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2017/february/cpac-day-one-pence-rallies-conservatives-around-trump-agenda

CPAC Day One: Pence Rallies Conservatives Around Trump Agenda

2017-02-24

On the first day of the Conservative Political Action Conference , Vice President Mike Pence rallied conservatives around President Donald Trump 's agenda . `` President Trump is a man of his word , and we 're keeping the promises he made to the American people . Over at the White House , I like to say we 're in the promise-keepin ' business these days , '' Pence told the CPAC audience Thursday night . Pence bashed the Democratic Party for making promises to the American people that they could n't keep and he said it 's time to prove again that `` our answers are the right answers . '' `` A strong military , more jobs , less taxes , respect for the Constitution and the values that have made America great in a deep and abiding faith in the goodness of the American people , '' Pence said . Even though former House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday that Republicans would n't repeal Obamacare , but simply fix it , Pence said the GOP would indeed get rid of it . `` President Donald Trump is leading the fight to repeal and replace Obamacare . And let me assure you , America 's Obamacare nightmare is about to end . Despite the best efforts of liberal activists at town halls around the country , the American people know better . Obamacare has failed and Obamacare must go , '' Pence told the crowd . Other key members of the Trump White House also spoke to the conservative crowd , including top advisers Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus . Bannon said the battles between the media and the administration are far from over . `` It 's not only not going to get better , it 's going to get worse everyday with the media . And here 's why . By the way , the internal logic makes sense -- they 're corporatist , globalist media that are adamantly opposed , adamantly opposed to an economic nationalist agenda like Donald Trump has , '' Bannon said . He stressed that the Trump administration would continue to fight , and he encouraged the audience to hold the president 's team accountable for delivering on the promises it has made .

On the first day of the Conservative Political Action Conference, Vice President Mike Pence rallied conservatives around President Donald Trump's agenda. "President Trump is a man of his word, and we're keeping the promises he made to the American people. Over at the White House, I like to say we're in the promise-keepin' business these days," Pence told the CPAC audience Thursday night. Pence bashed the Democratic Party for making promises to the American people that they couldn't keep and he said it's time to prove again that "our answers are the right answers." "A strong military, more jobs, less taxes, respect for the Constitution and the values that have made America great in a deep and abiding faith in the goodness of the American people," Pence said. Even though former House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday that Republicans wouldn't repeal Obamacare, but simply fix it, Pence said the GOP would indeed get rid of it. "President Donald Trump is leading the fight to repeal and replace Obamacare. And let me assure you, America's Obamacare nightmare is about to end. Despite the best efforts of liberal activists at town halls around the country, the American people know better. Obamacare has failed and Obamacare must go," Pence told the crowd. Other key members of the Trump White House also spoke to the conservative crowd, including top advisers Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus. Bannon said the battles between the media and the administration are far from over. "It's not only not going to get better, it's going to get worse everyday with the media. And here's why. By the way, the internal logic makes sense -- they're corporatist, globalist media that are adamantly opposed, adamantly opposed to an economic nationalist agenda like Donald Trump has," Bannon said. He stressed that the Trump administration would continue to fight, and he encouraged the audience to hold the president's team accountable for delivering on the promises it has made.

www1.cbn.com

right

Lwob7OTKvSwvDllA

test

Jp5Se3kGhovYjSoN

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/20/nbc-anchor-asks-paul-ryan-if-hes-living-in-a-fantasy-world-video/

NBC Anchor Treats Paul Ryan Like A Whipping Boy -- 'Are You Living In A Fantasy World?’

2017-12-20

House Speaker Paul Ryan had a tough time on the “ Today Show ” Wednesday when host Savannah Guthrie asked if he was “ living in a fantasy world . ” Guthrie quoted businessman and Democratic mega-donor Michael Bloomberg to ask Ryan whether believing corporate tax cuts will lead to growth was ridiculous , before interrupting him multiple times . “ Let me quote Michael Bloomberg , no enemy of business , ” Guthrie said . “ He said , ‘ CEOs aren ’ t waiting on a tax cut to jump-start the economy , a favorite phrase of politicians who have never run a company… It ’ s pure fantasy to think that the tax bill will lead to higher wages and growth . ' ” Bloomberg made those comments in an op-ed where he called the GOP tax plan a “ trillion dollar blunder , ” and said businesses don ’ t need more money but have record cash reserves . “ I ’ ll ask you plainly , are you living in a fantasy world ? ” Guthrie asked Ryan . Once Ryan started answering the question , Guthrie jumped in . “ I would compare that anecdote to surveys of the businesses , the national business manufacturers that show the majority of businesses will do what we say , reinvest in the workers , reinvest in the factories , pay people more money , higher wages , ” Ryan said , and Guthrie interrupted saying , “ let me pin you down on that . ” Ryan continued a moment , saying , “ workers benefit on this through higher wages . It ’ s not a question of if it will happen , it ’ s a question of when . ” Guthrie then interrupted Ryan several times to “ drill down ” on whether corporate leaders were planning to reinvest profits into growing businesses . The House and the Senate passed a landmark tax cuts and reform bill Tuesday , getting the legislation closer to President Donald Trump ’ s desk . ███ News Foundation is working hard to balance out the biased American media . For as little as $ 3 , you can help us . Freedom of speech isn ’ t free . Make a one-time donation to support the quality , independent journalism of TheDCNF . We ’ re not dependent on commercial or political support and we do not accept any government funding .

House Speaker Paul Ryan had a tough time on the “Today Show” Wednesday when host Savannah Guthrie asked if he was “living in a fantasy world.” Guthrie quoted businessman and Democratic mega-donor Michael Bloomberg to ask Ryan whether believing corporate tax cuts will lead to growth was ridiculous, before interrupting him multiple times. “Let me quote Michael Bloomberg, no enemy of business,” Guthrie said. “He said, ‘CEOs aren’t waiting on a tax cut to jump-start the economy, a favorite phrase of politicians who have never run a company… It’s pure fantasy to think that the tax bill will lead to higher wages and growth.'” Bloomberg made those comments in an op-ed where he called the GOP tax plan a “trillion dollar blunder,” and said businesses don’t need more money but have record cash reserves. “I’ll ask you plainly, are you living in a fantasy world?” Guthrie asked Ryan. Once Ryan started answering the question, Guthrie jumped in. “I would compare that anecdote to surveys of the businesses, the national business manufacturers that show the majority of businesses will do what we say, reinvest in the workers, reinvest in the factories, pay people more money, higher wages,” Ryan said, and Guthrie interrupted saying, “let me pin you down on that.” Ryan continued a moment, saying, “workers benefit on this through higher wages. It’s not a question of if it will happen, it’s a question of when.” Guthrie then interrupted Ryan several times to “drill down” on whether corporate leaders were planning to reinvest profits into growing businesses. The House and the Senate passed a landmark tax cuts and reform bill Tuesday, getting the legislation closer to President Donald Trump’s desk. ALSO WATCH: Follow Thomas Phippen on Twitter Send tips to thomas@ dailycallernewsfoundation.org. The Daily Caller News Foundation is working hard to balance out the biased American media. For as little as $3, you can help us. Freedom of speech isn’t free. Make a one-time donation to support the quality, independent journalism of TheDCNF. We’re not dependent on commercial or political support and we do not accept any government funding. 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

Jp5Se3kGhovYjSoN

test

n3P9d8iX4J14v5rR

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/yes-obama-did-investigate-trump/

Yes, Obama Did Investigate Trump

George Neumayr, David Catron, Dov Fischer, John C. Wohlstetter, William Murchison, Geoff Shepard

Straining at the tweet and swallowing the camel has become Washington ’ s favorite pursuit , and it was on tiresome display at Monday ’ s Congressional hearing with Jim Comey . Out of it came two clashing headlines : “ Comey Denies Obama Ordered Wiretapping on Trump , ” “ The FBI is Investigating Trump ’ s Links to Russia . ” In other words , the core claim underlying Trump ’ s tweets is true : people acting on the authority of Obama opened an investigation into Trump ’ s campaign , then criminally leaked mention of it to friendly news outlets in an attempt to derail his election . When is Obama going to apologize for that ? Were the Republicans less feckless and docile to the media-determined parameters of any discussion , they would have kept the focus on the outrageousness of Obama investigating an opposing party ’ s candidate at the height of an election campaign . But their first instinct is always to distance themselves from Trump , not defend him . So unlike Adam Schiff , who prosecuted the case for the Dems ruthlessly , the Republicans dithered , striking Comey with the flat of the blade . Instead of probing his vague answers , they complacently accepted them before trailing off into the next series of unilluminating questions . “ I have no information that supports those tweets , ” Comey replied to one of Schiff ’ s leading questions . Why didn ’ t Republicans ask him to elaborate ? Was he saying that the FBI didn ’ t investigate the computer server connected to Trump Tower ( as reported by Circa News ) ? Was he saying that his investigation hasn ’ t intercepted a single one of Trump ’ s communications ? He would have declined to answer these questions , but that refusal to answer would have cast doubt on the authority of his categorical denial . After all , if he can ’ t describe his investigation into the Trump campaign , how can anybody be sure that it excludes Trump ’ s communications ? Congressman Devin Nunes , the chairman of the committee , couldn ’ t match Schiff in partisan zeal and rigor , as evident in his giving Schiff fifteen minutes of opening remarks while restricting himself to five minutes of them . In his sheepish remarks , he defensively treated the media ’ s outrage at Trump ’ s tweet as if it were the first and most important matter that he needed to address . Why let the hearing become a referendum on Trump ’ s tweeting ? Why place the emphasis on that and not on the one suggestive remark Nunes did make , which he didn ’ t pursue very effectively and asserted more weakly than necessary , that “ it ’ s still possible that other surveillance activities were used against President Trump and his associates ” ? Still possible ? Given that any investigation involves surveillance of some kind , it is not possible but certain that FBI agents have engaged in those activities . The insufferable Louise Mensch of Heat Street , the anti-Trump activist who got one of the criminal leaks last fall about the FBI investigation , says that the FBI sought “ incidental ” interceptions of “ Trump ’ s campaign. ” How are they incidental if sought ? What does it matter , in terms of violated privacy , if the wiretap was on the Trump campaign ’ s phones/computers or the phones/computers of the person/institutions with whom the campaign may have been communicating ? It is an intercepted communication either way , a point only literalist dolts and partisan weasels would deny while obsessing over whether “ Obama personally ordered a wiretap on Trump ’ s phone… ” According to Circa News , the FBI used “ traditional investigative methods ” to probe Trump ’ s computer server . Why didn ’ t any of the Republicans ask Comey if his agents ever saw Trump ’ s communications in the course of that investigation ? Again , Comey would have refused to answer , but at least his non-answer would have gotten people thinking about the abusive character of an open-ended investigation of a candidate ’ s campaign during an election season . And what was Comey doing investigating the Trump campaign in the first place ? Where did Comey get the idea to investigate the Trump campaign ? That subject deserved more attention than it received at the hearing . Republicans made no use of the existing news accounts that point to John Brennan , the most partisan of Obama political appointees , as the instigator of the “ multi-agency ” investigation into Trump . What convinced Comey to trust John Brennan ’ s judgment ? If the Republicans had a real counterpart to Schiff , they would have loudly pointed out that Comey ’ s mere confirmation of an investigation vindicates the thrust of Trump ’ s tweets . They could have spent the hearing drawing out the implications of that admission . No matter how the Dems and the media spin it , no matter how many semantic games they play , Obama authorized a multi-agency investigation into a political opponent , which necessarily involved violations of that opponent ’ s privacy . Notice that even the shorthand of the media ’ s headlines bears out the shorthand of Trump ’ s tweets . Some of them say that the FBI is investigating “ campaign associates , ” but others say that the FBI is investigating “ Trump. ” For all the partisan angling , blather , and word games , Trump and these newspapers finally agree : Obama was investigating him .

Straining at the tweet and swallowing the camel has become Washington’s favorite pursuit, and it was on tiresome display at Monday’s Congressional hearing with Jim Comey. Out of it came two clashing headlines: “Comey Denies Obama Ordered Wiretapping on Trump,” “The FBI is Investigating Trump’s Links to Russia.” In other words, the core claim underlying Trump’s tweets is true: people acting on the authority of Obama opened an investigation into Trump’s campaign, then criminally leaked mention of it to friendly news outlets in an attempt to derail his election. When is Obama going to apologize for that? Were the Republicans less feckless and docile to the media-determined parameters of any discussion, they would have kept the focus on the outrageousness of Obama investigating an opposing party’s candidate at the height of an election campaign. But their first instinct is always to distance themselves from Trump, not defend him. So unlike Adam Schiff, who prosecuted the case for the Dems ruthlessly, the Republicans dithered, striking Comey with the flat of the blade. Instead of probing his vague answers, they complacently accepted them before trailing off into the next series of unilluminating questions. “I have no information that supports those tweets,” Comey replied to one of Schiff’s leading questions. Why didn’t Republicans ask him to elaborate? Was he saying that the FBI didn’t investigate the computer server connected to Trump Tower (as reported by Circa News)? Was he saying that his investigation hasn’t intercepted a single one of Trump’s communications? He would have declined to answer these questions, but that refusal to answer would have cast doubt on the authority of his categorical denial. After all, if he can’t describe his investigation into the Trump campaign, how can anybody be sure that it excludes Trump’s communications? Congressman Devin Nunes, the chairman of the committee, couldn’t match Schiff in partisan zeal and rigor, as evident in his giving Schiff fifteen minutes of opening remarks while restricting himself to five minutes of them. In his sheepish remarks, he defensively treated the media’s outrage at Trump’s tweet as if it were the first and most important matter that he needed to address. Why let the hearing become a referendum on Trump’s tweeting? Why place the emphasis on that and not on the one suggestive remark Nunes did make, which he didn’t pursue very effectively and asserted more weakly than necessary, that “it’s still possible that other surveillance activities were used against President Trump and his associates”? Still possible? Given that any investigation involves surveillance of some kind, it is not possible but certain that FBI agents have engaged in those activities. The insufferable Louise Mensch of Heat Street, the anti-Trump activist who got one of the criminal leaks last fall about the FBI investigation, says that the FBI sought “incidental” interceptions of “Trump’s campaign.” How are they incidental if sought? What does it matter, in terms of violated privacy, if the wiretap was on the Trump campaign’s phones/computers or the phones/computers of the person/institutions with whom the campaign may have been communicating? It is an intercepted communication either way, a point only literalist dolts and partisan weasels would deny while obsessing over whether “Obama personally ordered a wiretap on Trump’s phone…” According to Circa News, the FBI used “traditional investigative methods” to probe Trump’s computer server. Why didn’t any of the Republicans ask Comey if his agents ever saw Trump’s communications in the course of that investigation? Again, Comey would have refused to answer, but at least his non-answer would have gotten people thinking about the abusive character of an open-ended investigation of a candidate’s campaign during an election season. And what was Comey doing investigating the Trump campaign in the first place? Where did Comey get the idea to investigate the Trump campaign? That subject deserved more attention than it received at the hearing. Republicans made no use of the existing news accounts that point to John Brennan, the most partisan of Obama political appointees, as the instigator of the “multi-agency” investigation into Trump. What convinced Comey to trust John Brennan’s judgment? If the Republicans had a real counterpart to Schiff, they would have loudly pointed out that Comey’s mere confirmation of an investigation vindicates the thrust of Trump’s tweets. They could have spent the hearing drawing out the implications of that admission. No matter how the Dems and the media spin it, no matter how many semantic games they play, Obama authorized a multi-agency investigation into a political opponent, which necessarily involved violations of that opponent’s privacy. Notice that even the shorthand of the media’s headlines bears out the shorthand of Trump’s tweets. Some of them say that the FBI is investigating “campaign associates,” but others say that the FBI is investigating “Trump.” For all the partisan angling, blather, and word games, Trump and these newspapers finally agree: Obama was investigating him.

www.spectator.org

right

n3P9d8iX4J14v5rR

test

48xft5gAO2RlvQGo

environment

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/13/activists-arrested-at-wh-over-climate-change-protest/

Activists arrested at WH over climate change protest

2013-02-13

Washington ( CNN ) - Dozens of environmental activists - including Bobby Kennedy Jr. and actress Daryl Hannah - cuffed themselves to a White House gate on Wednesday in a climate change protest that ultimately resulted in their arrests . Chanting , `` President Obama , we do n't want no climate drama ! '' activists demanded concrete government action on the issue . Their first hope : the Obama administration 's rejection of the controversial Keystone Pipeline XL . `` We 're out here saying , 'President Obama , you must reject the Keystone Pipeline , '' Hannah told a reporter . `` This is a lethal project that is the largest fuse to the largest carbon bomb on the planet . '' This is not the first time Hannah has been arrested in front of the White House protesting the pipeline . She took part in a similar protest in August of 2012 . Calling it a `` monumental boondoggle '' for profit-rich oil companies , Kennedy said , `` It is going to poison the air , it 's going to sicken , it 's going to injure and it 's going to kill millions of people over time . '' A final decision over expanding the pipeline could come this spring , according to the State Department . That agency is reviewing the pipeline since it would cross international boundaries . The 1,700-mile conduit would export between 500,000 to 700,000 barrels of crude oil from tar sands from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico . The first stage of the project , approved in 2008 and started in 2010 , transported export oil from Canada to America 's midwest . Just over a year ago , the Obama administration rejected the project 's expansion – from Canada to the Gulf Coast - citing the need for more time to review it . The administration pushed off final decision until after the presidential election . `` TransCanada continues to believe in the value of Keystone XL due to the overwhelming support the project has received from American and Canadian producers and U.S. refiners who signed 17 to 18 year contracts to ship over hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil per day to meet the needs of American consumers , '' the company wrote in a statement on its website . `` TransCanada anticipates approval of the presidential Permit application ... in the first quarter of 2013 . '' Supporters maintain the pipeline will be safe . They also assert it will help the U.S. become more energy independent and will create thousands of jobs . In January , Nebraska Gov . Dave Heineman approved a rerouting of the pipeline in the state , saying it would have `` minimal environmental impact . '' Environmental activists fear the pipeline could break or leak , threatening water supplies and the environment , and could contribute to greenhouse gases . `` I do n't think President Obama is going to permit this pipeline to happen , '' Kennedy said . `` I think President Obama has a strong moral core , he is not going to do something that is immoral , that is reckless and that is going to impose the costs of our joyride for these wealthy oil companies…on future generations of Americans and citizens all across the planet . '' `` I do not believe he will do that and I do not believe that [ Secretary of State ] John Kerry will do it , '' Kennedy added . The Sierra Club , 350.org and their supporters attended the Wednesday protest at the White House . Those groups will also sponsor a Sunday rally in Washington over climate change .

6 years ago Washington (CNN) - Dozens of environmental activists - including Bobby Kennedy Jr. and actress Daryl Hannah - cuffed themselves to a White House gate on Wednesday in a climate change protest that ultimately resulted in their arrests. Chanting, "President Obama, we don't want no climate drama!" activists demanded concrete government action on the issue. Their first hope: the Obama administration's rejection of the controversial Keystone Pipeline XL. Follow @politicalticker Follow @ShanTravisCNN "We're out here saying, 'President Obama, you must reject the Keystone Pipeline," Hannah told a reporter. "This is a lethal project that is the largest fuse to the largest carbon bomb on the planet." This is not the first time Hannah has been arrested in front of the White House protesting the pipeline. She took part in a similar protest in August of 2012. Calling it a "monumental boondoggle" for profit-rich oil companies, Kennedy said, "It is going to poison the air, it's going to sicken, it's going to injure and it's going to kill millions of people over time." A final decision over expanding the pipeline could come this spring, according to the State Department. That agency is reviewing the pipeline since it would cross international boundaries. The 1,700-mile conduit would export between 500,000 to 700,000 barrels of crude oil from tar sands from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. The first stage of the project, approved in 2008 and started in 2010, transported export oil from Canada to America's midwest. Just over a year ago, the Obama administration rejected the project's expansion – from Canada to the Gulf Coast - citing the need for more time to review it. The administration pushed off final decision until after the presidential election. The pipeline's builder has urged final approval. "TransCanada continues to believe in the value of Keystone XL due to the overwhelming support the project has received from American and Canadian producers and U.S. refiners who signed 17 to 18 year contracts to ship over hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil per day to meet the needs of American consumers," the company wrote in a statement on its website. "TransCanada anticipates approval of the presidential Permit application...in the first quarter of 2013." Supporters maintain the pipeline will be safe. They also assert it will help the U.S. become more energy independent and will create thousands of jobs. In January, Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman approved a rerouting of the pipeline in the state, saying it would have "minimal environmental impact." Yet opponents fear the worst. Environmental activists fear the pipeline could break or leak, threatening water supplies and the environment, and could contribute to greenhouse gases. "I don't think President Obama is going to permit this pipeline to happen," Kennedy said. "I think President Obama has a strong moral core, he is not going to do something that is immoral, that is reckless and that is going to impose the costs of our joyride for these wealthy oil companies…on future generations of Americans and citizens all across the planet." "I do not believe he will do that and I do not believe that [Secretary of State] John Kerry will do it," Kennedy added. The Sierra Club, 350.org and their supporters attended the Wednesday protest at the White House. Those groups will also sponsor a Sunday rally in Washington over climate change.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

48xft5gAO2RlvQGo

test

lY8JoZEK01LXPMNw

federal_budget

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/boehners-gop-problems-complicate-deficit-negotiations/story?id=17681215

Boehner's GOP Problems Complicate Deficit Negotiations

John Parkinson

House Speaker John Boehner is about to begin another attempt at a grand bargain deficit reduction deal with President Obama , a high wire act in which he will be buffeted by demands from the White House as well as from House Republicans . The difficulty of keeping in step with the hard line approach of his fellow Republicans has been on view since the presidential election . On Thursday , Boehner told ███ ' Diane Sawyer that repealing Obamacare was no longer his party 's most pressing concern , saying , `` Obamacare is the law of the land '' and the election settled the dispute over repeal . Shortly after his comment was aired , Boehner put out a tweet saying , `` ObamaCare is law of the land , but it is raising costs & threatening jobs . Our goal has been , and will remain , # fullrepeal . '' During that interview , the Speaker also told Sawyer that comprehensive immigration reform is a top priority in his legislative agenda during the next Congress . Republicans within his conference , like Rep. John Fleming , were livid . `` I 'm concerned that Speaker Boehner is getting ahead of House Republicans when he commits to getting a 'comprehensive approach ' to immigration taken care of 'once and for all . ' There 's been zero discussion of this issue within the conference , and I 'm urging the Speaker to talk with House Republicans before making pledges on the national news , '' Fleming , R-La. , blasted in a statement . `` The Speaker needs to pull back on this issue and stop negotiating in public . '' And when Boehner tried last year to negotiate a grand bargain with Obama on the deficit , taxes and entitlements , key members of his party revolted at the notion that Boehner was open to new revenues . In one of his last news conferences before the election , the Speaker said his failure to strike a grand bargain with the president was `` the biggest disappointment of my speakership . '' Obama said Friday that new discussions will begin next week when Congress returns to begin the lame duck session . Boehner , who held a news conference Friday shortly before Obama , was cautious in his comments and offered few details on what he would accept in a deal , other than rejecting the suggestion of raising taxes on the top tier of tax payers . Instead , he said , `` This is an opportunity for the president to lead . This is his moment to engage the Congress and work towards a solution that can pass both chambers . '' When pressed on what was the size of deficit reduction package he envisioned , the speaker reiterated that he does not want to limit the scope of negotiations and once again called for Obama to lead . `` I do n't want to box myself in . I do n't want to box anybody else in , '' Boehner said . `` I do n't want to limit the options that would be available to me or limit the options that might be available to the White House , '' he said . `` There are a lot of ways to get there , and I do n't really want to preclude anyone who might have a good idea about how we move forward . '' Boehner 's immigration comment was also raised at his news conference Friday , but he was non-committal when asked if he was endorsing a pathway to citizenship . `` I 'm not talking about a 3,000-page bill , '' he said . `` What I 'm talking about is a common-sense , step-by-step approach that would secure our borders , allow us to enforce the laws and fix a broken immigration system , '' he said . `` I 'm not going to get into any of the details of how you would get there . It 's just time to get the job done . ''

House Speaker John Boehner is about to begin another attempt at a grand bargain deficit reduction deal with President Obama, a high wire act in which he will be buffeted by demands from the White House as well as from House Republicans. The difficulty of keeping in step with the hard line approach of his fellow Republicans has been on view since the presidential election. On Thursday, Boehner told ABC News' Diane Sawyer that repealing Obamacare was no longer his party's most pressing concern, saying, "Obamacare is the law of the land" and the election settled the dispute over repeal. Shortly after his comment was aired, Boehner put out a tweet saying, "ObamaCare is law of the land, but it is raising costs & threatening jobs. Our goal has been, and will remain, #fullrepeal." During that interview, the Speaker also told Sawyer that comprehensive immigration reform is a top priority in his legislative agenda during the next Congress. Republicans within his conference, like Rep. John Fleming, were livid. "I'm concerned that Speaker Boehner is getting ahead of House Republicans when he commits to getting a 'comprehensive approach' to immigration taken care of 'once and for all.' There's been zero discussion of this issue within the conference, and I'm urging the Speaker to talk with House Republicans before making pledges on the national news," Fleming, R-La., blasted in a statement. "The Speaker needs to pull back on this issue and stop negotiating in public." And when Boehner tried last year to negotiate a grand bargain with Obama on the deficit, taxes and entitlements, key members of his party revolted at the notion that Boehner was open to new revenues. In one of his last news conferences before the election, the Speaker said his failure to strike a grand bargain with the president was "the biggest disappointment of my speakership." Obama said Friday that new discussions will begin next week when Congress returns to begin the lame duck session. Boehner, who held a news conference Friday shortly before Obama, was cautious in his comments and offered few details on what he would accept in a deal, other than rejecting the suggestion of raising taxes on the top tier of tax payers. Instead, he said, "This is an opportunity for the president to lead. This is his moment to engage the Congress and work towards a solution that can pass both chambers." When pressed on what was the size of deficit reduction package he envisioned, the speaker reiterated that he does not want to limit the scope of negotiations and once again called for Obama to lead. "I don't want to box myself in. I don't want to box anybody else in," Boehner said. "I don't want to limit the options that would be available to me or limit the options that might be available to the White House," he said. "There are a lot of ways to get there, and I don't really want to preclude anyone who might have a good idea about how we move forward." Boehner's immigration comment was also raised at his news conference Friday, but he was non-committal when asked if he was endorsing a pathway to citizenship. "I'm not talking about a 3,000-page bill," he said. "What I'm talking about is a common-sense, step-by-step approach that would secure our borders, allow us to enforce the laws and fix a broken immigration system," he said. "I'm not going to get into any of the details of how you would get there. It's just time to get the job done."

www.abcnews.go.com

left

lY8JoZEK01LXPMNw

test

6JSvbQyav1VEOKSZ

fbi

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/8eb942adcbcb45820e164dd03be4e7d0

Rope found hanging in Wallace’s garage was coincidence

2020-06-23

Jenna Fryer

FILE - In this June 22 , 2020 , file photo , Bubba Wallace takes a selfie of himself and of other drivers who had pushed his car to the front in the pits at Talladega Superspeedway before the NASCAR Cup Series auto race in Talladega Ala. , Monday June 22 , 2020 . The noose found hanging in Wallace 's garage stall at Talladega had been there since at least last October , federal authorities said Tuesday , June 23 , in announcing there will be no charges filed in an incident that rocked NASCAR and its only fulltime Black driver . ( AP Photo/John Bazemore , File ) FILE - In this June 22 , 2020 , file photo , Bubba Wallace takes a selfie of himself and of other drivers who had pushed his car to the front in the pits at Talladega Superspeedway before the NASCAR Cup Series auto race in Talladega Ala. , Monday June 22 , 2020 . The noose found hanging in Wallace 's garage stall at Talladega had been there since at least last October , federal authorities said Tuesday , June 23 , in announcing there will be no charges filed in an incident that rocked NASCAR and its only fulltime Black driver . ( AP Photo/John Bazemore , File ) NASCAR went to Talladega Superspeedway on heightened alert after Bubba Wallace , its only Black driver , took on an active role in a push for racial equality . Wallace had successfully called for the ban of the Confederate flag and received threats . Fans paraded past the main entrance of the Alabama track displaying the flag , and a plane circled above the speedway pulling a Confederate flag banner that read “ Defund NASCAR . ” So NASCAR moved quickly when one of Wallace ’ s crew members discovered a rope shaped like a noose in their garage stall . The sanctioning body called in federal authorities , who ruled Tuesday the rope had been hanging there since at least last October and was not a hate crime . U.S. Attorney Jay Town and FBI Special Agent in Charge Johnnie Sharp Jr. said the investigation determined “ nobody could have known Mr. Wallace would be assigned ” to that same stall . NASCAR said it was the lone garage stall with a pull down rope that resembled a noose . NASCAR has defended its reaction and insisted it would call the FBI again . A defiant Wallace said there is no confusion and the rope had been fashioned into a noose . “ I wanted to make sure this wasn ’ t just a knot , ” Wallace said on CNN . “ It was a noose . Whether it was tied in 2019 ... it is a noose . ” Wallace never saw the rope . He said NASCAR President Steve Phelps came to see him Sunday night at the track with “ tears running down his face . ” “ The evidence he brought to me was that a hate crime has been committed , ” said Wallace , who instantly began to fear for the safety of his family . Even after the FBI concluded that it was not a hate crime , Wallace remained angry at what he perceives as constant tests of his character . He holds no ill-will toward NASCAR . “ I stand behind Steve and I stand behind NASCAR , ” he said . “ NASCAR was worried about Talladega . We had that one circled on the radar with everything going on . ” NASCAR opened the Talladega gates to 5,000 fans , its highest number so far during the coronavirus pandemic . Since finding his voice over the last month , the 26-year-old Mobile , Alabama native has embraced an international role in NASCAR ’ s attempt to push past its rocky racial history . Wallace has worn an “ I Can ’ t Breathe ” shirt , raced with a Black Lives Matter paint scheme in Virginia and successfully lobbied for the Confederate flag ban . NASCAR assigned security to Wallace at the track . The first word of the incident came in a sharply worded statement in which NASCAR said it was “ angry and outraged ” over the “ heinous act ” that the series directly linked to racism . The FBI sent 15 agents to Talladega for Monday ’ s rescheduled race at the same time the industry rallied around Wallace . In an unprecedented show of solidarity , every team member on pit road lined up behind him during the national anthem . Phelps has taken exactly nine questions about the finding in Wallace ’ s garage and none provided any details of the incident . Because of health protocol restrictions , a limited number of personnel have access to the garage . Only a handful of Wallace ’ s crew members and NASCAR saw the rope . Roughly 48 hours after the discovery , federal authorities said video confirmed the rope “ was in that garage as early as October 2019 ” hanging from a garage door . The rope was referred to as a noose , but can be used as a handle when closing the door . Phelps continued to call it a noose after authorities said no charges would be filed , and held firm in that NASCAR is investigating why the rope was tied that way . He was pleased it wasn ’ t a hate crime directed at Wallace , but insisted NASCAR would have conducted its investigation the same way even now knowing it was just a coincidence . “ We would have done the same investigation . It was important for us to do , ” he said . “ The evidence was very clear that the noose that was in the garage was in there previously . The last race we had in October , that noose was present . The evidence we had , it was clear we needed to look into this . ” Meanwhile , Wood Brothers Racing team said it cooperated with the investigation and an employee recalled “ seeing a tied handle in the garage pull down rope from last fall , ” when the team had the stall . NASCAR saying it had found a noose stunned the stock car series as it takes an active position in a push for inclusion . The series first tried to ban the Confederate flag five years ago but did nothing to enforce the order . NASCAR has yet to detail how it will answer Wallace ’ s call to stop the display of the flag .

FILE - In this June 22, 2020, file photo, Bubba Wallace takes a selfie of himself and of other drivers who had pushed his car to the front in the pits at Talladega Superspeedway before the NASCAR Cup Series auto race in Talladega Ala., Monday June 22, 2020. The noose found hanging in Wallace's garage stall at Talladega had been there since at least last October, federal authorities said Tuesday, June 23, in announcing there will be no charges filed in an incident that rocked NASCAR and its only fulltime Black driver. (AP Photo/John Bazemore, File) FILE - In this June 22, 2020, file photo, Bubba Wallace takes a selfie of himself and of other drivers who had pushed his car to the front in the pits at Talladega Superspeedway before the NASCAR Cup Series auto race in Talladega Ala., Monday June 22, 2020. The noose found hanging in Wallace's garage stall at Talladega had been there since at least last October, federal authorities said Tuesday, June 23, in announcing there will be no charges filed in an incident that rocked NASCAR and its only fulltime Black driver. (AP Photo/John Bazemore, File) NASCAR went to Talladega Superspeedway on heightened alert after Bubba Wallace, its only Black driver, took on an active role in a push for racial equality. Wallace had successfully called for the ban of the Confederate flag and received threats. Fans paraded past the main entrance of the Alabama track displaying the flag, and a plane circled above the speedway pulling a Confederate flag banner that read “Defund NASCAR.” So NASCAR moved quickly when one of Wallace’s crew members discovered a rope shaped like a noose in their garage stall. The sanctioning body called in federal authorities, who ruled Tuesday the rope had been hanging there since at least last October and was not a hate crime. U.S. Attorney Jay Town and FBI Special Agent in Charge Johnnie Sharp Jr. said the investigation determined “nobody could have known Mr. Wallace would be assigned” to that same stall. NASCAR said it was the lone garage stall with a pull down rope that resembled a noose. NASCAR has defended its reaction and insisted it would call the FBI again. A defiant Wallace said there is no confusion and the rope had been fashioned into a noose. “I wanted to make sure this wasn’t just a knot,” Wallace said on CNN. “It was a noose. Whether it was tied in 2019 ... it is a noose.” Wallace never saw the rope. He said NASCAR President Steve Phelps came to see him Sunday night at the track with “tears running down his face.” “The evidence he brought to me was that a hate crime has been committed,” said Wallace, who instantly began to fear for the safety of his family. Even after the FBI concluded that it was not a hate crime, Wallace remained angry at what he perceives as constant tests of his character. He holds no ill-will toward NASCAR. “I stand behind Steve and I stand behind NASCAR,” he said. “NASCAR was worried about Talladega. We had that one circled on the radar with everything going on.” NASCAR opened the Talladega gates to 5,000 fans, its highest number so far during the coronavirus pandemic. Since finding his voice over the last month, the 26-year-old Mobile, Alabama native has embraced an international role in NASCAR’s attempt to push past its rocky racial history. Wallace has worn an “I Can’t Breathe” shirt, raced with a Black Lives Matter paint scheme in Virginia and successfully lobbied for the Confederate flag ban. NASCAR assigned security to Wallace at the track. The first word of the incident came in a sharply worded statement in which NASCAR said it was “angry and outraged” over the “heinous act” that the series directly linked to racism. The FBI sent 15 agents to Talladega for Monday’s rescheduled race at the same time the industry rallied around Wallace. In an unprecedented show of solidarity, every team member on pit road lined up behind him during the national anthem. Phelps has taken exactly nine questions about the finding in Wallace’s garage and none provided any details of the incident. Because of health protocol restrictions, a limited number of personnel have access to the garage. Only a handful of Wallace’s crew members and NASCAR saw the rope. Roughly 48 hours after the discovery, federal authorities said video confirmed the rope “was in that garage as early as October 2019” hanging from a garage door. The rope was referred to as a noose, but can be used as a handle when closing the door. Phelps continued to call it a noose after authorities said no charges would be filed, and held firm in that NASCAR is investigating why the rope was tied that way. He was pleased it wasn’t a hate crime directed at Wallace, but insisted NASCAR would have conducted its investigation the same way even now knowing it was just a coincidence. “We would have done the same investigation. It was important for us to do,” he said. ADVERTISEMENT “The evidence was very clear that the noose that was in the garage was in there previously. The last race we had in October, that noose was present. The evidence we had, it was clear we needed to look into this.” He took no questions on the FBI’s findings. Meanwhile, Wood Brothers Racing team said it cooperated with the investigation and an employee recalled “seeing a tied handle in the garage pull down rope from last fall,” when the team had the stall. NASCAR saying it had found a noose stunned the stock car series as it takes an active position in a push for inclusion. The series first tried to ban the Confederate flag five years ago but did nothing to enforce the order. NASCAR has yet to detail how it will answer Wallace’s call to stop the display of the flag.

www.apnews.com

center

6JSvbQyav1VEOKSZ

test

tluF3mAWcue0WZLV

supreme_court

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-poised-rule-part-voting-rights-act/story?id=18608835

Supreme Court Seems Poised to Rule Against Key Provision of Voting Rights Act

Ariane De Vogue, Sarah Parnass, Alex Marino

Conservative Supreme Court Justices expressed strong reservations today about a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that is intended to protect the rights of minorities and suggested it could be in danger . That section of the landmark 1965 law says that certain states , mostly in the South , must get any changes to voting regulations precleared by federal officials in Washington , D.C . RELATED : Challenge to the Voting Rights Act Reaches Supreme Court Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. began arguments at the Court Wednesday by saying that the Voting Rights Act `` made a huge difference in transforming the culture of blatantly racist vote suppression that characterized parts of this country for a century . Section 5 preclearance was the principal engine of that progress . '' But Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern that Congress , when reauthorizing the law in 2006 for 25 more years , used an outdated `` coverage formula '' that singled out only a few states , mostly in the South . He asked Verrilli : `` Is it the government 's submission that the citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North ? '' The jurisdictions covered under the law include Alabama , Alaska , Arizona , Georgia , Louisiana , Mississippi , South Carolina , Texas and Virginia , as well as portions of California , Florida , Michigan , New Hampshire , New York , North Carolina and South Dakota . Justice Samuel Alito said , `` There 's no question that the Voting Rights Act has done enormous good . '' But he said that when Congress reauthorized it , it should have considered a new determination of which states should be covered . `` Maybe the whole country should be covered . Or maybe certain parts of the country should be covered based on a formula that is grounded in up-to-date statistics , `` he said . Justice Antonin Scalia spoke at length about the fact that the 2006 congressional vote to reauthorized the act was nearly unanimous . `` I think it is attributable , very likely attributable , to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement . It 's been written about . Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements , it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes . `` And I am fairly confident it will be re-enacted in perpetuity unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution , '' he continued . `` You have to show , when you are treating different states differently , that there 's a good reason for it. `` Scalia said , `` That 's the concern that those of us who have some questions about this statute have . It 's a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress . '' After the dialogue , Roberts gave Verrilli an extra five minutes . `` Thank you , '' Verrilli said , smiling . `` I may need it for that question . '' `` We are talking about the enforcement power that the Constitution gives to the Congress to make these judgments to ensure protection of fundamental rights , '' said Verrilli . He added that he thought it would be `` extraordinary '' to look behind the judgment of Congress on the basis of `` that sort of motive analysis . '' Scalia 's question bothered Justice Sonia Sotomayor who later asked a lawyer for Shelby County , Ala. , `` Do you think Section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement ? '' And she also said , `` Do you think that racial discrimination in voting has ended and there is none anywhere ? `` Sotomayor , one of the four liberals on the court , emerged as one of the most vocal defenders of the law . Bert W. Rein , the attorney challenging Section 5 , said that the South had changed and that the coverage formula should not have been reauthorized . But Sotomayor cut him off . She said that even if some portions of the South had changed , `` your county pretty much has n't . '' `` Why would we vote in favor of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with , '' she asked . Justice Anthony Kennedy , who could be a crucial vote , asked a question that showed skepticism of Rein 's position . He referred to Alabama 's history of discrimination and noted that the state might be considered under any coverage formula . But as he had previously stated in a related case in 2009 , Kennedy seemed concerned about the federalist implications of the law on the states . At one point he compared Alabama 's sovereignty with the `` trusteeship of the United States government . '' Justice Elena Kagan defended the 15,000-page legislative record Congress developed after holding 21 hearings . `` It 's hard to see how Congress could have developed a better and more thorough legislative record than it did , '' she said . Justice Clarence Thomas said nothing during arguments , but in 2009 he said he believed Section 5 `` exceeded Congress ' power to enforce the 15th Amendment . '' In the audience were prominent civil rights activists , including the Rev . Jesse Jackson , the Rev . Al Sharpton , Rep. John Lewis , D-Ga. , and Cecilia Marshall , the widow of former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall . Protesters gathered on the steps outside the court before arguments began . They held signs with such messages as `` Protect My Vote , '' and `` My Vote , Our Rights , Our Fight . '' Demonstrators from the Alliance for Justice lined up in front of the Supreme Court steps . Jackson , Sharpton and Lewis spoke for the group , and were joined by Rep. Marcia Fudge , D-Ohio , House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi , Rep. Judy Chu , D-Calif. , and Ruben Hinojos , D-Texas , among others . Fudge , chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus , had a clear retort to the arguments against Section 5 : `` You will not win . You will not win this battle . '' Sharpton ended his remarks with : `` They do n't use white sheets anymore , they use black robes . ''

Conservative Supreme Court Justices expressed strong reservations today about a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that is intended to protect the rights of minorities and suggested it could be in danger. That section of the landmark 1965 law says that certain states, mostly in the South, must get any changes to voting regulations precleared by federal officials in Washington, D.C. RELATED: Challenge to the Voting Rights Act Reaches Supreme Court Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. began arguments at the Court Wednesday by saying that the Voting Rights Act "made a huge difference in transforming the culture of blatantly racist vote suppression that characterized parts of this country for a century. Section 5 preclearance was the principal engine of that progress." But Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern that Congress, when reauthorizing the law in 2006 for 25 more years, used an outdated "coverage formula" that singled out only a few states, mostly in the South. He asked Verrilli: "Is it the government's submission that the citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North?" The jurisdictions covered under the law include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, as well as portions of California, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota. Justice Samuel Alito said, "There's no question that the Voting Rights Act has done enormous good." But he said that when Congress reauthorized it, it should have considered a new determination of which states should be covered. "Maybe the whole country should be covered. Or maybe certain parts of the country should be covered based on a formula that is grounded in up-to-date statistics, " he said. Justice Antonin Scalia spoke at length about the fact that the 2006 congressional vote to reauthorized the act was nearly unanimous. "I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It's been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. "And I am fairly confident it will be re-enacted in perpetuity unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution," he continued. "You have to show, when you are treating different states differently, that there's a good reason for it. " Scalia said, "That's the concern that those of us who have some questions about this statute have. It's a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress." After the dialogue, Roberts gave Verrilli an extra five minutes. "Thank you," Verrilli said, smiling. "I may need it for that question." "We are talking about the enforcement power that the Constitution gives to the Congress to make these judgments to ensure protection of fundamental rights," said Verrilli. He added that he thought it would be "extraordinary" to look behind the judgment of Congress on the basis of "that sort of motive analysis." Scalia's question bothered Justice Sonia Sotomayor who later asked a lawyer for Shelby County, Ala., "Do you think Section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement?" And she also said, "Do you think that racial discrimination in voting has ended and there is none anywhere? " Sotomayor, one of the four liberals on the court, emerged as one of the most vocal defenders of the law. Bert W. Rein, the attorney challenging Section 5, said that the South had changed and that the coverage formula should not have been reauthorized. But Sotomayor cut him off. She said that even if some portions of the South had changed, "your county pretty much hasn't." "Why would we vote in favor of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with," she asked. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who could be a crucial vote, asked a question that showed skepticism of Rein's position. He referred to Alabama's history of discrimination and noted that the state might be considered under any coverage formula. "Why are you injured under this one?" But as he had previously stated in a related case in 2009, Kennedy seemed concerned about the federalist implications of the law on the states. At one point he compared Alabama's sovereignty with the "trusteeship of the United States government." Justice Elena Kagan defended the 15,000-page legislative record Congress developed after holding 21 hearings. "It's hard to see how Congress could have developed a better and more thorough legislative record than it did," she said. Justice Clarence Thomas said nothing during arguments, but in 2009 he said he believed Section 5 " exceeded Congress' power to enforce the 15th Amendment." In the audience were prominent civil rights activists, including the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Al Sharpton, Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., and Cecilia Marshall, the widow of former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. Protesters gathered on the steps outside the court before arguments began. They held signs with such messages as "Protect My Vote," and "My Vote, Our Rights, Our Fight." Demonstrators from the Alliance for Justice lined up in front of the Supreme Court steps. Jackson, Sharpton and Lewis spoke for the group, and were joined by Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., and Ruben Hinojos, D-Texas, among others. Fudge, chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, had a clear retort to the arguments against Section 5: "You will not win. You will not win this battle." Sharpton ended his remarks with: "They don't use white sheets anymore, they use black robes."

www.abcnews.go.com

left

tluF3mAWcue0WZLV

test

NngxXpBiVYgwxYM8

banking_and_finance

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/japanese-stocks-rally-asia-mixed-wall-street-rebound-60029800?cid=clicksource_4380645_1_heads_hero_live_headlines_hed

Markets seesaw; Dow slides 400 after record, one-day gain

David Mchugh

Markets roil , futures slump after Dow 's record , one-day gain One of the few constants in global markets this holiday week : extreme volatility FRANKFURT , Germany -- More wild market swings appeared imminent Thursday , with U.S. stocks heading sharply lower after the largest single-day point gain in history for the Dow . Slowing economic growth globally and a partial U.S. government shutdown heading into its sixth day whipsawed markets from Europe to Asia . Dow futures pointed to a 400-point loss less than two hours before the opening bell , following a 1,000-point gain the previous day . Trading resumed in European markets which had been closed for the Christmas holiday , and the German DAX slid 1.7 percent to 10,447.53 . France 's CAC 40 gave up 0.1 percent , to 4,619.74 . Britain 's FTSE 100 fell a full percentage point to 6,616.55 . Futures for the broad S & P futures slumped 1.5 percent to 2,430.50 and the battered Nasdaq , down more than 18 percent in the past three months , slid 1.6 percent , to 6,188.50 . On Wednesday , U.S. markets snapped a four-day losing streak and clocked their best day in more than 10 years as the Dow jumped 5 percent , or 1,086 points , to 22,878.45 . Advisers to President Donald Trump said there were no plans to oust Fed chairman Jerome Powell , though his sentiment on the man he nominated , played out it tweets , seem as volatile as the stock markets . Strong holiday sales , up more than 5 percent during the holiday season in the U.S. , also lifted spirits in the shortened trading week . Mastercard SpendingPulse said U.S. shoppers spent more than $ 850 billion this year . `` The question , of course , is whether this is just a snapback bear market rally , or as Trump said , a tremendous opportunity to buy stocks ? '' Chris Weston of Pepperstone Group Limited said . `` We can assess the fundamental drivers , such as poor global economics , the Fed not altering its forward guidance or providing flexibility to the pace of balance sheet normalization , and ascertain nothing has really changed here , '' he added . Bloomberg reported that the U.S. will send a government delegation to hold trade talks with Chinese officials in Beijing in the week starting Jan. 7 . It cited two people familiar with the matter . This follows a meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in Argentina earlier this month . The two leaders agreed to hold off on additional tariffs for 90 days , to work on disagreements on trade and technology policies . Nikkei 225 index rebounded 3.9 percent to 20,077.62 . It tumbled more than 5 percent on Tuesday before recovering slightly a day later . South Korea 's Kospi was less than 0.1 percent higher at 2,028.44 . The Shanghai Composite index lost 0.6 percent to 2,483.09 . The Hang Seng index was 0.7 percent lower at 25,478.88 while Australia 's S & P-ASX 200 jumped 1.9 percent to 5,597.20 . Stocks climbed in Taiwan and throughout Southeast Asia . Benchmark U.S. crude dropped 86 cents to $ 45.36 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange . The contract posted its biggest one-day gain in more than two years and settled at $ 46.22 a barrel in New York on Wednesday . Brent crude , used to price international oils , shed $ 1.11 to $ 53.36 a barrel . The dollar fell 0.52 percent to 110.76 yen . The euro rose 0.4 percent to $ 1.1391 .

Markets roil, futures slump after Dow's record, one-day gain One of the few constants in global markets this holiday week: extreme volatility FRANKFURT, Germany -- More wild market swings appeared imminent Thursday, with U.S. stocks heading sharply lower after the largest single-day point gain in history for the Dow. Slowing economic growth globally and a partial U.S. government shutdown heading into its sixth day whipsawed markets from Europe to Asia. Dow futures pointed to a 400-point loss less than two hours before the opening bell, following a 1,000-point gain the previous day. Trading resumed in European markets which had been closed for the Christmas holiday, and the German DAX slid 1.7 percent to 10,447.53. France's CAC 40 gave up 0.1 percent, to 4,619.74. Britain's FTSE 100 fell a full percentage point to 6,616.55. Futures for the broad S&P futures slumped 1.5 percent to 2,430.50 and the battered Nasdaq, down more than 18 percent in the past three months, slid 1.6 percent, to 6,188.50. On Wednesday, U.S. markets snapped a four-day losing streak and clocked their best day in more than 10 years as the Dow jumped 5 percent, or 1,086 points, to 22,878.45. Advisers to President Donald Trump said there were no plans to oust Fed chairman Jerome Powell, though his sentiment on the man he nominated, played out it tweets, seem as volatile as the stock markets. Strong holiday sales, up more than 5 percent during the holiday season in the U.S., also lifted spirits in the shortened trading week. Mastercard SpendingPulse said U.S. shoppers spent more than $850 billion this year. "The question, of course, is whether this is just a snapback bear market rally, or as Trump said, a tremendous opportunity to buy stocks?" Chris Weston of Pepperstone Group Limited said. "We can assess the fundamental drivers, such as poor global economics, the Fed not altering its forward guidance or providing flexibility to the pace of balance sheet normalization, and ascertain nothing has really changed here," he added. Bloomberg reported that the U.S. will send a government delegation to hold trade talks with Chinese officials in Beijing in the week starting Jan. 7. It cited two people familiar with the matter. This follows a meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in Argentina earlier this month. The two leaders agreed to hold off on additional tariffs for 90 days, to work on disagreements on trade and technology policies. Nikkei 225 index rebounded 3.9 percent to 20,077.62. It tumbled more than 5 percent on Tuesday before recovering slightly a day later. South Korea's Kospi was less than 0.1 percent higher at 2,028.44. The Shanghai Composite index lost 0.6 percent to 2,483.09. The Hang Seng index was 0.7 percent lower at 25,478.88 while Australia's S&P-ASX 200 jumped 1.9 percent to 5,597.20. Stocks climbed in Taiwan and throughout Southeast Asia. Benchmark U.S. crude dropped 86 cents to $45.36 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The contract posted its biggest one-day gain in more than two years and settled at $46.22 a barrel in New York on Wednesday. Brent crude, used to price international oils, shed $1.11 to $53.36 a barrel. The dollar fell 0.52 percent to 110.76 yen. The euro rose 0.4 percent to $1.1391. ——— Liang contributed from Singapore.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

NngxXpBiVYgwxYM8

test

sycuzLzi4sO2xmVI

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/where-the-scandals-really-are/

Where The Scandals Really Are

Scott Mckay, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Daniel J. Flynn, George Neumayr, Diana West

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte ( R-Va. ) and Judiciary Committee Republicans today sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein calling for the appointment of a second special counsel to investigate unaddressed matters , some connected to the 2016 election and others , including many actions taken by Obama Administration officials like Attorney General Loretta Lynch , FBI Director James Comey , and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton . The letter follows yesterday ’ s House Judiciary Committee approval of H. Res . 446 , as amended , to request documents pertaining to the FBI ’ s investigation of former Secretary Clinton . In their letter , the Judiciary Committee members express concern that the directive given to Special Counsel Robert Mueller is narrow in scope and many concerns arising out of the 2016 presidential election and its aftermath are not being investigated . The members call for the appointment of a second special counsel to investigate grave concerns such as former Attorney General Lynch ’ s directive to former FBI Director Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the investigation into former Secretary Clinton ; the FBI and Justice Department ’ s investigative decisions related to the Clinton email investigation , including the immunity deals given to potential co-conspirators ; selected leaks of classified information that unmasked U.S. persons incidentally collected upon by the intelligence community ; and the FBI ’ s reliance on “ Fusion GPS ” in its investigation of the Trump campaign , among many others issues . If you ’ re sick and tired of the never-ending “ Trump And The Russians ” scandal , which for all its hype has produced scant little actual evidence of anything other than desultory cooperation on the part of the president ’ s camp with an investigation it quite reasonably believes is a kangaroo court , this letter from Goodlatte ’ s committee might just be what the doctor ordered . Because as Washington scandals go , Trump And The Russians doesn ’ t even make it out of Double-A ball . What Goodlatte and the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee want is a special counsel to take us up to the Triple-A or major league scandal level , because there are opportunities for playing time available . The unmasking issue still has a lot of undiscovered meat on its bones ; we ’ ve already seen a little evidence of that . The Lynch-Comey-Phoenix Airport nexus deserves a lot more scrutiny than it ’ s received , as do those immunity grants . And the leaks without a doubt deserve a full investigation , and some smug SOB ’ s from the Deep State surely deserve lengthy prison terms . But the Fusion GPS business — and the long-simmering and now-burgeoning Awan brothers scandal — are monsters hiding in D.C. ’ s closet . Here ’ s to both those scandals continuing to crackle and spark over the next several months , on the way to full explosions the legacy media can no longer contain . The central figure in this scandal is a Pakistani national named Imran Awan , who appears to be connected in some way to his country ’ s intelligence service . Awan is an IT professional who was hired in 2004 to handle computer equipment for Florida Democrat congressman Robert Wexler , and he then picked up a job as a shared staffer to work for Wexler ’ s colleague Debbie Wasserman Schultz . Awan rode along with Wasserman Schultz as she ascended to the top of the Democratic Party structure , and soon not only was his boss the chair of the Democratic National Committee but Awan ’ s relationship with her led to his building a client list of some 80 Democrat House members who were using either Imran or other members of his family ( a pair of brothers , one of their wives , his own wife ) in a sizable little empire he ’ d built . And in the meantime , the Awan family was engaging in a pattern of financial activities that looked a whole lot like a mafia operation — questionable real estate deals , bank fraud , kidnapping and extortion , a used-car dealership that might well have been a front for moving stolen cars to Pakistan for sale , and so on . Awan was arrested at Dulles International Airport on Monday as he tried to flee the country while the FBI and Capitol Hill Police were closing in on a bank fraud indictment . In January he had wired some $ 283,000 from the Congressional Federal Credit Union to two individuals in Pakistan ; he was trying to board a flight to Lahore when he had the cuffs put on him . But the real juice with the Awans isn ’ t the bank fraud or the possible stolen cars . The real scandal here is the stolen computers — and the stolen information . It ’ s alleged that the Awans illegally downloaded documents from their clients , some of whom were on the House Intelligence Committee and other sensitive committees , and even walked off with congressional computers . The FBI , in fact , seized a number of CPU ’ s and hard drives found at a house owned by Imran that he was renting to a military couple after the tenants had found the equipment partially destroyed in the garage and called the authorities . We don ’ t know what was on those hard drives . There are even allegations the Awans were blackmailing their clients with information they ’ d found in their e-mails . Your imagination can likely conjure up all kinds of entertaining scenarios around that theme . But the piece de resistance with the Awan brothers scandal is the revelation that Imran Awan , with his foreign intelligence connections , his criminal appearance and his persistent financial problems despite apparently not lacking in the ability to make a buck , had the password to Wasserman Schultz ’ iPad from which she answered her e-mail… as DNC chair . Forget about the Russians and their supposed hacking of the DNC e-mails . If you ’ re really curious about who got to that information and would have been in a position to shop it to the highest bidder , Imran Awan is the most likely culprit in the room . Things are moving very quickly on this case , and it ’ s somewhat telling that Awan was released on bond after being caught trying to flee the country . He has a tracking bracelet on his ankle , but what makes more sense is that he may have turned states ’ evidence in exchange for being let out of jail . Awan ’ s attorney is former Bill Clinton go-fer Chris Gowen , and the lawyer ’ s statement after he ’ d been arrested reads like a press release from a campaign operative rather than a criminal attorney ; bizarrely so , one might say . It might be that Awan is rolling on Wasserman Schultz and the Clintons have decided to hang her out to dry in order to insulate themselves from whatever blowback the DNC e-mails might generate for them . Or maybe that isn ’ t possible anymore . Former Washington police detective Rod Wheeler , who you ’ ve probably seen on Fox News from time to time and who most recently was in the news as having done some private snooping in the Seth Rich case , has intimated there is a connection between that case and that of the Awan brothers . We ’ re not going to try to connect those dots without more information , but one ’ s imagination might run riot with those . Meanwhile , Republicans in both the House and the Senate are exceptionally curious about Fusion GPS , and with good reason . In case you ’ re not familiar with this outfit , it ’ s the “ opposition research and strategic communications ” firm co-founded by former Wall Street Journal reporters Peter Fritsch and Glenn Simpson which played a significant role in the 2016 election . It was Fusion GPS which commissioned the infamous and debunked “ pee pee dossier , ” written by former British spy Christopher Steele , sourced largely from Steele ’ s Russian contacts and containing a mountain of scurrilous and implausible allegations about Donald Trump ’ s misbehaviors . Fusion GPS was initially contracted by anti-Trump Republican donors , but after Trump got the GOP nomination it was Democrats paying the freight for their work product… and before it was over it looks like James Comey ’ s FBI , amazingly , was picking up the tab . That last part is of special interest to Sen. Charles Grassley and the Senate Judiciary Committee , which has made a priority out of Fusion GPS , and had called Simpson to testify . He did , but only in private , and only after threatening to take the Fifth . That ’ s his right , but what does an oppo researcher need the Fifth Amendment for ? But there ’ s more with Fusion GPS . On Wednesday Tucker Carlson had as a guest on his show one Thor Halvorssen , a Venezuelan native of Norwegian descent who runs a watchdog outfit called the Human Rights Foundation , and Halvorssen told a harrowing story of Fusion GPS attempting to destroy his life with a smear campaign because he ’ d blown the whistle on a crooked contract one of Fusion ’ s clients had with the Venezuelan government to build power plants . That story also got told in a letter Halvorssen sent to Grassley ’ s committee . And then there is Fusion ’ s other client , Natalia Veselnitskaya , the “ Russian lawyer ” whose meeting with Jared Kushner , Donald Trump Jr. , and Paul Manafort has been bandied about as some sort of smoking gun proving collusion with the Russians . It turns out that Veselnitskaya had hired Fusion to help her push to overturn the Magnitsky Act , a sanctions bill targeting crooked Russian oligarchs and human rights abusers . In none of these cases did Fusion bother to register under FARA , the Foreign Agent Registry Act , which would put them on the wrong side of the law . Grassley ’ s committee , and Goodlatte ’ s committee , would like to know if this entire Russian business was a setup cooked-up by Fusion ’ s dirty-tricks shop with the collusion of a few actors in the Obama administration . It ’ s hard to blame them . There ’ s a lot of debate about Trump ’ s “ drain the swamp ” mantra these days , but nobody is really denying the swamp exists . And nobody can — not with Fusion GPS and the Awan brothers skulking around in the muck .

From a press release that hit on Thursday… House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Judiciary Committee Republicans today sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein calling for the appointment of a second special counsel to investigate unaddressed matters, some connected to the 2016 election and others, including many actions taken by Obama Administration officials like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The letter follows yesterday’s House Judiciary Committee approval of H. Res. 446, as amended, to request documents pertaining to the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary Clinton. In their letter, the Judiciary Committee members express concern that the directive given to Special Counsel Robert Mueller is narrow in scope and many concerns arising out of the 2016 presidential election and its aftermath are not being investigated. The members call for the appointment of a second special counsel to investigate grave concerns such as former Attorney General Lynch’s directive to former FBI Director Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the investigation into former Secretary Clinton; the FBI and Justice Department’s investigative decisions related to the Clinton email investigation, including the immunity deals given to potential co-conspirators; selected leaks of classified information that unmasked U.S. persons incidentally collected upon by the intelligence community; and the FBI’s reliance on “Fusion GPS” in its investigation of the Trump campaign, among many others issues. If you’re sick and tired of the never-ending “Trump And The Russians” scandal, which for all its hype has produced scant little actual evidence of anything other than desultory cooperation on the part of the president’s camp with an investigation it quite reasonably believes is a kangaroo court, this letter from Goodlatte’s committee might just be what the doctor ordered. Because as Washington scandals go, Trump And The Russians doesn’t even make it out of Double-A ball. What Goodlatte and the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee want is a special counsel to take us up to the Triple-A or major league scandal level, because there are opportunities for playing time available. The unmasking issue still has a lot of undiscovered meat on its bones; we’ve already seen a little evidence of that. The Lynch-Comey-Phoenix Airport nexus deserves a lot more scrutiny than it’s received, as do those immunity grants. And the leaks without a doubt deserve a full investigation, and some smug SOB’s from the Deep State surely deserve lengthy prison terms. But the Fusion GPS business — and the long-simmering and now-burgeoning Awan brothers scandal — are monsters hiding in D.C.’s closet. Here’s to both those scandals continuing to crackle and spark over the next several months, on the way to full explosions the legacy media can no longer contain. Readers of this column already have an understanding of the Awan brothers scandal, as this space covered a substantial amount of the background of it back in February when things first started happening. Click here to see that background; we’ll give a very short summary of it now. The central figure in this scandal is a Pakistani national named Imran Awan, who appears to be connected in some way to his country’s intelligence service. Awan is an IT professional who was hired in 2004 to handle computer equipment for Florida Democrat congressman Robert Wexler, and he then picked up a job as a shared staffer to work for Wexler’s colleague Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Awan rode along with Wasserman Schultz as she ascended to the top of the Democratic Party structure, and soon not only was his boss the chair of the Democratic National Committee but Awan’s relationship with her led to his building a client list of some 80 Democrat House members who were using either Imran or other members of his family (a pair of brothers, one of their wives, his own wife) in a sizable little empire he’d built. And in the meantime, the Awan family was engaging in a pattern of financial activities that looked a whole lot like a mafia operation — questionable real estate deals, bank fraud, kidnapping and extortion, a used-car dealership that might well have been a front for moving stolen cars to Pakistan for sale, and so on. Awan was arrested at Dulles International Airport on Monday as he tried to flee the country while the FBI and Capitol Hill Police were closing in on a bank fraud indictment. In January he had wired some $283,000 from the Congressional Federal Credit Union to two individuals in Pakistan; he was trying to board a flight to Lahore when he had the cuffs put on him. But the real juice with the Awans isn’t the bank fraud or the possible stolen cars. The real scandal here is the stolen computers — and the stolen information. It’s alleged that the Awans illegally downloaded documents from their clients, some of whom were on the House Intelligence Committee and other sensitive committees, and even walked off with congressional computers. The FBI, in fact, seized a number of CPU’s and hard drives found at a house owned by Imran that he was renting to a military couple after the tenants had found the equipment partially destroyed in the garage and called the authorities. We don’t know what was on those hard drives. There are even allegations the Awans were blackmailing their clients with information they’d found in their e-mails. Your imagination can likely conjure up all kinds of entertaining scenarios around that theme. But the piece de resistance with the Awan brothers scandal is the revelation that Imran Awan, with his foreign intelligence connections, his criminal appearance and his persistent financial problems despite apparently not lacking in the ability to make a buck, had the password to Wasserman Schultz’ iPad from which she answered her e-mail… as DNC chair. Forget about the Russians and their supposed hacking of the DNC e-mails. If you’re really curious about who got to that information and would have been in a position to shop it to the highest bidder, Imran Awan is the most likely culprit in the room. Things are moving very quickly on this case, and it’s somewhat telling that Awan was released on bond after being caught trying to flee the country. He has a tracking bracelet on his ankle, but what makes more sense is that he may have turned states’ evidence in exchange for being let out of jail. Awan’s attorney is former Bill Clinton go-fer Chris Gowen, and the lawyer’s statement after he’d been arrested reads like a press release from a campaign operative rather than a criminal attorney; bizarrely so, one might say. It might be that Awan is rolling on Wasserman Schultz and the Clintons have decided to hang her out to dry in order to insulate themselves from whatever blowback the DNC e-mails might generate for them. Or maybe that isn’t possible anymore. Former Washington police detective Rod Wheeler, who you’ve probably seen on Fox News from time to time and who most recently was in the news as having done some private snooping in the Seth Rich case, has intimated there is a connection between that case and that of the Awan brothers. We’re not going to try to connect those dots without more information, but one’s imagination might run riot with those. Meanwhile, Republicans in both the House and the Senate are exceptionally curious about Fusion GPS, and with good reason. In case you’re not familiar with this outfit, it’s the “opposition research and strategic communications” firm co-founded by former Wall Street Journal reporters Peter Fritsch and Glenn Simpson which played a significant role in the 2016 election. It was Fusion GPS which commissioned the infamous and debunked “pee pee dossier,” written by former British spy Christopher Steele, sourced largely from Steele’s Russian contacts and containing a mountain of scurrilous and implausible allegations about Donald Trump’s misbehaviors. Fusion GPS was initially contracted by anti-Trump Republican donors, but after Trump got the GOP nomination it was Democrats paying the freight for their work product… and before it was over it looks like James Comey’s FBI, amazingly, was picking up the tab. That last part is of special interest to Sen. Charles Grassley and the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has made a priority out of Fusion GPS, and had called Simpson to testify. He did, but only in private, and only after threatening to take the Fifth. That’s his right, but what does an oppo researcher need the Fifth Amendment for? But there’s more with Fusion GPS. On Wednesday Tucker Carlson had as a guest on his show one Thor Halvorssen, a Venezuelan native of Norwegian descent who runs a watchdog outfit called the Human Rights Foundation, and Halvorssen told a harrowing story of Fusion GPS attempting to destroy his life with a smear campaign because he’d blown the whistle on a crooked contract one of Fusion’s clients had with the Venezuelan government to build power plants. That story also got told in a letter Halvorssen sent to Grassley’s committee. And then there is Fusion’s other client, Natalia Veselnitskaya, the “Russian lawyer” whose meeting with Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., and Paul Manafort has been bandied about as some sort of smoking gun proving collusion with the Russians. It turns out that Veselnitskaya had hired Fusion to help her push to overturn the Magnitsky Act, a sanctions bill targeting crooked Russian oligarchs and human rights abusers. In none of these cases did Fusion bother to register under FARA, the Foreign Agent Registry Act, which would put them on the wrong side of the law. Grassley’s committee, and Goodlatte’s committee, would like to know if this entire Russian business was a setup cooked-up by Fusion’s dirty-tricks shop with the collusion of a few actors in the Obama administration. It’s hard to blame them. There’s a lot of debate about Trump’s “drain the swamp” mantra these days, but nobody is really denying the swamp exists. And nobody can — not with Fusion GPS and the Awan brothers skulking around in the muck.

www.spectator.org

right

sycuzLzi4sO2xmVI

test

dcwWwSKgmniZGE7x

federal_budget

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/sen-mitch-mcconnell-the-tax-issue-is-finished/

Sen. Mitch McConnell: ‘The Tax Issue Is Finished’

George Stephanopoulos

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell . R-Ky. , Sunday said he will not accept any new revenue in future deals with congressional Democrats and President Obama . `` The tax issue is finished . Over . Completed , '' McConnell told me on `` This Week . '' `` That 's behind us . Now the question is what are we going to do about the biggest problem confronting our country and that 's our spending addiction . `` We did n't have this problem because we were n't taxing enough , '' McConnell added . He blamed Obama and Democrats for waiting to resolve budget issues until the last minute . Read a transcript of the full interview with Sen. Mitch McConnell HERE . `` Why we end up in these last-minute discussions is beyond me . We need to function , '' McConnell said . `` I mean , the House of Representatives , for example , passed a budget every year . They 've passed appropriation bills . `` The Senate Democratic majority and the president seem to like these last-minute deals . '' McConnell said that the biggest issue facing the country in the next year is the deficit and spending . And he predicted that the issue would occupy the congressional agenda in the first three months of the year , overtaking Obama 's other priorities , including gun control . `` But the biggest problem we have at the moment is spending and debt , '' McConnell said . `` That 's going to dominate the Congress between now and the end of March . None of these issues , I think , will have the kind of priority that spending and debt are going to have over the next two or three months . '' On the expected nomination of former Sen. Chuck Hagel , R-Neb. , as the secretary of Defense by Obama , McConnell said he would evaluate Hagel 's past statements before determining whether he could support his nomination in the Senate . `` I 'm going to take a look at all the things that Chuck has said over the years and review that , and in terms of his qualifications to lead our nation 's military , '' McConnell said . `` The question we will be answering if he 's the nominee , is do his views make sense for that particular job ? I think he ought to be given a fair hearing , like any other nominee , and he will be . '' McConnell , who in 2008 praised Hagel for his clear voice and stature on foreign policy and national security , now says he will reserve judgment on his possible nomination until after a Senate confirmation hearing . `` I 'm going to wait and see how the hearings go and see whether Chuck 's views square with the job he would be nominated to do , '' he added . Like `` This Week '' on Facebook here . You can also follow the show on Twitter here .

ABC News Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. R-Ky., Sunday said he will not accept any new revenue in future deals with congressional Democrats and President Obama. "The tax issue is finished. Over. Completed," McConnell told me on "This Week." "That's behind us. Now the question is what are we going to do about the biggest problem confronting our country and that's our spending addiction. "We didn't have this problem because we weren't taxing enough," McConnell added. He blamed Obama and Democrats for waiting to resolve budget issues until the last minute. Read a transcript of the full interview with Sen. Mitch McConnell HERE. "Why we end up in these last-minute discussions is beyond me. We need to function," McConnell said. "I mean, the House of Representatives, for example, passed a budget every year. They've passed appropriation bills. "The Senate Democratic majority and the president seem to like these last-minute deals." McConnell said that the biggest issue facing the country in the next year is the deficit and spending. And he predicted that the issue would occupy the congressional agenda in the first three months of the year, overtaking Obama's other priorities, including gun control. "But the biggest problem we have at the moment is spending and debt," McConnell said. "That's going to dominate the Congress between now and the end of March. None of these issues, I think, will have the kind of priority that spending and debt are going to have over the next two or three months." On the expected nomination of former Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., as the secretary of Defense by Obama, McConnell said he would evaluate Hagel's past statements before determining whether he could support his nomination in the Senate. "I'm going to take a look at all the things that Chuck has said over the years and review that, and in terms of his qualifications to lead our nation's military," McConnell said. "The question we will be answering if he's the nominee, is do his views make sense for that particular job? I think he ought to be given a fair hearing, like any other nominee, and he will be." McConnell, who in 2008 praised Hagel for his clear voice and stature on foreign policy and national security, now says he will reserve judgment on his possible nomination until after a Senate confirmation hearing. "I'm going to wait and see how the hearings go and see whether Chuck's views square with the job he would be nominated to do," he added. Like "This Week" on Facebook here. You can also follow the show on Twitter here.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

dcwWwSKgmniZGE7x

test

qRMjJm0mFZYiGHEh

justice

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/US/details-emerge-affluenza-teens-time-mexico/story?id=35999811

New Details Emerge About 'Affluenza' Teen's Time in Mexico

Matt Gutman, Julia Jacobo

New details are emerging about the time Ethan Couch -- a teen who killed four people in a car crash in 2013 -- spent in Mexico on the run with his mother while U.S. authorities searched for him . Couch and his mother , Tonya , stayed at an apartment in Puerto Vallarta , a resort town frequented by American tourists , and visited a restaurant and butcher shop nearby , locals told ███ . Law enforcement sources confirm to ███ that the Couches managed to elude authorities for a time by using at least one throw away phone . In 2013 Couch pled guilty to four counts of intoxication manslaughter and was sentenced to 10 years probation instead of jail time . In the sentencing phase his defense team had argued that he suffered from “ affluenza , ” meaning , they explained , that his affluent upbringing and his mother and father ’ s profoundly dysfunctional parenting led to his irresponsible behavior . At the butcher shop , a worker named Luis , who did not give his last name , said Ethan Couch already had black hair when he last saw him two days ago . He said the teen paid for meat and chicken nuggets in pesos and only spoke in English – even telling the butcher he was from Texas . He said he did not recognize him as the fugitive wanted by the U.S . Marshals Service and Texas officials for allegedly skipping out on a probation check-in . Luis witnessed Couch and his mother being escorted , handcuffed , out of the apartment by municipal police in plain clothes – right across the street from the butcher shop . He said the Couches cooperated with police and that there was no resistance . The owner of a local eatery said Couch went into the restaurant a couple of times and sat at a table in the back . She said although there are Americans in the area , they don ’ t tend to eat there . Initially , Couch and his mother stayed at a resort , Los Tules , downtown by the beach and then moved to the apartment , according to prosecutors . Mexican prosecutors say the pair was picked up Monday at 6 p.m. local time . An order was issued for his arrest on Dec. 11 and his mother was declared a missing person , officials said . It was not clear how long they had been in Mexico . Texas officials are convinced that Couch and his mother fled the country in a planned escape , saying in a press conference Tuesday that the mother and son drove their pickup truck across the border into Mexico . But before Couch left town , said Tarrant County Sheriff Dee Anderson , Couch threw `` something akin to a going away party “ citing an interview with an unspecified source . Tonya Couch is expected to face charges of hindering apprehension , which could carry a sentence of between two and 10 years behind bars , Tarrant County District Attorney Sharen Wilson said . Couch has a hearing scheduled for Jan. 19 to determine whether the case will be handled in adult court . If he is treated as a juvenile , the longest sentence he could receive is four months in confinement . He would be released when he turns 19 in April . If his case is transferred to the adult courts he wouldn ’ t receive extra time if convicted . If his case is transferred to the adult courts he would likely to serve out the remainder of his original 10-year probation period and will likely have to wear tracking devices , Wilson said . Attorneys for the Couches released a statement prior to the press conference saying they had not yet heard from them .

New details are emerging about the time Ethan Couch -- a teen who killed four people in a car crash in 2013 -- spent in Mexico on the run with his mother while U.S. authorities searched for him. Couch and his mother, Tonya, stayed at an apartment in Puerto Vallarta, a resort town frequented by American tourists, and visited a restaurant and butcher shop nearby, locals told ABC News. Law enforcement sources confirm to ABC News that the Couches managed to elude authorities for a time by using at least one throw away phone. In 2013 Couch pled guilty to four counts of intoxication manslaughter and was sentenced to 10 years probation instead of jail time. In the sentencing phase his defense team had argued that he suffered from “affluenza,” meaning, they explained, that his affluent upbringing and his mother and father’s profoundly dysfunctional parenting led to his irresponsible behavior. ABC News At the butcher shop, a worker named Luis, who did not give his last name, said Ethan Couch already had black hair when he last saw him two days ago. He said the teen paid for meat and chicken nuggets in pesos and only spoke in English – even telling the butcher he was from Texas. He said he did not recognize him as the fugitive wanted by the U.S. Marshals Service and Texas officials for allegedly skipping out on a probation check-in. Luis witnessed Couch and his mother being escorted, handcuffed, out of the apartment by municipal police in plain clothes – right across the street from the butcher shop. He said the Couches cooperated with police and that there was no resistance. The owner of a local eatery said Couch went into the restaurant a couple of times and sat at a table in the back. She said although there are Americans in the area, they don’t tend to eat there. Initially, Couch and his mother stayed at a resort, Los Tules, downtown by the beach and then moved to the apartment, according to prosecutors. Mexican prosecutors say the pair was picked up Monday at 6 p.m. local time. An order was issued for his arrest on Dec. 11 and his mother was declared a missing person, officials said. It was not clear how long they had been in Mexico. ABC News Texas officials are convinced that Couch and his mother fled the country in a planned escape, saying in a press conference Tuesday that the mother and son drove their pickup truck across the border into Mexico. But before Couch left town, said Tarrant County Sheriff Dee Anderson, Couch threw "something akin to a going away party “ citing an interview with an unspecified source. Tonya Couch is expected to face charges of hindering apprehension, which could carry a sentence of between two and 10 years behind bars, Tarrant County District Attorney Sharen Wilson said. Jalisco State Prosecutor?s Office, via AP Photo Couch has a hearing scheduled for Jan. 19 to determine whether the case will be handled in adult court. If he is treated as a juvenile, the longest sentence he could receive is four months in confinement. He would be released when he turns 19 in April. If his case is transferred to the adult courts he wouldn’t receive extra time if convicted. If his case is transferred to the adult courts he would likely to serve out the remainder of his original 10-year probation period and will likely have to wear tracking devices, Wilson said. Attorneys for the Couches released a statement prior to the press conference saying they had not yet heard from them.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

qRMjJm0mFZYiGHEh

test

u25sAXnkYeIxyl25

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/24/capitalism-still-better-than-politics

Sorry, Socialists: Capitalism Still Polls Way Better Than Politics

2018-09-24

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

Self-professed socialists ( or `` democratic socialists '' ) are winning primary elections and promising massive new entitlement programs on the left , while free trade is under attack and tariffs are back in vogue on the right . On Twitter , # LateStageCapitalism has become a catch-all , post-post-ironic criticism for things that seem just a little too superflouous—supposedly revealing the essential flaws of a system that critics see as valuing stuff above all else . Despite enjoying a growing economy , low unemployment , and a standard of living that was out of reach for the upper middle class just a few decades ago , Americans of every socioeconomic stratum seem more disgruntled than ever . Zoom out , though , and capitalism is still doing pretty good . An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted last week found that capitalism is viewed favorably by 52 percent of registered voters , while a mere 18 percent of voters have an unfavorable view of it . That 's almost the exact opposite of how Americans view socialism , with only 19 percent of voters in the poll saying they have a favorable view of socialism , compared with 52 who view it unfavorably . But capitalism vs. socialism is almost an unfair fight . One system has generated more wealth for more people than any other economic system ever tried by human beings , while the other has produced a long track record of failed states , famines , economic catastrophes , and human misery almost without comparison . I mean , it 's actually kind of impressive that socialism polls as well as it does . But it turns out that Americans like capitalism better than—well , anything related to politics . The aggregate numbers do hide part of the story . Democrats are far more likely to have a favorable view of socialism—33 percent , versus just six percent of Republicans who feel the same way . And the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll did not include cross-tabs based on the age of respondents . If they did , their poll might reflect what others have shown , which is that young people are far more likely to favor socialism . Some recent polls show that as many as 50 percent of 18-29 year-olds holding favorable views of it . But even under the rosiest set of scenarios , it 's clear that a socialist revolution is not about to sweep across America . As The Wall Street Journal 's Joshua Jamerson notes in his assessment of the poll results , the real capitalism/socialism divide is not between the right and the left of American politics , but rather between factions of the Democratic Party . Democrats who feel good about socialism are generally white , educated , and urban , while those opposed to it are generally older and more racially diverse . Political victories for people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might help `` normalize the s-word '' in American politics , but it remains difficult to see the democratic socialists ' `` moment '' as being more than an internecine fight on the left—the type of thing that happens when one political party has suffered a string of national defeats ( see : Tea Party , 2010 , Republicans ) . Sure , it 's not perfect—systems operated by human beings never are . But we should n't be surprised that voters have a higher opinion of an economic system that generally makes things cheaper and more plentiful , especially when contrasted against the crapstorm of contemporary politics .

It hasn't exactly been the best year for capitalism. Self-professed socialists (or "democratic socialists") are winning primary elections and promising massive new entitlement programs on the left, while free trade is under attack and tariffs are back in vogue on the right. On Twitter, #LateStageCapitalism has become a catch-all, post-post-ironic criticism for things that seem just a little too superflouous—supposedly revealing the essential flaws of a system that critics see as valuing stuff above all else. Despite enjoying a growing economy, low unemployment, and a standard of living that was out of reach for the upper middle class just a few decades ago, Americans of every socioeconomic stratum seem more disgruntled than ever. Zoom out, though, and capitalism is still doing pretty good. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted last week found that capitalism is viewed favorably by 52 percent of registered voters, while a mere 18 percent of voters have an unfavorable view of it. That's almost the exact opposite of how Americans view socialism, with only 19 percent of voters in the poll saying they have a favorable view of socialism, compared with 52 who view it unfavorably. But capitalism vs. socialism is almost an unfair fight. One system has generated more wealth for more people than any other economic system ever tried by human beings, while the other has produced a long track record of failed states, famines, economic catastrophes, and human misery almost without comparison. I mean, it's actually kind of impressive that socialism polls as well as it does. But it turns out that Americans like capitalism better than—well, anything related to politics. From the poll: The aggregate numbers do hide part of the story. Democrats are far more likely to have a favorable view of socialism—33 percent, versus just six percent of Republicans who feel the same way. And the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll did not include cross-tabs based on the age of respondents. If they did, their poll might reflect what others have shown, which is that young people are far more likely to favor socialism. Some recent polls show that as many as 50 percent of 18-29 year-olds holding favorable views of it. But even under the rosiest set of scenarios, it's clear that a socialist revolution is not about to sweep across America. As The Wall Street Journal's Joshua Jamerson notes in his assessment of the poll results, the real capitalism/socialism divide is not between the right and the left of American politics, but rather between factions of the Democratic Party. Democrats who feel good about socialism are generally white, educated, and urban, while those opposed to it are generally older and more racially diverse. Political victories for people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might help "normalize the s-word" in American politics, but it remains difficult to see the democratic socialists' "moment" as being more than an internecine fight on the left—the type of thing that happens when one political party has suffered a string of national defeats (see: Tea Party, 2010, Republicans). More importantly, capitalism isn't going anywhere. Sure, it's not perfect—systems operated by human beings never are. But we shouldn't be surprised that voters have a higher opinion of an economic system that generally makes things cheaper and more plentiful, especially when contrasted against the crapstorm of contemporary politics.

www.reason.com

right

u25sAXnkYeIxyl25

test

BcazXxDucM0mFkYG

race_and_racism

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/21/the_ultimate_white_privilege_darren_wilson_and_being_afraid_for_your_life/

The ultimate white privilege: Darren Wilson and being “afraid for your life”

2014-08-21

Katie Mcdonough

On Wednesday , Matt Zoller Seitz shared an anecdote to illustrate how white privilege kept him from getting arrested or otherwise harmed by the police after he started a fight on the street . The full piece is worth your time , since it 's a frank accounting of how whiteness protects in the United States , but the most revealing moment in the story comes when Zoller Seitz -- who admits he escalated a confrontation with the stranger , a Hispanic man loitering outside a deli -- talks to the cops who arrived on the scene . After telling the two white officers that he had confronted the guy and punched him in the face after the stranger jabbed him in the chest with his fingers , the cops asked Zoller Seitz if he wanted to press charges for assault : `` I do n't think he actually meant to touch me , though , '' I said , while a voice deep inside me said , Stupid white boy , he 's making it plain and you 're not getting it . `` It does n't matter if he meant to touch you , he hit you first , '' he said . He was talking to me warmly and patiently , as you might explain things to a child . Wisdom was being imparted . `` You were in fear of your life , '' he added . By now the adrenaline fog seemed to be lifting . I was seeing things in a more clinical way . The violence I had inflicted on this man was disproportionate to the `` assault , '' and the tone of this exchange with the cop felt conspiratorial . And then it dawned on me , Mr. Slow-on-the-Uptake , what was really happening : this officer was helping me Get My Story Straight . Understanding , at long last . Zoller Seitz 's story lays bare a reality that we have seen play out over and over again : A white person can get away with a lot if they claim that they were scared of a person of color . White people and law enforcement are allowed to fear for their lives -- even if that so-called fear is based on racist perceptions about black and brown criminality or , more often , nothing at all . A grand jury was seated on Wednesday to consider the circumstances surrounding the killing of Michael Brown , the unarmed black teenager who was shot six times by Darren Wilson , a white cop . If the case eventually goes to court , no doubt one of the questions that will be put before the jury is whether Wilson could have reasonably feared for his life during his confrontation with Brown . While witnesses to the shooting have indicated that Brown had his hands up in surrender when he was fatally shot , others -- mostly other cops -- have suggested that Brown charged at Wilson and that the `` genesis of [ the shooting ] was a physical confrontation . '' It 's a strange , sad world where shooting someone four times in the arm and twice in the head could ever be considered a reasonable response to allegedly being lunged at by an unarmed teenager , but that 's where we are . We 've seen the same argument invoked to defend George Zimmerman , who is white and Latino , after he killed Trayvon Martin . Lawyers for Theodore Wafer tried -- but this time failed -- to invoke the same defense after he shot and killed Renisha McBride , who had arrived on his porch seeking help after a car accident . Wafer 's defense argued that McBride 's loud knocking so alarmed their client that he felt he had no other choice but to shoot her through a locked screen door . The lesson of such cases and the many others like them is that the mere presence of a black person is a credible threat in the eyes of the law . And that same racism informs who does n't present a credible threat . That same racism defines what kind of person ca n't reasonably fear for their lives . In the case of Marissa Alexander , a black mother in Florida , a man with a documented history of physical violence , a man who told Alexander that he was going to kill her , did not present a credible threat . Alexander 's husband , Rico Gray , broke down the door of the bathroom where she was hiding during a domestic violence incident . He grabbed her by the throat , and choked her as he held her against the floor . Alexander then tried to escape through the garage , but found herself trapped when the door wouldn ’ t open . She returned to the house having retrieved her handgun from her car and fired at a wall near where Gray stood . No one was harmed . But when Alexander tried to invoke Florida 's `` stand your ground '' law in her defense , she was denied . Twice . According to State Attorney Angela Corey , Alexander was `` not in fear '' but `` angry '' when she fired the warning shot . She now faces up to 60 years in prison . This week also marks the eight-year anniversary of the incident that would put the New Jersey Four behind bars for defending themselves against a homophobic assault . As Victoria Law wrote for ███ this week , the seven women -- all black LGBTQ women -- were confronted and sexually harassed by a man on the street in New York City . `` When they told him they were gay , he threatened them with rape and physically attacked them , '' Law explained . `` He threw his lit cigarette at them , ripped the hair from one woman ’ s head and choked another woman . '' He is also alleged to have told them he would `` fuck them straight . '' The man was stabbed during the altercation . A jury later sentenced Venice Brown , Terrain Dandridge , Renata Hill and Patreese Johnson to prison terms ranging from three to 11 years . We know a lot about anti-LGBTQ violence in the United States , how often LGBTQ people -- particularly LGTBQ women of color -- are victims of violence . Nonetheless , these women were branded a `` lesbian wolf pack '' and their claims of fear were rejected by a jury . CeCe McDonald , a trans woman of color who was assaulted during an anti-LGBTQ attack in Minnesota , faced similar treatment . After being confronted by a group of at least four white people shouting racist and anti-LGBTQ slurs , McDonald had her cheek slit open by a member of the group . McDonald and her friends began fighting back , but eventually tried to escape . McDonald was pursued by one of the men , and stabbed her assailant with a pair of scissors , who later died of his injuries . Despite her adamance that she acted in self-defense , McDonald was charged with two counts of second-degree murder . She would go on to accept a plea offer of second-degree manslaughter and was sentenced to 41-months in a men 's prison facility . She was released last year after serving 19 months . Luke O'Donovan , a white queer activist in Georgia , was last week sentenced to two years in prison and eight years of probation after he used his pocket knife to stab five men who had confronted him in an alleged anti-LGTBQ hate crime in 2012 . Donovan was stabbed three times . Brown 's friend Dorian Johnson , who was with Brown at the time he was killed , told MSNBC that the police instigated the confrontation . That they were just walking in the street , and almost home when Wilson approached . “ I saw the barrel of the gun pointed at my friend , ” he said . “ Then I saw the fire come out of the barrel . ” Johnson said he feared for his life . There 's no reason to doubt that Brown felt the same way . But are teens like Johnson and Brown allowed to fear for their lives ? And who poses a more credible threat ? A teenager allegedly armed with a lifted pack of cigarillos or a cop with a gun and a willingness to use deadly force ? It seems we are offered the answer to such questions with an alarming frequency . And with the outcome of this week 's grand jury hearing on Wilson 's decision to shoot and kill an unarmed teen looming , Brown 's parents , the residents of Ferguson and the rest of the nation prepare themselves to have that question answered once again .

On Wednesday, Matt Zoller Seitz shared an anecdote to illustrate how white privilege kept him from getting arrested or otherwise harmed by the police after he started a fight on the street. The full piece is worth your time, since it's a frank accounting of how whiteness protects in the United States, but the most revealing moment in the story comes when Zoller Seitz -- who admits he escalated a confrontation with the stranger, a Hispanic man loitering outside a deli -- talks to the cops who arrived on the scene. After telling the two white officers that he had confronted the guy and punched him in the face after the stranger jabbed him in the chest with his fingers, the cops asked Zoller Seitz if he wanted to press charges for assault: "I don't think he actually meant to touch me, though," I said, while a voice deep inside me said, Stupid white boy, he's making it plain and you're not getting it. "It doesn't matter if he meant to touch you, he hit you first," he said. He was talking to me warmly and patiently, as you might explain things to a child. Wisdom was being imparted. "You were in fear of your life," he added. By now the adrenaline fog seemed to be lifting. I was seeing things in a more clinical way. The violence I had inflicted on this man was disproportionate to the "assault," and the tone of this exchange with the cop felt conspiratorial. And then it dawned on me, Mr. Slow-on-the-Uptake, what was really happening: this officer was helping me Get My Story Straight. Understanding, at long last. Zoller Seitz's story lays bare a reality that we have seen play out over and over again: A white person can get away with a lot if they claim that they were scared of a person of color. White people and law enforcement are allowed to fear for their lives -- even if that so-called fear is based on racist perceptions about black and brown criminality or, more often, nothing at all. Advertisement: A grand jury was seated on Wednesday to consider the circumstances surrounding the killing of Michael Brown, the unarmed black teenager who was shot six times by Darren Wilson, a white cop. If the case eventually goes to court, no doubt one of the questions that will be put before the jury is whether Wilson could have reasonably feared for his life during his confrontation with Brown. While witnesses to the shooting have indicated that Brown had his hands up in surrender when he was fatally shot, others -- mostly other cops -- have suggested that Brown charged at Wilson and that the "genesis of [the shooting] was a physical confrontation." It's a strange, sad world where shooting someone four times in the arm and twice in the head could ever be considered a reasonable response to allegedly being lunged at by an unarmed teenager, but that's where we are. We've seen the same argument invoked to defend George Zimmerman, who is white and Latino, after he killed Trayvon Martin. Lawyers for Theodore Wafer tried -- but this time failed -- to invoke the same defense after he shot and killed Renisha McBride, who had arrived on his porch seeking help after a car accident. Wafer's defense argued that McBride's loud knocking so alarmed their client that he felt he had no other choice but to shoot her through a locked screen door. The lesson of such cases and the many others like them is that the mere presence of a black person is a credible threat in the eyes of the law. And that same racism informs who doesn't present a credible threat. That same racism defines what kind of person can't reasonably fear for their lives. Advertisement: In the case of Marissa Alexander, a black mother in Florida, a man with a documented history of physical violence, a man who told Alexander that he was going to kill her, did not present a credible threat. Alexander's husband, Rico Gray, broke down the door of the bathroom where she was hiding during a domestic violence incident. He grabbed her by the throat, and choked her as he held her against the floor. Alexander then tried to escape through the garage, but found herself trapped when the door wouldn’t open. She returned to the house having retrieved her handgun from her car and fired at a wall near where Gray stood. No one was harmed. But when Alexander tried to invoke Florida's "stand your ground" law in her defense, she was denied. Twice. According to State Attorney Angela Corey, Alexander was "not in fear" but "angry" when she fired the warning shot. She now faces up to 60 years in prison. This week also marks the eight-year anniversary of the incident that would put the New Jersey Four behind bars for defending themselves against a homophobic assault. As Victoria Law wrote for Salon this week, the seven women -- all black LGBTQ women -- were confronted and sexually harassed by a man on the street in New York City. "When they told him they were gay, he threatened them with rape and physically attacked them," Law explained. "He threw his lit cigarette at them, ripped the hair from one woman’s head and choked another woman." He is also alleged to have told them he would "fuck them straight." The man was stabbed during the altercation. A jury later sentenced Venice Brown, Terrain Dandridge, Renata Hill and Patreese Johnson to prison terms ranging from three to 11 years. We know a lot about anti-LGBTQ violence in the United States, how often LGBTQ people -- particularly LGTBQ women of color -- are victims of violence. Nonetheless, these women were branded a "lesbian wolf pack" and their claims of fear were rejected by a jury. CeCe McDonald, a trans woman of color who was assaulted during an anti-LGBTQ attack in Minnesota, faced similar treatment. After being confronted by a group of at least four white people shouting racist and anti-LGBTQ slurs, McDonald had her cheek slit open by a member of the group. McDonald and her friends began fighting back, but eventually tried to escape. McDonald was pursued by one of the men, and stabbed her assailant with a pair of scissors, who later died of his injuries. Despite her adamance that she acted in self-defense, McDonald was charged with two counts of second-degree murder. She would go on to accept a plea offer of second-degree manslaughter and was sentenced to 41-months in a men's prison facility. She was released last year after serving 19 months. Advertisement: Luke O'Donovan, a white queer activist in Georgia, was last week sentenced to two years in prison and eight years of probation after he used his pocket knife to stab five men who had confronted him in an alleged anti-LGTBQ hate crime in 2012. Donovan was stabbed three times. Brown's friend Dorian Johnson, who was with Brown at the time he was killed, told MSNBC that the police instigated the confrontation. That they were just walking in the street, and almost home when Wilson approached. “I saw the barrel of the gun pointed at my friend,” he said. “Then I saw the fire come out of the barrel.” Advertisement: Johnson said he feared for his life. There's no reason to doubt that Brown felt the same way. But are teens like Johnson and Brown allowed to fear for their lives? And who poses a more credible threat? A teenager allegedly armed with a lifted pack of cigarillos or a cop with a gun and a willingness to use deadly force? It seems we are offered the answer to such questions with an alarming frequency. And with the outcome of this week's grand jury hearing on Wilson's decision to shoot and kill an unarmed teen looming, Brown's parents, the residents of Ferguson and the rest of the nation prepare themselves to have that question answered once again.

www.salon.com

left

BcazXxDucM0mFkYG

test

NZmUDgZfMPBAedgz

media_bias

Reason

http://reason.com/blog/2018/08/17/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-bans-reporters

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Bans Reporters From Public Town Halls

2018-08-17

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

Democratic socialist House candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez banned reporters from attending several of her public town hall events this week . Ocasio-Cortez , who shocked the political world by defeating Rep. Joe Crowley ( D–N.Y . ) in June 's Democratic primary , held sessions with constituents of New York 's 14th Congressional District on Sunday and Wednesday . But while she tweeted out some details about the town halls , she did n't let members of the media attend in person , according to the Queens Chronicle . The candidate 's campaign manager , Vigie Ramos Rio , tells the Chronicle the ban was implemented after reporters `` mobbed '' her last week following a community meeting . The campaign had apparently made it clear there would be `` no Q & A and no one-on-one [ interviews ] . '' Corbin Trent , communications director for the campaign , said that was what led to the media ban . `` We wanted to help create a space where community members felt comfortable and open to express themselves without the distraction of cameras and press . These were the first set of events where the press has been excluded , '' Trent tells the Chronicle . `` This is an outlier and will not be the norm . We 're still adjusting our logistics to fit Alexandria 's national profile . '' The socialist bans the media ! ! ! `` The press blackout came after several of @ Ocasio2018 's public comments were scrutinized by the media and fact-checkers alike . `` https : //t.co/8FxMiWhoe4 — Kayleigh McEnany ( @ kayleighmcenany ) August 17 , 2018 From the Bet-Most-Of-You-Didn't-Hear-About-This-Until-Today File : Alexandria Ocasio Cortez banned all media from Town Hall event last Sunday . Not many editorials on this for whatever ███ . Via the Queens Chronicle : https : //t.co/TfOJztLDk8 — Joe Concha ( @ JoeConchaTV ) August 17 , 2018 The same week liberals published coordinated editorials in 350+ newspapers decrying Trump 's so-called `` assault on the free press… '' Democratic darling @ Ocasio2018 banned press from her townhalls . LOL — Liz Wheeler ( @ Liz_Wheeler ) August 17 , 2018 Sure sounds like Ocasio campaign is saying press is there to make people uncomfortable , like an enemy or something https : //t.co/Wv15nGuR6W — Stephen Miller ( @ redsteeze ) August 17 , 2018 Trent later told The Washington Post that the campaign wo n't ban reporters in the future . `` It 's not been a policy of the campaign , '' Trent said . `` It wo n't be the policy of the campaign . '' Banning reporters is n't a good look for a politician , particularly one with as high a profile as Ocasio-Cortez . And if she wants to serve in Congress , she 'd better get used to being hounded by the press .

Democratic socialist House candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez banned reporters from attending several of her public town hall events this week. Ocasio-Cortez, who shocked the political world by defeating Rep. Joe Crowley (D–N.Y.) in June's Democratic primary, held sessions with constituents of New York's 14th Congressional District on Sunday and Wednesday. But while she tweeted out some details about the town halls, she didn't let members of the media attend in person, according to the Queens Chronicle. The candidate's campaign manager, Vigie Ramos Rio, tells the Chronicle the ban was implemented after reporters "mobbed" her last week following a community meeting. The campaign had apparently made it clear there would be "no Q&A and no one-on-one [interviews]." Corbin Trent, communications director for the campaign, said that was what led to the media ban. "We wanted to help create a space where community members felt comfortable and open to express themselves without the distraction of cameras and press. These were the first set of events where the press has been excluded," Trent tells the Chronicle. "This is an outlier and will not be the norm. We're still adjusting our logistics to fit Alexandria's national profile." But many on Twitter weren't buying it: The socialist bans the media!!! "The press blackout came after several of @Ocasio2018's public comments were scrutinized by the media and fact-checkers alike."https://t.co/8FxMiWhoe4 — Kayleigh McEnany (@kayleighmcenany) August 17, 2018 From the Bet-Most-Of-You-Didn't-Hear-About-This-Until-Today File: Alexandria Ocasio Cortez banned all media from Town Hall event last Sunday. Not many editorials on this for whatever reason. Via the Queens Chronicle: https://t.co/TfOJztLDk8 — Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) August 17, 2018 The same week liberals published coordinated editorials in 350+ newspapers decrying Trump's so-called "assault on the free press…" Democratic darling @Ocasio2018 banned press from her townhalls. LOL — Liz Wheeler (@Liz_Wheeler) August 17, 2018 Sure sounds like Ocasio campaign is saying press is there to make people uncomfortable, like an enemy or something https://t.co/Wv15nGuR6W — Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) August 17, 2018 Trent later told The Washington Post that the campaign won't ban reporters in the future. "It's not been a policy of the campaign," Trent said. "It won't be the policy of the campaign." Banning reporters isn't a good look for a politician, particularly one with as high a profile as Ocasio-Cortez. And if she wants to serve in Congress, she'd better get used to being hounded by the press.

www.reason.com

right

NZmUDgZfMPBAedgz

test

S4fXHi5ae4jv1ga1

national_defense

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/25/the_empire_strikes_back_dick_cheney_benjamin_netanyahu_and_the_rebirth_of_neoconservatism/

The empire strikes back: Dick Cheney, Benjamin Netanyahu and the rebirth of neoconservatism

2015-08-25

“ We ’ re going to push and push until some larger force makes us stop . ” David Addington , the legal adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney , made that declaration to Jack Goldsmith of the Office of Legal Counsel in the months after September 11 , 2001 . Goldsmith would later recall that Cheney and Addington were the first people he had ever met of a certain kind : “ Cheney is not subtle , and he has never hidden the ball . The amazing thing is that he does what he says . Relentlessness is a quality I saw in him and Addington that I never saw before in my life . ” Goldsmith did not consider himself an adversary of Cheney and Addington . He probably shared many of their political views . What shocked him was their confidence in a set of secret laws and violent policies that could destroy innocent lives and warp the Constitution . The neoconservatives -- the opinion-makers and legislative pedagogues who since 2001 have justified the Cheney-Bush policies -- fit the same description . They are relentless , they push until they are stopped , and thus far they have never been stopped for long . The campaign for the Iraq war of 2003 , the purest example of their handiwork , began with a strategy memorandum in 1996 , so it is fair to say that they have been pitching to break up the Middle East for a full two decades . But fortune played them a nasty trick with the signing of the nuclear agreement between the P5+1 powers and Iran . War and the prospect of war have been the source of their undeniable importance . If the Iran nuclear deal attains legitimacy , much of their power will slip through their fingers . The imperialist idealism that drives their ventures from day to day will be cheated of the enemy it can not live without . Iran might then become just one more unlucky country -- authoritarian and cruelly oppressive but an object of persuasion and not the focus of a never-ending threat of force . The neoconservatives are enraged and their response has been feverish : if they were an individual , you would say that he was a danger to himself and others . They still get plenty of attention and airtime , but the main difference between 2003 and 2015 is the absence of a president who obeys them -- something that has only served to sharpen their anger . President Obama defended the nuclear deal vigorously in a recent speech at American University . This was the first such extended explanation of a foreign policy decision in his presidency , and it lacked even an ounce of inspirational fluff . It was , in fact , the first of his utterances not likely to be remembered for its “ eloquence , ” because it merits the higher praise of good sense . It has been predictably denounced in some quarters as stiff , unkind , ungenerous , and “ over the top . ” Obama began by speaking of the ideology that incited and justified the Iraq War of 2003 . He called it a “ mindset , ” and the word was appropriate -- suggesting a pair of earphones around a head that prevents us from hearing any penetrating noise from the external world . Starting in the summer of 2002 , Americans heard a voice that said : Bomb , invade , occupy Iraq ! And do the same to other countries ! For the sake of our sanity , Obama explained , we had to take off those earphones : “ We had to end the mindset that got us there in the first place . It was a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy ; a mindset that put a premium on unilateral U.S. action over the painstaking work of building international consensus ; a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported . Leaders did not level with the American people about the costs of war , insisting that we could easily impose our will on a part of the world with a profoundly different culture and history . And , of course , those calling for war labeled themselves strong and decisive , while dismissing those who disagreed as weak -- even appeasers of a malevolent adversary . ” In this precise catalogue of mental traits , Obama was careful to name no names , but he made it easy to construct a key : A mindset characterized by a preference for military action : President George W. Bush ordering the U.N. nuclear inspectors out of Iraq ( though they had asked to stay and complete their work ) because there was a pressing need to bomb in March 2003 ; A mindset that put a premium on unilateral U.S. action : Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld dismissing the skeptical challenge and eventual non-participation of France and Germany as proof of the irrelevance of “ old Europe ” ; A mindset that exaggerated threats : the barely vetted New York Times stories by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon , which an administration bent on war first molded and then cited on TV news shows as evidence to justify preventive war ; Leaders did not level with the American people about the costs of war : Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz pooh-poohing the estimate by Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki that it would take 400,000 troops to maintain order in Iraq after the war ; Insisting that we could easily impose our will on a part of the world with a profoundly different culture and history : the bromides of Bush and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on the indwelling Arab spirit that yearns for American-style democracy across the Middle East . Obama went on to assert that there was a continuity of persons as well as ideas between the propagandists who told us to bomb , invade , and occupy Iraq in 2003 and those now spending tens of millions of dollars to ensure that Congress will abort the nuclear deal . “ The same mindset , ” the president remarked , “ in many cases offered by the same people who seem to have no compunction with being repeatedly wrong , led to a war that did more to strengthen Iran , more to isolate the United States , than anything we have done in the decades before or since . ” Those people have never recognized that they were wrong . Some put the blame on President Bush or his viceroy in Baghdad , the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority , L. Paul Bremer , for mismanaging the occupation that followed the invasion ; others continue to nurse the fantastic theory that Saddam Hussein really was in possession of nuclear weapons but somehow smuggled them across the border to Syria and fooled both U.S. reconnaissance teams and the U.N. inspectors ; still others maintain that Shiite militias and weaponry dispatched to Iraq from Iran were the chief culprits in the disaster of the postwar insurgency . Bear in mind that these opinion-makers , in 2003 , hardly understood the difference between Shiite and Sunni in the country they wanted to invade . To put the blame now on Iran betrays a genius for circular reasoning . Since all Shia militias are allied by religion with Iran , it can be argued that Iraq was not destroyed by a catastrophic war of choice whose effects set the region on fire . No : the United States under Bush and Cheney was an unpresuming superpower doing its proper work , bringing peace and democracy to one of the dark places of the earth by means of a clean , fast , “ surgical ” war . In 2004 and 2005 , just as in 2015 , it was Iran that caused the trouble . Because the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has scorned the nuclear deal without any attention to detail , the president felt compelled in his speech to recognize candidly the difference of national interest that exists between Israel and the United States . Though we are allies , he said , we are two different countries , and he left his listeners to draw the necessary inference : it is not possible for two countries ( any more than two persons ) to be at once different and the same . Obama went on to connect the nations in question to this premise of international politics : “ I believe [ the terms of the agreement ] are in America ’ s interest and Israel ’ s interest . And as president of the United States , it would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it causes temporary friction with a dear friend and ally . ” The last affirmation is critical . A president takes an oath to “ preserve , protect , and defend the constitution of the United States ” -- that is , to attend to the interest of his own country and not another . The danger of playing favorites in the world of nations , with a partiality that knows no limits , was a main topic of George Washington ’ s great Farewell Address . “ Permanent , inveterate antipathies against particular nations , and passionate attachments for others , should be excluded , ” said Washington , because “ a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils . Sympathy for the favorite nation , facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists , and infusing into one the enmities of the other , betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification . ” There are Americans today who submit to a ruling passion that favors uniquely the interests of Israel , and the president had them in mind when he invoked his duties under the Constitution toward the only country whose framework of laws and institutions he had sworn to uphold . Genuine respect for another democracy formed part of his thinking here . Not only was Obama not elected to support Netanyahu ’ s idea of America ’ s interest , he was also not elected by Israelis to support his own idea of Israel ’ s interest . In a recent commentary in Foreign Affairs , the prominent Israeli journalist and former government adviser Daniel Levy pointed out a fact that is not much remembered today regarding Netanyahu ’ s continuous effort to sabotage negotiations with Iran . It was the Israeli prime minister who initially demanded that nuclear negotiations be pursued on a separate track from any agreement about the trade or sale of conventional weapons . He chose that path because he was certain it would cause negotiations to collapse . The gambit having failed , he now makes the lifting of sanctions on conventional weaponry a significant objection to the “ bad deal ” in Vienna . Obama concluded his argument by saying that “ alternatives to military action will have been exhausted if we reject a hard-won diplomatic solution that the world almost unanimously supports . So let ’ s not mince words . The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war -- maybe not tomorrow , maybe not three months from now , but soon. ” A measured statement and demonstrably true . But you would never come within hailing distance of this truth if you listened to the numbers of Congressional Republicans who repeat the neoconservative watchwords and their accompanying digests of the recent history of the Middle East . They run through recitations of the dramatis personae of the war on terror with the alacrity of trained seals . Israel lives in a “ dangerous neighborhood. ” Islamists are “ knocking on our door ” and “ looking for gaps in the border with Mexico. ” Iran is “ the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the world. ” Barack Obama is “ an appeaser ” and “ it ’ s five minutes to midnightin Munich. ” Elected officials who walk on two legs in the twenty-first century are not embarrassed to say these things without the slightest idea of their provenance . If there was a fault in the president ’ s explanation of his policy , it lay in some things he omitted to say . When you are educating a people who have been proselytized , as Americans have been , by a political cult for the better part of two decades , nothing should be taken for granted . Most Americans do not know that the fanatical Islamists , al-Qaeda , al-Nusra , the Islamic State ( IS ) -- the active and destructive revolutionary force in the greater Middle East at the moment -- are called Sunni Muslims . Nor do they know that the Shia Muslims who govern Iran and who support the government of Syria have never attacked the United States . To say it as simply as it should be said : the Shiites and Sunnis are different sects , and the Shiites of Iran are fighting against the same enemies the U.S. is fighting in Syria and elsewhere . Again , most Americans who get their information from miscellaneous online scraps have no idea that exclusively Sunni fanatics made up the force of hijackers who struck the World Trade Center on September 11 , 2001 . They would be surprised to learn that none of these people came from Iraq or Iran . They do not know that 15 of the 19 came from Saudi Arabia -- a supposed ally of the United States . And they do not know that the Islamist warriors who brought chaos and destruction to Syria and Iraq are bankrolled in part by members of the Saudi and Qatari elite who have nothing to do with Iran . It has never been emphasized -- it is scarcely written in a way that might be noticeable even in our newspaper of record -- that Iran itself has carried the heaviest burden of the fight against IS . Throughout his presidency , when speaking of Iran , Obama has mixed every expression of hope for improved relations with a measure of opprobrium . He has treated Iran as an exceptional offender against the laws of nations , a country that requires attention only in the cause of disarmament . He does this to assure the policy elite that he respects and can hum the familiar tunes . But this subservience to cliché is timid , unrealistic , and pragmatically ill advised . Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill did not denounce the Soviet Union when they took that country ’ s dictator , Joseph Stalin , as a partner in war in 1941 , though Stalin ’ s crimes exceeded anything attributable to the Iranian mullahs . Ritual denunciation of a necessary ally is a transparent absurdity . And in a democracy , it prevents ordinary people from arriving at an understanding of what is happening . What are the odds that the neoconservatives and the Republicans whose policy they manage will succeed in aborting the P5+1 nuclear deal ? One can take some encouragement from the last comparably ambitious effort at rapprochement with an enemy : the conversations between President Ronald Reagan and the Soviet head of state Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik , Washington , and Moscow in 1986 , 1987 , and 1988 . At the same time , one ought to be forewarned by the way that unexpected change of course was greeted . The neoconservative cult was just forming then . Some of its early leaders like Richard Perle had positions in the Reagan administration , and they were unanimously hostile to the talks that would yield the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty ( INF ) of 1988 . The agreement set out the terms for the destruction of 2,611 missiles , capable of delivering 4,000 warheads -- the biggest step in lowering the risk of nuclear war since the Test Ban Treaty championed by President Kennedy and passed in late 1963 . But as James Mann recounted in The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan -- a narrative of the anticommunist president ’ s surprising late turn in foreign policy -- all of Reagan ’ s diplomatic efforts were deeply disapproved at the time , not only by the neoconservative hotheads but by those masters of the “ diplomatic breakthrough , ” former President Richard Nixon and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger ; by the most widely quoted columnists of the right , George Will and William Safire ; and by Timemagazine , which ran a story titled “ Has Reagan Gone Soft ? ” The Reagan-Gorbachev talks were looked upon with suspicion , too , by “ realists ” and “ moderates ” of the political and security establishment , including Robert Gates and then-Vice President George H.W . Bush . Why Gates ? Because he was deputy director of the CIA and the Agency was thoroughly convinced that Soviet Russia and its leadership could never change . Why Bush ? Because he was already running for president . The political and media establishment of that moment was startled by the change that President Reagan first signaled in 1986 , as startled as today ’ s establishment has been by the signing of the P5+1 agreement . This was the same Ronald Reagan who in 1983 had called the Soviet Union “ an evil empire. ” At the end of his visit to Moscow in June 1988 , Reagan was asked by the ABC News reporter Sam Donaldson , “ Do you still think you ’ re in an evil empire , Mr. President ? ” “ No , ” Reagan replied . “ I was talking about another time and another era. ” And he stuck to that answer at a press conference the next day , adding : “ I think that a great deal of [ the change ] is due to the General Secretary , who I have found different than previous Soviet leaders ... A large part of it is Mr. Gorbachev as a leader . ” By 1987 , Reagan ’ s popularity had hit a low of 47 % -- largely because of the Iran-Contra scandal -- but he still retained his reputation as the most irreproachable defender of the West against world communism . Obama for his part has done everything he could -- short of emulating the invade-and-occupy strategy of Bush -- to maintain U.S. force projection in the Middle East in a manner to which Washington has become accustomed since 9/11 . He doubtless believes in this policy , and he has surrounded himself with adepts of “ humanitarian war ” ; but he clearly also calculated that a generous ration of conformity would protect him when he tried for his own breakthrough in negotiations with Iran . In the end , Reagan got a 93-5 vote in the Senate for his nuclear treaty with the Soviet Union . Obama is hoping for much less -- a vote of less than two thirds of that body opposed to the Iran settlement . But he is confronted by the full-scale hostility of a Republican party with a new character and with financial backing of a new kind . The U.S. military and security establishment has sided with the president . And though the fact is little known here , so have the vast majority of Israelis who can speak with any authority on issues of defense and security . Even the president of Israel , Reuven Rivlin , has signaled his belief that Netanyahu ’ s interventions in American politics are wrong . Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak has advised that , however reluctantly , Israel should accept the nuclear agreement and forge an understanding with the U.S. about what to do in case of its violation . To this remarkable consensus should be added the public letter -- signed by 29 American scientists , many of them deeply involved in nuclear issues , including six recipients of the Nobel Prize -- which vouches for the stringency of the agreement and praises the “ unprecedented ” rigor of the 24-day cap on Iranian delays for site inspection : an interval so short ( as no one knows better than these scientists ) that successful concealment of traces of nuclear activity becomes impossible . Two other public letters supporting the nuclear deal have been notable . The first was signed by former U.S. diplomats endorsing the agreement unambiguously , among them Ryan Crocker , the American ambassador to Iraq after 2003 ; Nicholas Burns , who negotiated with Iran for the younger Bush ; and Daniel Kurtzer , a former ambassador to Israel and Egypt who served under both President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush . A further letter carried the personal and institutional authority of dozens of retired admirals and generals . So close an approach to unanimity on the benefits of an agreement among the U.S. military , diplomatic , and scientific communities has seldom been achieved . Even President Reagan could not claim this degree of support by qualified judges when he submitted the INF treaty to the Senate . Such endorsements ought to represent a substantial cause for hope . But Obama ’ s supporters would be hard pressed to call the contest a draw on television and radio . The neoconservatives -- and the Republicans channeling them -- are once again working with boundless energy . Careers are being built on this fight , as in the case of Senator Tom Cotton , and more than onepresidential candidacy has been staked on it . On the day of Obama ’ s speech , even a relatively informed talk show host like Charlie Rose allowed his coverage to slant sharply against the agreement . His four guests were the Haaretz reporter Chemi Shalev ; the Daily Beastcolumnist Jonathan Alter ; the former State Department official and president of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haass ; and the neoconservative venture capitalist , Mark Dubowitz , who has come to be treated as an expert on the nuclear policies and government of Iran . Haass , passionately opposed to the agreement , said that the president ’ s speech had been “ way over the top , ” and hoped Congress would correct its “ clear flaws. ” Shalev rated the speech honest and “ bracing ” but thought it would leave many in the Jewish community “ offended. ” Dubowitz spoke of Iran as a perfidious nation that ought to be subjected to relentless and ever-increasing penalties . His solution : “ empower the next president to go back and renegotiate. ” Jonathan Alter alone defended the agreement . By now , the active participants in mainstream commentary on the War on Terror all have a history , and one can learn a good deal by looking back . Haass , for example , a pillar of the foreign policy establishment , worked in the State Department under Bush and Cheney and made no public objection to the Iraq War . Dubowitz has recently co-authored several articles with Reuel Marc Gerecht , a leading propagandist for the 2003 invasion of Iraq . In acharacteristic piece in the Wall Street Journal last November , Gerecht and Dubowitz argued that the P5+1 negotiations opened a path to a nuclear bomb for Iran . President Obama , they said , was too weak and trapped by his own errors to explore any alternatives , but there were three “ scenarios ” that a wiser and stronger president might consider . First , “ the White House could give up on diplomacy and preemptively strike Iran ’ s nuclear sites ” ; second , “ the administration could give up on the current talks and default back to sanctions ” ; third , “ new , even more biting sanctions could be enacted , causing Tehran considerable pain. ” The range of advisable policy , for Gerecht and Dubowitz , begins with “ crippling sanctions ” and ends with a war of aggression . These scenarios typify the neoconservative “ options. ” Writing on his own inthe Atlantic in June 2013 , Dubowitz informed American readers that there was nothing to celebrate in the Iranian presidential election that brought to power the apparently rational and moderate Hassan Rouhani . “ A loyalist of Iran 's supreme leader and a master of nuclear deceit , ” Rouhani , as interpreted by Dubowitz , is a false friend whose new authority “ does n't get us any closer to stopping Iran 's nuclear drive . ” Consider Gerecht in his solo flights and you can see what made the president say that these are the people who gave us the Iraq War . They were as sure then about the good that would follow the bombing and invasion of that country as they are now about the benefits of attacking Iran . Indeed , Gerecht has the distinction of having called for an attack on Iran even before the official launch of the Bush strategy on Iraq . It is said that Dick Cheney ’ s August 26 , 2002 , speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars marked the first formal description of the War on Terror offered by a U.S. leader to American citizens . But Gerecht , a former CIA specialist on the Middle East , stole a march on the vice president . In theWeekly Standard of August 6 , 2002 , under the title “ Regime Change in Iran ? , ” he declared his belief that President Bush was the possessor of a “ revolutionary edge and appeal ... in the Middle East. ” The younger Bush had “ sliced across national borders and civilizational divides with an unqualified assertion of a moral norm . The president declared , ‘ The people of Iran want the same freedoms , human rights , and opportunities as people around the world. ’ America will stand ‘ alongside people everywhere determined to build a world of freedom , dignity , and tolerance . ’ ” The analyst Gerecht took up where the evangelist Bush left off : the relevant country to attack in August 2002 -- on behalf of its people of course -- was Iran . Gerecht had no doubt that “ the Iranian people overwhelmingly view clerical rule as fundamentally illegitimate . The heavily Westernized clerics of Iran 's religious establishment -- and these mullahs are on both sides of the so-called 'moderate-conservative ' split -- know perfectly well that the Persian word azadi , ‘ freedom , ’ is perhaps the most evocative word in the language now ... Azadi has also become indissolubly associated with the United States . ” This was the way the neoconservatives were already writing and thinking back in August 2002 . It is hard to know which is more astounding , the show of philological virtuosity or the self-assurance regarding the advisability of war against a nation of 70 million . General prognostications , however , are never enough for the neoconservatives , and Gerecht in 2002 enumerated the specific benefits of disorder in Iraq and Iran : “ An American invasion [ of Iraq ] could possibly provoke riots in Iran -- simultaneous uprisings in major cities that would simply be beyond the scope of regime-loyal specialized riot-control units . The army or the Revolutionary Guard Corps would have to be pulled into service in large numbers , and that 's when things could get interesting . ” That was how he had it scored . Bush , the voice of freedom , would be adored as a benevolent emperor at a distance : “ President Bush , of course , does n't need National Iranian Television broadcasts to beam his message into the Islamic Republic . Everything he says moves at light speed through the country . The president just needs to keep talking about freedom being the birthright of Muslim peoples . ” Such was the neoconservative recipe for democracy in the Middle East : beam the words of George W. Bush to people everywhere , invade Iraq , and spark a democratic uprising in Iran ( assisted if necessary by U.S. bombs and soldiers ) . For a final glimpse of the same “ mindset , ” look closely at Gerecht ’ s advice on Syria in June 2014 . Writing again in the Weekly Standard , he deprecated the very idea of getting help from Iran in the fight against the Islamic State . “ The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Enemy ” declares the title of the piece , and the article makes the same point with a minimal reliance on facts . Sunni terrorists are portrayed as impetuous youngsters who naturally go too far , but it is too early to gauge their trajectory : the changes they bring may not ultimately be uncongenial to American interest . The Shiite masterminds of Iran , on the other hand , have long ago attained full maturity and will never change . Gerecht ’ s hope , last summer , was that substantial Iranian casualties in a war against IS would lead to the spontaneous uprising that failed to materialize in 2003 . “ It is possible that the present Sunni-Shiite conflict could , if the Iranian body count rises and too much national treasure is spent , produce shock waves that fundamentally weaken the clerical regime ... Things could get violent inside the Islamic Republic . ” The vision underlying this policy amounts to selective or strategic tolerance of al-Qaeda and IS for the sake of destroying Iran . How can such opinions be contested in American politics ? The answer will have to come from what remains of the potential opposition party in the war on terror . Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut has been a remarkable exception , but for the most part the Democrats are preoccupied with domestic policy . If almost two-thirds of Congress today is poised to vote against the Iran settlement , this embarrassment is the result of years of systematic neglect . Sherrod Brown , Elizabeth Warren , Dick Durbin , Ron Wyden , Tammy Baldwin , and a few others have the talent to lead an opposition to a pursuit of the war on terror on the neoconservative plan , but to have any effect they would have to speak up regularly on foreign policy . Meanwhile , the Republican Party and its billionaire bankrollers are playing the long game on Iran . They would like to gain the two-thirds majority to override Obama ’ s veto of a Congressional vote against the nuclear agreement , but they do not really expect that to happen . The survival of any agreement , however , depends not only on its approval but on its legitimation . Their hope is to depress public support for the P5+1 deal so much that the next president and members of the next Congress would require extraordinary courage to persist with American participation . In the Foreign Affairs column mentioned earlier , Daniel Levy concluded that the long game is also Benjamin Netanyahu ’ s strategy : ” Netanyahu is going for a twofer -- if he loses on the veto-proof super majority in Congress , he can still succeed in keeping the Iran deal politically controversial and fragile and prevent any further détente with Iran . The hope , in this case , is that the next U.S. administration can resume the status quo ante in January 2017 . ” What we are seeing , then , is not simply a concentrated effort that will end with the vote by the Senate in September on the P5+1 nuclear deal . It is the earliest phase of a lobbying campaign intended to usher in a Republican president of appropriate views in January 2017 . One may recognize that the money is there for such a long-term drive and yet still wonder at the virulence of the campaign to destroy Iran . What exactly allows the war party to keep on as they do ? Within Israel , the cause is a political theology that obliges its believers to fight preemptive wars without any end in sight in order to guard against enemies who have opposed the existence of the Jewish state ever since its creation . This is a defensive fear that responds to an irrefutable historical reality . The neoconservatives and the better informed among their Republican followers are harder to grasp -- harder anyway until you realize that , for them , we are Rome and the Republican Party is the cradle of future American emperors , praetors , and proconsuls . “ Ideology , ” as the political essayist and Czech dissident Vaclav Havel once wrote , is “ the bridge of excuses ” a government offers to the people it rules . Between 2001 and 2009 , the U.S. government was run by neoconservatives ; they had a fair shot and the public judgment went against them ; but in a climate of resurgent confusion about the Middle East , they have come a long way toward rebuilding their bridge . They are zealots but also prudent careerists , and the combination of money and revived propaganda may succeed in blurring many unhappy memories . Nor can they be accused of insincerity . When a theorist at a neoconservative think tank , the Foundation for Defense of Democracies or the American Enterprise Institute , affirms that democracy is what the Iranian people will have as soon as the U.S. cripples the resources of that country , he surely believes what he is saying . The projection seems as true to them now as it was in 2002 , 2007 , and 2010 , as true as it will be in 2017 when a new president , preferably another young man of “ spirit ” like George W. Bush , succeeds the weak and deplorable Barack Obama . For such people , the battle is never over , and there is always another war ahead . They will push until they are stopped .

“We’re going to push and push until some larger force makes us stop.” David Addington, the legal adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, made that declaration to Jack Goldsmith of the Office of Legal Counsel in the months after September 11, 2001. Goldsmith would later recall that Cheney and Addington were the first people he had ever met of a certain kind: “Cheney is not subtle, and he has never hidden the ball. The amazing thing is that he does what he says. Relentlessness is a quality I saw in him and Addington that I never saw before in my life.” Advertisement: Goldsmith did not consider himself an adversary of Cheney and Addington. He probably shared many of their political views. What shocked him was their confidence in a set of secret laws and violent policies that could destroy innocent lives and warp the Constitution. The neoconservatives -- the opinion-makers and legislative pedagogues who since 2001 have justified the Cheney-Bush policies -- fit the same description. They are relentless, they push until they are stopped, and thus far they have never been stopped for long. The campaign for the Iraq war of 2003, the purest example of their handiwork, began with a strategy memorandum in 1996, so it is fair to say that they have been pitching to break up the Middle East for a full two decades. But fortune played them a nasty trick with the signing of the nuclear agreement between the P5+1 powers and Iran. War and the prospect of war have been the source of their undeniable importance. If the Iran nuclear deal attains legitimacy, much of their power will slip through their fingers. The imperialist idealism that drives their ventures from day to day will be cheated of the enemy it cannot live without. Iran might then become just one more unlucky country -- authoritarian and cruelly oppressive but an object of persuasion and not the focus of a never-ending threat of force. The neoconservatives are enraged and their response has been feverish: if they were an individual, you would say that he was a danger to himself and others. They still get plenty of attention and airtime, but the main difference between 2003 and 2015 is the absence of a president who obeys them -- something that has only served to sharpen their anger. Advertisement: President Obama defended the nuclear deal vigorously in a recent speech at American University. This was the first such extended explanation of a foreign policy decision in his presidency, and it lacked even an ounce of inspirational fluff. It was, in fact, the first of his utterances not likely to be remembered for its “eloquence,” because it merits the higher praise of good sense. It has been predictably denounced in some quarters as stiff, unkind, ungenerous, and “over the top.” Obama began by speaking of the ideology that incited and justified the Iraq War of 2003. He called it a “mindset,” and the word was appropriate -- suggesting a pair of earphones around a head that prevents us from hearing any penetrating noise from the external world. Starting in the summer of 2002, Americans heard a voice that said: Bomb, invade, occupy Iraq! And do the same to other countries! For the sake of our sanity, Obama explained, we had to take off those earphones: “We had to end the mindset that got us there in the first place. It was a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy; a mindset that put a premium on unilateral U.S. action over the painstaking work of building international consensus; a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported. Leaders did not level with the American people about the costs of war, insisting that we could easily impose our will on a part of the world with a profoundly different culture and history. And, of course, those calling for war labeled themselves strong and decisive, while dismissing those who disagreed as weak -- even appeasers of a malevolent adversary.” Advertisement: In this precise catalogue of mental traits, Obama was careful to name no names, but he made it easy to construct a key: A mindset characterized by a preference for military action: President George W. Bush ordering the U.N. nuclear inspectors out of Iraq (though they had asked to stay and complete their work) because there was a pressing need to bomb in March 2003; Advertisement: A mindset that put a premium on unilateral U.S. action: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld dismissing the skeptical challenge and eventual non-participation of France and Germany as proof of the irrelevance of “old Europe”; A mindset that exaggerated threats: the barely vetted New York Times stories by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon, which an administration bent on war first molded and then cited on TV news shows as evidence to justify preventive war; Leaders did not level with the American people about the costs of war:Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz pooh-poohing the estimate by Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki that it would take 400,000 troops to maintain order in Iraq after the war; Advertisement: Insisting that we could easily impose our will on a part of the world with a profoundly different culture and history: the bromides of Bush and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on the indwelling Arab spirit that yearns for American-style democracy across the Middle East. Obama went on to assert that there was a continuity of persons as well as ideas between the propagandists who told us to bomb, invade, and occupy Iraq in 2003 and those now spending tens of millions of dollars to ensure that Congress will abort the nuclear deal. “The same mindset,” the president remarked, “in many cases offered by the same people who seem to have no compunction with being repeatedly wrong, led to a war that did more to strengthen Iran, more to isolate the United States, than anything we have done in the decades before or since.” Those people have never recognized that they were wrong. Some put the blame on President Bush or his viceroy in Baghdad, the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, L. Paul Bremer, for mismanaging the occupation that followed the invasion; others continue to nurse the fantastic theory that Saddam Hussein really was in possession of nuclear weapons but somehow smuggled them across the border to Syria and fooled both U.S. reconnaissance teams and the U.N. inspectors; still others maintain that Shiite militias and weaponry dispatched to Iraq from Iran were the chief culprits in the disaster of the postwar insurgency. Advertisement: Bear in mind that these opinion-makers, in 2003, hardly understood the difference between Shiite and Sunni in the country they wanted to invade. To put the blame now on Iran betrays a genius for circular reasoning. Since all Shia militias are allied by religion with Iran, it can be argued that Iraq was not destroyed by a catastrophic war of choice whose effects set the region on fire. No: the United States under Bush and Cheney was an unpresuming superpower doing its proper work, bringing peace and democracy to one of the dark places of the earth by means of a clean, fast, “surgical” war. In 2004 and 2005, just as in 2015, it was Iran that caused the trouble. Simple Facts That Are Not Known Because the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has scorned the nuclear deal without any attention to detail, the president felt compelled in his speech to recognize candidly the difference of national interest that exists between Israel and the United States. Though we are allies, he said, we are two different countries, and he left his listeners to draw the necessary inference: it is not possible for two countries (any more than two persons) to be at once different and the same. Obama went on to connect the nations in question to this premise of international politics: “I believe [the terms of the agreement] are in America’s interest and Israel’s interest. And as president of the United States, it would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it causes temporary friction with a dear friend and ally.” Advertisement: The last affirmation is critical. A president takes an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States” -- that is, to attend to the interest of his own country and not another. The danger of playing favorites in the world of nations, with a partiality that knows no limits, was a main topic of George Washington’s great Farewell Address. “Permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded,” said Washington, because “a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.” There are Americans today who submit to a ruling passion that favors uniquely the interests of Israel, and the president had them in mind when he invoked his duties under the Constitution toward the only country whose framework of laws and institutions he had sworn to uphold. Genuine respect for another democracy formed part of his thinking here. Not only was Obama not elected to support Netanyahu’s idea of America’s interest, he was also not elected by Israelis to support his own idea of Israel’s interest. Advertisement: In a recent commentary in Foreign Affairs, the prominent Israeli journalist and former government adviser Daniel Levy pointed out a fact that is not much remembered today regarding Netanyahu’s continuous effort to sabotage negotiations with Iran. It was the Israeli prime minister who initially demanded that nuclear negotiations be pursued on a separate track from any agreement about the trade or sale of conventional weapons. He chose that path because he was certain it would cause negotiations to collapse. The gambit having failed, he now makes the lifting of sanctions on conventional weaponry a significant objection to the “bad deal” in Vienna. Obama concluded his argument by saying that “alternatives to military action will have been exhausted if we reject a hard-won diplomatic solution that the world almost unanimously supports. So let’s not mince words. The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war -- maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon.” A measured statement and demonstrably true. But you would never come within hailing distance of this truth if you listened to the numbers of Congressional Republicans who repeat the neoconservative watchwords and their accompanying digests of the recent history of the Middle East. They run through recitations of the dramatis personae of the war on terror with the alacrity of trained seals. Israel lives in a “dangerous neighborhood.” Islamists are “knocking on our door” and “looking for gaps in the border with Mexico.” Iran is “the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the world.” Barack Obama is “an appeaser” and “it’s five minutes to midnightin Munich.” Elected officials who walk on two legs in the twenty-first century are not embarrassed to say these things without the slightest idea of their provenance. If there was a fault in the president’s explanation of his policy, it lay in some things he omitted to say. When you are educating a people who have been proselytized, as Americans have been, by a political cult for the better part of two decades, nothing should be taken for granted. Most Americans do not know that the fanatical Islamists, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, the Islamic State (IS) -- the active and destructive revolutionary force in the greater Middle East at the moment -- are called Sunni Muslims. Nor do they know that the Shia Muslims who govern Iran and who support the government of Syria have never attacked the United States. Advertisement: To say it as simply as it should be said: the Shiites and Sunnis are different sects, and the Shiites of Iran are fighting against the same enemies the U.S. is fighting in Syria and elsewhere. Again, most Americans who get their information from miscellaneous online scraps have no idea that exclusively Sunni fanatics made up the force of hijackers who struck the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. They would be surprised to learn that none of these people came from Iraq or Iran. They do not know that 15 of the 19 came from Saudi Arabia -- a supposed ally of the United States. And they do not know that the Islamist warriors who brought chaos and destruction to Syria and Iraq are bankrolled in part by members of the Saudi and Qatari elite who have nothing to do with Iran. It has never been emphasized -- it is scarcely written in a way that might be noticeable even in our newspaper of record -- that Iran itself has carried the heaviest burden of the fight against IS. Throughout his presidency, when speaking of Iran, Obama has mixed every expression of hope for improved relations with a measure of opprobrium. He has treated Iran as an exceptional offender against the laws of nations, a country that requires attention only in the cause of disarmament. He does this to assure the policy elite that he respects and can hum the familiar tunes. But this subservience to cliché is timid, unrealistic, and pragmatically ill advised. Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill did not denounce the Soviet Union when they took that country’s dictator, Joseph Stalin, as a partner in war in 1941, though Stalin’s crimes exceeded anything attributable to the Iranian mullahs. Ritual denunciation of a necessary ally is a transparent absurdity. And in a democracy, it prevents ordinary people from arriving at an understanding of what is happening. Nuclear Deals and Their Critics, Then and Now What are the odds that the neoconservatives and the Republicans whose policy they manage will succeed in aborting the P5+1 nuclear deal? One can take some encouragement from the last comparably ambitious effort at rapprochement with an enemy: the conversations between President Ronald Reagan and the Soviet head of state Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Washington, and Moscow in 1986, 1987, and 1988. At the same time, one ought to be forewarned by the way that unexpected change of course was greeted. The neoconservative cult was just forming then. Some of its early leaders like Richard Perle had positions in the Reagan administration, and they were unanimously hostile to the talks that would yield the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) of 1988. The agreement set out the terms for the destruction of 2,611 missiles, capable of delivering 4,000 warheads -- the biggest step in lowering the risk of nuclear war since the Test Ban Treaty championed by President Kennedy and passed in late 1963. But as James Mann recounted in The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan -- a narrative of the anticommunist president’s surprising late turn in foreign policy -- all of Reagan’s diplomatic efforts were deeply disapproved at the time, not only by the neoconservative hotheads but by those masters of the “diplomatic breakthrough,” former President Richard Nixon and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger; by the most widely quoted columnists of the right, George Will and William Safire; and by Timemagazine, which ran a story titled “Has Reagan Gone Soft?” The Reagan-Gorbachev talks were looked upon with suspicion, too, by “realists” and “moderates” of the political and security establishment, including Robert Gates and then-Vice President George H.W. Bush. Why Gates? Because he was deputy director of the CIA and the Agency was thoroughly convinced that Soviet Russia and its leadership could never change. Why Bush? Because he was already running for president. The political and media establishment of that moment was startled by the change that President Reagan first signaled in 1986, as startled as today’s establishment has been by the signing of the P5+1 agreement. This was the same Ronald Reagan who in 1983 had called the Soviet Union “an evil empire.” At the end of his visit to Moscow in June 1988, Reagan was asked by the ABC News reporter Sam Donaldson, “Do you still think you’re in an evil empire, Mr. President?” “No,” Reagan replied. “I was talking about another time and another era.” And he stuck to that answer at a press conference the next day, adding: “I think that a great deal of [the change] is due to the General Secretary, who I have found different than previous Soviet leaders... A large part of it is Mr. Gorbachev as a leader.” By 1987, Reagan’s popularity had hit a low of 47% -- largely because of the Iran-Contra scandal -- but he still retained his reputation as the most irreproachable defender of the West against world communism. Obama for his part has done everything he could -- short of emulating the invade-and-occupy strategy of Bush -- to maintain U.S. force projection in the Middle East in a manner to which Washington has become accustomed since 9/11. He doubtless believes in this policy, and he has surrounded himself with adepts of “humanitarian war”; but he clearly also calculated that a generous ration of conformity would protect him when he tried for his own breakthrough in negotiations with Iran. In the end, Reagan got a 93-5 vote in the Senate for his nuclear treaty with the Soviet Union. Obama is hoping for much less -- a vote of less than two thirds of that body opposed to the Iran settlement. But he is confronted by the full-scale hostility of a Republican party with a new character and with financial backing of a new kind. The U.S. military and security establishment has sided with the president. And though the fact is little known here, so have the vast majority of Israelis who can speak with any authority on issues of defense and security. Even the president of Israel, Reuven Rivlin, has signaled his belief that Netanyahu’s interventions in American politics are wrong. Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak has advised that, however reluctantly, Israel should accept the nuclear agreement and forge an understanding with the U.S. about what to do in case of its violation. To this remarkable consensus should be added the public letter -- signed by 29 American scientists, many of them deeply involved in nuclear issues, including six recipients of the Nobel Prize -- which vouches for the stringency of the agreement and praises the “unprecedented” rigor of the 24-day cap on Iranian delays for site inspection: an interval so short (as no one knows better than these scientists) that successful concealment of traces of nuclear activity becomes impossible. Two other public letters supporting the nuclear deal have been notable. The first was signed by former U.S. diplomats endorsing the agreement unambiguously, among them Ryan Crocker, the American ambassador to Iraq after 2003; Nicholas Burns, who negotiated with Iran for the younger Bush; and Daniel Kurtzer, a former ambassador to Israel and Egypt who served under both President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. A further letter carried the personal and institutional authority of dozens of retired admirals and generals. So close an approach to unanimity on the benefits of an agreement among the U.S. military, diplomatic, and scientific communities has seldom been achieved. Even President Reagan could not claim this degree of support by qualified judges when he submitted the INF treaty to the Senate. Such endorsements ought to represent a substantial cause for hope. But Obama’s supporters would be hard pressed to call the contest a draw on television and radio. The neoconservatives -- and the Republicans channeling them -- are once again working with boundless energy. Careers are being built on this fight, as in the case of Senator Tom Cotton, and more than onepresidential candidacy has been staked on it. On the day of Obama’s speech, even a relatively informed talk show host like Charlie Rose allowed his coverage to slant sharply against the agreement. His four guests were the Haaretz reporter Chemi Shalev; the Daily Beastcolumnist Jonathan Alter; the former State Department official and president of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haass; and the neoconservative venture capitalist, Mark Dubowitz, who has come to be treated as an expert on the nuclear policies and government of Iran. Haass, passionately opposed to the agreement, said that the president’s speech had been “way over the top,” and hoped Congress would correct its “clear flaws.” Shalev rated the speech honest and “bracing” but thought it would leave many in the Jewish community “offended.” Dubowitz spoke of Iran as a perfidious nation that ought to be subjected to relentless and ever-increasing penalties. His solution: “empower the next president to go back and renegotiate.” Jonathan Alter alone defended the agreement. Planning to Attack Iran, 2002-2015 By now, the active participants in mainstream commentary on the War on Terror all have a history, and one can learn a good deal by looking back. Haass, for example, a pillar of the foreign policy establishment, worked in the State Department under Bush and Cheney and made no public objection to the Iraq War. Dubowitz has recently co-authored several articles with Reuel Marc Gerecht, a leading propagandist for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In acharacteristic piece in the Wall Street Journal last November, Gerecht and Dubowitz argued that the P5+1 negotiations opened a path to a nuclear bomb for Iran. President Obama, they said, was too weak and trapped by his own errors to explore any alternatives, but there were three “scenarios” that a wiser and stronger president might consider. First, “the White House could give up on diplomacy and preemptively strike Iran’s nuclear sites”; second, “the administration could give up on the current talks and default back to sanctions”; third, “new, even more biting sanctions could be enacted, causing Tehran considerable pain.” The range of advisable policy, for Gerecht and Dubowitz, begins with “crippling sanctions” and ends with a war of aggression. These scenarios typify the neoconservative “options.” Writing on his own inthe Atlantic in June 2013, Dubowitz informed American readers that there was nothing to celebrate in the Iranian presidential election that brought to power the apparently rational and moderate Hassan Rouhani. “A loyalist of Iran's supreme leader and a master of nuclear deceit,” Rouhani, as interpreted by Dubowitz, is a false friend whose new authority “doesn't get us any closer to stopping Iran's nuclear drive.” Consider Gerecht in his solo flights and you can see what made the president say that these are the people who gave us the Iraq War. They were as sure then about the good that would follow the bombing and invasion of that country as they are now about the benefits of attacking Iran. Indeed, Gerecht has the distinction of having called for an attack on Iran even before the official launch of the Bush strategy on Iraq. It is said that Dick Cheney’s August 26, 2002, speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars marked the first formal description of the War on Terror offered by a U.S. leader to American citizens. But Gerecht, a former CIA specialist on the Middle East, stole a march on the vice president. In theWeekly Standard of August 6, 2002, under the title “Regime Change in Iran?,” he declared his belief that President Bush was the possessor of a “revolutionary edge and appeal... in the Middle East.” The younger Bush had “sliced across national borders and civilizational divides with an unqualified assertion of a moral norm. The president declared, ‘The people of Iran want the same freedoms, human rights, and opportunities as people around the world.’ America will stand ‘alongside people everywhere determined to build a world of freedom, dignity, and tolerance.’” The analyst Gerecht took up where the evangelist Bush left off: the relevant country to attack in August 2002 -- on behalf of its people of course -- was Iran. Gerecht had no doubt that “the Iranian people overwhelmingly view clerical rule as fundamentally illegitimate. The heavily Westernized clerics of Iran's religious establishment -- and these mullahs are on both sides of the so-called 'moderate-conservative' split -- know perfectly well that the Persian word azadi, ‘freedom,’ is perhaps the most evocative word in the language now... Azadi has also become indissolubly associated with the United States.” This was the way the neoconservatives were already writing and thinking back in August 2002. It is hard to know which is more astounding, the show of philological virtuosity or the self-assurance regarding the advisability of war against a nation of 70 million. General prognostications, however, are never enough for the neoconservatives, and Gerecht in 2002 enumerated the specific benefits of disorder in Iraq and Iran: “An American invasion [of Iraq] could possibly provoke riots in Iran -- simultaneous uprisings in major cities that would simply be beyond the scope of regime-loyal specialized riot-control units. The army or the Revolutionary Guard Corps would have to be pulled into service in large numbers, and that's when things could get interesting.” That was how he had it scored. Bush, the voice of freedom, would be adored as a benevolent emperor at a distance: “President Bush, of course, doesn't need National Iranian Television broadcasts to beam his message into the Islamic Republic. Everything he says moves at light speed through the country. The president just needs to keep talking about freedom being the birthright of Muslim peoples.” Such was the neoconservative recipe for democracy in the Middle East: beam the words of George W. Bush to people everywhere, invade Iraq, and spark a democratic uprising in Iran (assisted if necessary by U.S. bombs and soldiers). For a final glimpse of the same “mindset,” look closely at Gerecht’s advice on Syria in June 2014. Writing again in the Weekly Standard, he deprecated the very idea of getting help from Iran in the fight against the Islamic State. “The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Enemy” declares the title of the piece, and the article makes the same point with a minimal reliance on facts. Sunni terrorists are portrayed as impetuous youngsters who naturally go too far, but it is too early to gauge their trajectory: the changes they bring may not ultimately be uncongenial to American interest. The Shiite masterminds of Iran, on the other hand, have long ago attained full maturity and will never change. Gerecht’s hope, last summer, was that substantial Iranian casualties in a war against IS would lead to the spontaneous uprising that failed to materialize in 2003. “It is possible that the present Sunni-Shiite conflict could, if the Iranian body count rises and too much national treasure is spent, produce shock waves that fundamentally weaken the clerical regime... Things could get violent inside the Islamic Republic.” The vision underlying this policy amounts to selective or strategic tolerance of al-Qaeda and IS for the sake of destroying Iran. Will the War on Terror Be Debated? How can such opinions be contested in American politics? The answer will have to come from what remains of the potential opposition party in the war on terror. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut has been a remarkable exception, but for the most part the Democrats are preoccupied with domestic policy. If almost two-thirds of Congress today is poised to vote against the Iran settlement, this embarrassment is the result of years of systematic neglect. Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin, Ron Wyden, Tammy Baldwin, and a few others have the talent to lead an opposition to a pursuit of the war on terror on the neoconservative plan, but to have any effect they would have to speak up regularly on foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Republican Party and its billionaire bankrollers are playing the long game on Iran. They would like to gain the two-thirds majority to override Obama’s veto of a Congressional vote against the nuclear agreement, but they do not really expect that to happen. The survival of any agreement, however, depends not only on its approval but on its legitimation. Their hope is to depress public support for the P5+1 deal so much that the next president and members of the next Congress would require extraordinary courage to persist with American participation. In the Foreign Affairs column mentioned earlier, Daniel Levy concluded that the long game is also Benjamin Netanyahu’s strategy: ”Netanyahu is going for a twofer -- if he loses on the veto-proof super majority in Congress, he can still succeed in keeping the Iran deal politically controversial and fragile and prevent any further détente with Iran. The hope, in this case, is that the next U.S. administration can resume the status quo ante in January 2017.” What we are seeing, then, is not simply a concentrated effort that will end with the vote by the Senate in September on the P5+1 nuclear deal. It is the earliest phase of a lobbying campaign intended to usher in a Republican president of appropriate views in January 2017. One may recognize that the money is there for such a long-term drive and yet still wonder at the virulence of the campaign to destroy Iran. What exactly allows the war party to keep on as they do? Within Israel, the cause is a political theology that obliges its believers to fight preemptive wars without any end in sight in order to guard against enemies who have opposed the existence of the Jewish state ever since its creation. This is a defensive fear that responds to an irrefutable historical reality. The neoconservatives and the better informed among their Republican followers are harder to grasp -- harder anyway until you realize that, for them, we are Rome and the Republican Party is the cradle of future American emperors, praetors, and proconsuls. “Ideology,” as the political essayist and Czech dissident Vaclav Havel once wrote, is “the bridge of excuses” a government offers to the people it rules. Between 2001 and 2009, the U.S. government was run by neoconservatives; they had a fair shot and the public judgment went against them; but in a climate of resurgent confusion about the Middle East, they have come a long way toward rebuilding their bridge. They are zealots but also prudent careerists, and the combination of money and revived propaganda may succeed in blurring many unhappy memories. Nor can they be accused of insincerity. When a theorist at a neoconservative think tank, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies or the American Enterprise Institute, affirms that democracy is what the Iranian people will have as soon as the U.S. cripples the resources of that country, he surely believes what he is saying. The projection seems as true to them now as it was in 2002, 2007, and 2010, as true as it will be in 2017 when a new president, preferably another young man of “spirit” like George W. Bush, succeeds the weak and deplorable Barack Obama. For such people, the battle is never over, and there is always another war ahead. They will push until they are stopped.

www.salon.com

left

S4fXHi5ae4jv1ga1

test

LaPET3qfgVvHDN3e

media_bias

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/the-empire-strikes-back-on-kennedy/

The Empire Strikes Back on Kennedy

Scott Mckay, Adam Ellwanger, Ben Stein, Betsy Mccaughey, Debra J. Saunders, Daniel J. Flynn, Anne Hendershott

Tucker Carlson is rapidly becoming America ’ s most important television journalist , because Carlson is willing , where no others are , to call out the abject lies emanating from the mainstream Beltway spin machine . And earlier this week Carlson did the public two important services . First , he provided a measure of accountability , where virtually no one else would , in savaging “ vulture capitalist ” and GOP mega-donor Paul Singer for what the latter did to the town of Sidney , Nebraska , in 2015 . Singer bought stock in the hunting-and-fishing-gear retailer Cabela ’ s , and from his fresh seat on the company ’ s board he cajoled its management into agreeing on the company ’ s sale to Bass Pro Shops . That sale hit Sidney , the home of Cabela ’ s corporate headquarters , especially hard . Some 2,000 jobs went away in a town of less than 10,000 people , and the economic effects of Singer ’ s actions there were akin to a nuclear bomb dropping on the town . Carlson spotlighted that episode in hedge-fund shame and noted that Singer has avoided any accountability for what he ’ s done due to massive contributions to the GOP . The story is of a piece with a not-infrequent pattern wherein major donors to the party have pushed it into policy positions that give heft to Democrat accusations that Republicans don ’ t care about ordinary folks . Ace of Spades offers a must-read treatment of this story in a post written just after Carlson shined a spotlight on the Singer–Sidney mess , including asking the question why Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse , who seems to pride himself on being a thoughtful , caring Republican , didn ’ t seem to have a problem with the Cabela ’ s sellout ( coinciding , of course , with a max-out donation by Singer to his campaign ) . But after he was finished with that essential piece of business , Carlson landed an outstanding interview with a reporter for the Nation , a not-particularly-conservative publication . But Aaron Maté had a lot to say that strayed from the last week ’ s D.C. media narrative on Ukraine , which more or less consumed U.S. Sen. John Kennedy ( R-LA ) , who committed the grievous error of basing his public statements on what he thought were established facts . Specifically , Kennedy had commented that there was evidence the 2016 U.S. presidential election didn ’ t just bear the mark of Russian meddling but that individuals in Ukraine had also left their fingerprints on the process . This wasn ’ t controversial all that long ago , you know . CBS News , back in 2017 : It wasn ’ t so much the Clinton campaign , per se , but a Democratic operative working with the Democratic National Committee did reach out to the Ukrainian government in an attempt to get damaging information about the Trump campaign . That operative ’ s name is Alexandra Chalupa , a Ukrainian-American former Clinton White House aide who was tasked with ethnic outreach on behalf of the Democratic Party . As Vogel reported , she knew about Paul Manafort ’ s extensive connections to the pro-Russian regime of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych , and decided to dig deeper into possible connections between Moscow and the Trump campaign . As part of that effort , she discussed Manafort with the high-ranking officials at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington , D.C . The Democratic National Committee denies that it was ever in contact with the Ukrainian government . Yanukovych was the guy Paul Manafort was working for before President Trump brought him on as his campaign manager , which probably wasn ’ t the best decision he ever made . But the Democrats absolutely reached out to Chalupa in an effort to politically monetize that relationship with Yanukovych ’ s successor Petro Poroshenko against Trump , and when Yanukovych was tossed out of power in 2014 , the regime that followed was , through Chalupa , without question dancing with Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign . Hot Air ’ s Ed Morrissey , writing at the Week back in 2017 , did a good job of chronicling what the Clinton camp was up to with Ukraine , among other things : Even more to the point , no experienced campaign would allow senior members to meet with a source without ensuring it would be productive first . As an example , recall that the Democrats worked with a foreign government to dig for dirt on Trump , too . Politico ‘ s Kenneth Vogel and David Stern reported in early January that the DNC contacted officials from the Ukrainian government for their own oppo research efforts . These contacts did not involve cut-outs , as Veselnitskaya may or may not have been , but did directly assist in searching for damaging information that could be used in the election . But where Trump ’ s own flesh and blood was involved in clandestine meetings , the DNC was careful to keep Clinton and her family at arm ’ s length , handling the connections to Ukrainian officials through operative Alexandra Chalupa . Chalupa , whose work included engaging with expatriate Democratic voters , suspected Manafort was using his Russian connections to boost Trump . According to Politico , she began coordinating with officials at Ukraine ’ s Washington embassy to expedite her research , in the hopes of provoking Congress into holding a hearing before the election about Russian contact with the Trump campaign . We could provide a lot more in the way of references proving that Clinton and the Democrats were using Ukrainian sources to get dirt on Trump . And no , it ’ s hardly beyond the pale to describe the Ukrainian cooperation in those efforts as “ meddling . ” Especially when it has never been proven that the Russians provided WikiLeaks with the Democratic National Committee ’ s emails , which is the central allegation behind the Trump–Russia narrative the Democrats inflicted on the country for two-plus years before it collapsed earlier this year . The only “ evidence ” that has ever been proffered toward that narrative was a judgment by intelligence agencies we now know were compromised by anti-Trump actors both at the top and in middle management , but without any public showing of evidence of Russian hacking . WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has never wavered from his insistence that the DNC emails were not given to him by the Russians , and it ’ s never been proven those emails were hacked rather than leaked . That last bit is important because it ’ s a bit of accepted wisdom in Washington that has informed a narrative that somehow Trump ’ s election was illegitimate and the product of foreign influence — without which there would be zero basis for the Democrats ’ current impeachment narrative . Fundamentally , this comes down to a familiar refrain : it isn ’ t news when foreign actors help Democrats get elected in American presidential elections ; it ’ s only interesting when there are indications foreigners might not help the Dems . Consider the case of George Nader , for example , which virtually none of the mainstream media organs bothered to cover . But when Kennedy brought up what was commonly understood back in 2017 , that the Ukrainians were helping the Democrats to expose Manafort as a supposedly Russia-friendly tool for Putin to control Trump , and when he cast it as meddling in the election , something any reasonable person would have to credit as at least a valid take on the situation , he found himself trashed for his trouble . As Carlson ’ s segment noted , such Establishment notables as Nicolle Wallace and Charlie Sykes , who we are supposed to believe are “ Republicans , ” began casting Kennedy as a Russian asset ( Wallace , whose intellectual candlepower is of a level making it certain she was merely saying what someone at MSNBC told her to say , might be excused for such inanity ; Sykes is less excusable ) . Worse , Sen. Mitt Romney rebuked Kennedy for suggesting Ukraine played a role in the 2016 election . Of course , there is almost nothing that Mitt Romney isn ’ t capable of turning septic for the Republican Party . He has proven that with perfect regularity since 2006 . The question is when the GOP and the people of Utah will finally flush this excrescent and odious malefactor out of our body politic once and for all . The Washington media smelled the chum in the water left by the Never Trump crowd , and by Tuesday Kennedy had decided to cut bait on the Ukrainian-meddling narrative . He said he was finished talking about it , which didn ’ t stop some of the same media organs that had covered the story just 24 months before from hounding him about the “ conspiracy theories ” he was supposedly pushing . If you ’ re reading this and concluding that the entire thing is stupid , congratulations — you ’ re paying attention . But until Carlson came along to bring someone from the Nation of all places to provide some sane analysis to the hysteria , the media narrative assaulting Kennedy was unchallenged . Kudos to Kennedy for being willing to take the slings and arrows of the spinning liars inside the Beltway , at least for a while , and kudos to Carlson for setting the record straight . There isn ’ t enough actual honesty in any of this impeachment process , with its various clearly mendacious narratives , and when there are people of good faith willing to punch holes in the fetid web of slime woven by the Democrats and their media allies , those of us who care about the truth should stand with them .

Tucker Carlson is rapidly becoming America’s most important television journalist, because Carlson is willing, where no others are, to call out the abject lies emanating from the mainstream Beltway spin machine. And earlier this week Carlson did the public two important services. First, he provided a measure of accountability, where virtually no one else would, in savaging “vulture capitalist” and GOP mega-donor Paul Singer for what the latter did to the town of Sidney, Nebraska, in 2015. Singer bought stock in the hunting-and-fishing-gear retailer Cabela’s, and from his fresh seat on the company’s board he cajoled its management into agreeing on the company’s sale to Bass Pro Shops. That sale hit Sidney, the home of Cabela’s corporate headquarters, especially hard. Some 2,000 jobs went away in a town of less than 10,000 people, and the economic effects of Singer’s actions there were akin to a nuclear bomb dropping on the town. Carlson spotlighted that episode in hedge-fund shame and noted that Singer has avoided any accountability for what he’s done due to massive contributions to the GOP. The story is of a piece with a not-infrequent pattern wherein major donors to the party have pushed it into policy positions that give heft to Democrat accusations that Republicans don’t care about ordinary folks. Ace of Spades offers a must-read treatment of this story in a post written just after Carlson shined a spotlight on the Singer–Sidney mess, including asking the question why Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, who seems to pride himself on being a thoughtful, caring Republican, didn’t seem to have a problem with the Cabela’s sellout (coinciding, of course, with a max-out donation by Singer to his campaign). But after he was finished with that essential piece of business, Carlson landed an outstanding interview with a reporter for the Nation, a not-particularly-conservative publication. But Aaron Maté had a lot to say that strayed from the last week’s D.C. media narrative on Ukraine, which more or less consumed U.S. Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), who committed the grievous error of basing his public statements on what he thought were established facts. Specifically, Kennedy had commented that there was evidence the 2016 U.S. presidential election didn’t just bear the mark of Russian meddling but that individuals in Ukraine had also left their fingerprints on the process. This wasn’t controversial all that long ago, you know. CBS News, back in 2017: It wasn’t so much the Clinton campaign, per se, but a Democratic operative working with the Democratic National Committee did reach out to the Ukrainian government in an attempt to get damaging information about the Trump campaign. That operative’s name is Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American former Clinton White House aide who was tasked with ethnic outreach on behalf of the Democratic Party. As Vogel reported, she knew about Paul Manafort’s extensive connections to the pro-Russian regime of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, and decided to dig deeper into possible connections between Moscow and the Trump campaign. As part of that effort, she discussed Manafort with the high-ranking officials at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington, D.C. The Democratic National Committee denies that it was ever in contact with the Ukrainian government. Yanukovych was the guy Paul Manafort was working for before President Trump brought him on as his campaign manager, which probably wasn’t the best decision he ever made. But the Democrats absolutely reached out to Chalupa in an effort to politically monetize that relationship with Yanukovych’s successor Petro Poroshenko against Trump, and when Yanukovych was tossed out of power in 2014, the regime that followed was, through Chalupa, without question dancing with Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey, writing at the Week back in 2017, did a good job of chronicling what the Clinton camp was up to with Ukraine, among other things: Even more to the point, no experienced campaign would allow senior members to meet with a source without ensuring it would be productive first. As an example, recall that the Democrats worked with a foreign government to dig for dirt on Trump, too. Politico‘s Kenneth Vogel and David Stern reported in early January that the DNC contacted officials from the Ukrainian government for their own oppo research efforts. These contacts did not involve cut-outs, as Veselnitskaya may or may not have been, but did directly assist in searching for damaging information that could be used in the election. But where Trump’s own flesh and blood was involved in clandestine meetings, the DNC was careful to keep Clinton and her family at arm’s length, handling the connections to Ukrainian officials through operative Alexandra Chalupa. Chalupa, whose work included engaging with expatriate Democratic voters, suspected Manafort was using his Russian connections to boost Trump. According to Politico, she began coordinating with officials at Ukraine’s Washington embassy to expedite her research, in the hopes of provoking Congress into holding a hearing before the election about Russian contact with the Trump campaign. We could provide a lot more in the way of references proving that Clinton and the Democrats were using Ukrainian sources to get dirt on Trump. And no, it’s hardly beyond the pale to describe the Ukrainian cooperation in those efforts as “meddling.” Especially when it has never been proven that the Russians provided WikiLeaks with the Democratic National Committee’s emails, which is the central allegation behind the Trump–Russia narrative the Democrats inflicted on the country for two-plus years before it collapsed earlier this year. The only “evidence” that has ever been proffered toward that narrative was a judgment by intelligence agencies we now know were compromised by anti-Trump actors both at the top and in middle management, but without any public showing of evidence of Russian hacking. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has never wavered from his insistence that the DNC emails were not given to him by the Russians, and it’s never been proven those emails were hacked rather than leaked. That last bit is important because it’s a bit of accepted wisdom in Washington that has informed a narrative that somehow Trump’s election was illegitimate and the product of foreign influence — without which there would be zero basis for the Democrats’ current impeachment narrative. Fundamentally, this comes down to a familiar refrain: it isn’t news when foreign actors help Democrats get elected in American presidential elections; it’s only interesting when there are indications foreigners might not help the Dems. Consider the case of George Nader, for example, which virtually none of the mainstream media organs bothered to cover. But when Kennedy brought up what was commonly understood back in 2017, that the Ukrainians were helping the Democrats to expose Manafort as a supposedly Russia-friendly tool for Putin to control Trump, and when he cast it as meddling in the election, something any reasonable person would have to credit as at least a valid take on the situation, he found himself trashed for his trouble. As Carlson’s segment noted, such Establishment notables as Nicolle Wallace and Charlie Sykes, who we are supposed to believe are “Republicans,” began casting Kennedy as a Russian asset (Wallace, whose intellectual candlepower is of a level making it certain she was merely saying what someone at MSNBC told her to say, might be excused for such inanity; Sykes is less excusable). Worse, Sen. Mitt Romney rebuked Kennedy for suggesting Ukraine played a role in the 2016 election. Of course, there is almost nothing that Mitt Romney isn’t capable of turning septic for the Republican Party. He has proven that with perfect regularity since 2006. The question is when the GOP and the people of Utah will finally flush this excrescent and odious malefactor out of our body politic once and for all. The Washington media smelled the chum in the water left by the Never Trump crowd, and by Tuesday Kennedy had decided to cut bait on the Ukrainian-meddling narrative. He said he was finished talking about it, which didn’t stop some of the same media organs that had covered the story just 24 months before from hounding him about the “conspiracy theories” he was supposedly pushing. If you’re reading this and concluding that the entire thing is stupid, congratulations — you’re paying attention. But until Carlson came along to bring someone from the Nation of all places to provide some sane analysis to the hysteria, the media narrative assaulting Kennedy was unchallenged. Kudos to Kennedy for being willing to take the slings and arrows of the spinning liars inside the Beltway, at least for a while, and kudos to Carlson for setting the record straight. There isn’t enough actual honesty in any of this impeachment process, with its various clearly mendacious narratives, and when there are people of good faith willing to punch holes in the fetid web of slime woven by the Democrats and their media allies, those of us who care about the truth should stand with them.

www.spectator.org

right

LaPET3qfgVvHDN3e

test

HT7blxGDVsav1qXF

nuclear_weapons

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/07/tehran-warns-time-is-running-out-to-save-iran-nuclear-deal

Tehran warns time is running out to save Iran nuclear deal

2019-09-07

Michael Safi

Tehran leverages use of advanced centrifuges to call for urgent European counter-measures to US sanctions Iran has announced it has started using more advanced centrifuges that could accelerate the development of an atomic weapon in its latest attempt to pressure European powers to salvage a 2015 nuclear deal . Behrouz Kamalvandi , the Iranian nuclear agency spokesman , told a press conference on Saturday the country did not intend to use the faster centrifuges to enrich uranium to 20 % levels – an important threshold on the path to weapons-grade material – but that it had the capacity to do so . “ We have started lifting limitations on our research and development imposed by the deal , ” Kamalvandi said . “ It will include development of more rapid and advanced centrifuges . “ The European parties to the deal should know that there is not much time left , and if there is some action to be taken [ to rescue the nuclear agreement ] , it should be done quickly . ” Iran was in compliance of the 2015 international agreement intended to curb its development of nuclear weapons until the US pulled out of the deal in May last year and reimposed crippling economic sanctions . European signatories to the deal led by France have unsuccessfully sought to find ways to help Tehran evade the US restrictions . Iran is increasing the pressure on Europe to do so , by gradually walking away from its nuclear commitments , including the pledge to refine uranium only using first-generation IR-1 centrifuges . Kamalvandi said the country had started using IR-4 and IR-6 centrifuges since Friday and would soon test even more advanced models . Officials in the country say an IR-6 can produce enriched uranium 10 times as fast as an IR-1 . Analysts said the announcement was carefully calibrated to highlight the urgency on France and others to help relieve Iran ’ s ailing economy , while avoiding triggering an armed response from the US or forcing Europe to formally abandon the deal . “ These are all very calculated because they do not want to upset the Europeans and make it less likely for them to save the nuclear agreement , ” said Holly Dagres , a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council who specialises in Iran ’ s nuclear program and its relations with the US . “ These are symbolic gestures to say : ‘ Time is running out , this deal is hanging by a string , you need to do something ’ . ” Elements in Iran have been accused of trying to sell oil to Syria in breach of UN sanctions , leading earlier this year to the seizure of a tanker carrying approximately $ 100m ( £81m ) worth of oil thought to be headed for a Syrian port . The seizure of the vessel is believed to have led Iran to capture a British-flagged ship , the Stena Impero , by the country ’ s Revolutionary Guards in July . The ship remains impounded though seven crew members were released this week , leaving 16 aboard . The Iranian tanker , now called the Adrian Darya , was released on the orders of a Gibraltar court in August and was photographed on Friday close to the Syrian port of Tartus , according to satellite photographs released by a US space technology company . Maxar Technologies Inc said the image showed the tanker Adrian Darya 1 very close to Tartus on 6 September . The ship appeared to have turned off its transponder in the Mediterranean west of Syria , ship-tracking data showed . The tanker sent its last signal giving its position between Cyprus and Syria sailing north on Monday afternoon . Iran ’ s coast guard seized another vessel on Saturday for allegedly smuggling fuel in the Gulf and detained its 12 crew members from the Philippines , the semi-official news agency ISNA reported . Kamalvandi said on Saturday the International Atomic Energy Agency , the UN ’ s nuclear watchdog , would continue to be allowed to monitor Iranian nuclear sites and that it had been informed about Iran ’ s “ new nuclear steps ” . But he set a 60-day deadline for France , Germany and Britain to find a solution to the US sanctions , after which further nuclear escalation could follow . “ When the other sides do not carry out their commitments , they should not expect Iran to fulfil its commitments , ” Kamalvandi said .

Tehran leverages use of advanced centrifuges to call for urgent European counter-measures to US sanctions Iran has announced it has started using more advanced centrifuges that could accelerate the development of an atomic weapon in its latest attempt to pressure European powers to salvage a 2015 nuclear deal. Behrouz Kamalvandi, the Iranian nuclear agency spokesman, told a press conference on Saturday the country did not intend to use the faster centrifuges to enrich uranium to 20% levels – an important threshold on the path to weapons-grade material – but that it had the capacity to do so. “We have started lifting limitations on our research and development imposed by the deal,” Kamalvandi said. “It will include development of more rapid and advanced centrifuges. Iran's uranium enrichment programme: the science explained Read more “The European parties to the deal should know that there is not much time left, and if there is some action to be taken [to rescue the nuclear agreement], it should be done quickly.” Iran was in compliance of the 2015 international agreement intended to curb its development of nuclear weapons until the US pulled out of the deal in May last year and reimposed crippling economic sanctions. European signatories to the deal led by France have unsuccessfully sought to find ways to help Tehran evade the US restrictions. Iran is increasing the pressure on Europe to do so, by gradually walking away from its nuclear commitments, including the pledge to refine uranium only using first-generation IR-1 centrifuges. Kamalvandi said the country had started using IR-4 and IR-6 centrifuges since Friday and would soon test even more advanced models. Officials in the country say an IR-6 can produce enriched uranium 10 times as fast as an IR-1. Analysts said the announcement was carefully calibrated to highlight the urgency on France and others to help relieve Iran’s ailing economy, while avoiding triggering an armed response from the US or forcing Europe to formally abandon the deal. “These are all very calculated because they do not want to upset the Europeans and make it less likely for them to save the nuclear agreement,” said Holly Dagres, a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council who specialises in Iran’s nuclear program and its relations with the US. “These are symbolic gestures to say: ‘Time is running out, this deal is hanging by a string, you need to do something’.” Elements in Iran have been accused of trying to sell oil to Syria in breach of UN sanctions, leading earlier this year to the seizure of a tanker carrying approximately $100m (£81m) worth of oil thought to be headed for a Syrian port. The seizure of the vessel is believed to have led Iran to capture a British-flagged ship, the Stena Impero, by the country’s Revolutionary Guards in July. The ship remains impounded though seven crew members were released this week, leaving 16 aboard. The Iranian tanker, now called the Adrian Darya, was released on the orders of a Gibraltar court in August and was photographed on Friday close to the Syrian port of Tartus, according to satellite photographs released by a US space technology company. Maxar Technologies Inc said the image showed the tanker Adrian Darya 1 very close to Tartus on 6 September. The ship appeared to have turned off its transponder in the Mediterranean west of Syria, ship-tracking data showed. The tanker sent its last signal giving its position between Cyprus and Syria sailing north on Monday afternoon. Iran’s coast guard seized another vessel on Saturday for allegedly smuggling fuel in the Gulf and detained its 12 crew members from the Philippines, the semi-official news agency ISNA reported. Kamalvandi said on Saturday the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, would continue to be allowed to monitor Iranian nuclear sites and that it had been informed about Iran’s “new nuclear steps”. But he set a 60-day deadline for France, Germany and Britain to find a solution to the US sanctions, after which further nuclear escalation could follow. “When the other sides do not carry out their commitments, they should not expect Iran to fulfil its commitments,” Kamalvandi said. Reuters contributed to this report

www.theguardian.com

left

HT7blxGDVsav1qXF

test

PWXjt1OcOS6Y5PVt

politics

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/18/political-chatter-hillary-clinton-is-talk-of-the-town/?hpt=po_c1

Political Chatter: Hillary Clinton is talk of the town

2014-05-18

Hillary Clinton was the subject that consumed the political talk shows , as questions continued to be raised about Karl Rove ’ s comments regarding her health . While Republicans attacked the noncandidate , Democrats defended her but also expressed concern over her strategy so far in advance of the next presidential election . If you missed the Sunday political talk shows , we ’ ll get you up to speed on the latest events and opinion in Washington with this comprehensive roundup of all things political : Hillary Clinton : It ’ s widely accepted that it hasn ’ t been a good couple of weeks for Hillary Clinton . She is being attacked by Republicans over various foreign policy problems , including Benghazi and Boko Haram ; her approval ratings are sliding , Monica Lewinsky spoke out , and Bill Clinton ’ s vocal defense could be making things worse . And now some Democrats are questioning aspects of her strategy . Massachusetts Gov . Deval Patrick said he is concerned about the “ inevitability ” factor with a potential Clinton nomination . “ I do worry about the inevitability thing , ” Patrick said on CNN ’ s “ State of the Union , ” adding that it ’ s “ off-putting to the … average voter . ” “ I think that was an element of her campaign the last time , ” he said , without having to specify how that turned out ( Barack Obama won ) . “ I just hope that the people around her pay attention to that this time around . ” Clinton said she was going to take it easy and catch up on her sleep after she stepped down as secretary of state last year , but she took little downtime and immediately turned to writing a book , “ Hard Choices , ” that is to be released next month . She has also been traveling the country to make paid speeches , stoking speculation that she is strategically plotting a presidential run . “ I did talk with her and thought it would be better that she not get out there early , because her favorability was so high , that all that could happen in this is go down , ” Feinstein said on “ State of the Union . ” California Gov . Jerry Brown , who is dealing with severe wildfires in his state , said on ABC ’ s “ This Week ” that while Clinton is the “ overwhelming favorite ” for the Democrats in 2016 , front-runner status comes with challenges . “ Being a front-runner is being on a perch that everyone else is going to try to knock you off of , ” he said on ABC ’ s “ This Week , ” adding that Clinton needs to be “ wise ” on how she proceeds . Feinstein , however , is still a fan . She said Republican strategist Karl Rove ’ s public speculation that Clinton might have brain damage is “ pathetic . ” “ She ’ s in the prime of her political life , ” Feinstein said . On “ Fox News Sunday , ” Rove said the Clintons are hypocritical for crying foul . “ I love President Clinton ’ s comments the other day , ” Rove said . “ Let ’ s remember , this is a guy who ran for office savaging Bob Dole . ” “ I love being lectured by Bill Clinton , ” Rove said sarcastically . Bill Clinton didn ’ t necessarily lecture Rove , but he did defend his wife last week , saying she is “ strong. ” But the former president might have made the situation worse for his wife by saying she had a “ terrible ” concussion that took six months to get over . That is the first time anyone from her team has said it was a six-month recovery . “ Karl Rove is struggling to be relevant , ” Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri shot back on NBC ’ s “ Meet the Press , ” calling the former Bush adviser ’ s super PAC , which spent more than $ 175 million trying to elect Republican Mitt Romney , an “ abject failure . ” McCaskill - who has had a complicated relationship with Hillary Clinton ever since the 2008 campaign , when she backed Clinton ’ s challenger , then-Sen. Barack Obama - called Rove ’ s remarks “ a cheap political shot . ” While the Rove talking point was a central point of discussion , Republicans on the talk shows didn ’ t jump to defend him . Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg , Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Independent , said on CBS News ’ “ Face the Nation ” that Rove ’ s remarks were “ outrageous and over the pale . ” On Fox , former Vice President Dick Cheney - who has had severe health problems , including five heart attacks - didn ’ t question Clinton ’ s health but said , “ Any presidential candidate … is going to have to answer questions about their health . ” Cheney ’ s take was similar to the one by Reince Priebus , head of the Republican National Committee , but neither refused an opportunity to criticize Clinton - which brings us to Benghazi . Benghazi : “ I think she clearly bears responsibility for whatever the State Department did or didn ’ t know about it , ” Cheney said about Clinton and the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi , Libya . “ I do think it ’ s a major issue . I don ’ t think we ’ ve heard the last of it yet . ” Priebus said Clinton ’ s health isn ’ t an issue for him , but that she “ is trying to sweep Benghazi under the rug . ” Democrats , who have dismissed Republicans ’ ongoing attempts to find more damaging information on Benghazi , played down the GOP ’ s criticisms again . McCaskill again defended Clinton with a huge compliment - perhaps a public attempt at mending their relationship with a slight against Obama : “ She has got the strongest resume for president of anyone who had run in a very long time . ” Feinstein said the special committee on Benghazi launched by House Republicans is “ ridiculous . ” “ It ’ s a hunting mission for a lynch mob , ” she said on “ State of the Union. ” She pointed to the previous four reports , numerous hearings , and thousand-page document reviews as proof that there is nothing left to uncover . But Republicans know that keeping Benghazi in the spotlight could , at best , peel away at Clinton ’ s favorability and , at worst , implicate her for her role . Given that , Priebus was out with a bold prediction : “ Given the month she just had , I actually doubt very much whether she actually will run for president in 2016 . ” On @ meetthepress @ GOP chair @ Reince says @ HillaryClinton probably wo n't run if she has another month like the last one — Sean Spicer ( @ seanspicer ) May 18 , 2014 The VA : Amid the growing scandal about wait times and care at veterans ' hospitals , President Obama 's chief of staff , Dennis McDonough , said the President is `` madder than hell and I have got the scars to prove it . '' But the head of the Veterans Affairs Department , Eric Shinseki , received tepid support . Dr. Samuel Foote , the retired VA doctor who first spoke to CNN about this story , said on “ Fox News Sunday ” that firing Shinseki wouldn ’ t solve much . Rights group calls VA official 'scapegoat ' in scandal over wait times , care “ It we switch secretaries then the focus will get away from fixing the problem to who the new secretary ’ s going to be . And then he ’ ll have three- or six-month or a nine-month grace period because he ’ s the new guy , ” Foote said . “ Our best bet at this point is to keep the ( current ) secretary on board , but I think the President needs to keep him on a pretty short leash and be sure that he 's doing the job . '' Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger had a different take , saying Shinseki should go . “ We need to get somebody there … that knows how to fix the problem , ” he said . Offering assurance that Shinseki will keep his job – for now – McDonough said on CBS News ' `` Face the Nation '' that the VA head will `` continue to work these issues until they 're fixed . '' Kicker : Feinstein said her relationship with the CIA isn ’ t any better since she publicized the feud between the agency and her oversight committee over alleged spying on her staff ’ s computers . “ I ’ m not there to be the most popular person in any building , ” she said . “ When there ’ s something going on that shouldn ’ t be , we do something about it . ”

5 years ago Hillary Clinton was the subject that consumed the political talk shows, as questions continued to be raised about Karl Rove’s comments regarding her health. While Republicans attacked the noncandidate, Democrats defended her but also expressed concern over her strategy so far in advance of the next presidential election. If you missed the Sunday political talk shows, we’ll get you up to speed on the latest events and opinion in Washington with this comprehensive roundup of all things political: Follow @politicalticker Follow @LACaldwellDC Hillary Clinton: It’s widely accepted that it hasn’t been a good couple of weeks for Hillary Clinton. She is being attacked by Republicans over various foreign policy problems, including Benghazi and Boko Haram; her approval ratings are sliding, Monica Lewinsky spoke out, and Bill Clinton’s vocal defense could be making things worse. And now some Democrats are questioning aspects of her strategy. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick said he is concerned about the “inevitability” factor with a potential Clinton nomination. “I do worry about the inevitability thing,” Patrick said on CNN’s “State of the Union,” adding that it’s “off-putting to the … average voter.” “I think that was an element of her campaign the last time,” he said, without having to specify how that turned out (Barack Obama won). “I just hope that the people around her pay attention to that this time around.” Clinton said she was going to take it easy and catch up on her sleep after she stepped down as secretary of state last year, but she took little downtime and immediately turned to writing a book, “Hard Choices,” that is to be released next month. She has also been traveling the country to make paid speeches, stoking speculation that she is strategically plotting a presidential run. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, expressed concerns similar to Patrick’s. “I did talk with her and thought it would be better that she not get out there early, because her favorability was so high, that all that could happen in this is go down,” Feinstein said on “State of the Union.” Feinstein was right. Clinton’s approval rating has slipped. California Gov. Jerry Brown, who is dealing with severe wildfires in his state, said on ABC’s “This Week” that while Clinton is the “overwhelming favorite” for the Democrats in 2016, front-runner status comes with challenges. “Being a front-runner is being on a perch that everyone else is going to try to knock you off of,” he said on ABC’s “This Week,” adding that Clinton needs to be “wise” on how she proceeds. Feinstein, however, is still a fan. She said Republican strategist Karl Rove’s public speculation that Clinton might have brain damage is “pathetic.” “She’s in the prime of her political life,” Feinstein said. On “Fox News Sunday,” Rove said the Clintons are hypocritical for crying foul. “I love President Clinton’s comments the other day,” Rove said. “Let’s remember, this is a guy who ran for office savaging Bob Dole.” “I love being lectured by Bill Clinton,” Rove said sarcastically. Bill Clinton didn’t necessarily lecture Rove, but he did defend his wife last week, saying she is “strong.” But the former president might have made the situation worse for his wife by saying she had a “terrible” concussion that took six months to get over. That is the first time anyone from her team has said it was a six-month recovery. “Karl Rove is struggling to be relevant,” Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri shot back on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” calling the former Bush adviser’s super PAC, which spent more than $175 million trying to elect Republican Mitt Romney, an “abject failure.” McCaskill - who has had a complicated relationship with Hillary Clinton ever since the 2008 campaign, when she backed Clinton’s challenger, then-Sen. Barack Obama - called Rove’s remarks “a cheap political shot.” While the Rove talking point was a central point of discussion, Republicans on the talk shows didn’t jump to defend him. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Independent, said on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that Rove’s remarks were “outrageous and over the pale.” On Fox, former Vice President Dick Cheney - who has had severe health problems, including five heart attacks - didn’t question Clinton’s health but said, “Any presidential candidate … is going to have to answer questions about their health.” Cheney’s take was similar to the one by Reince Priebus, head of the Republican National Committee, but neither refused an opportunity to criticize Clinton - which brings us to Benghazi. Benghazi: “I think she clearly bears responsibility for whatever the State Department did or didn’t know about it,” Cheney said about Clinton and the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. “I do think it’s a major issue. I don’t think we’ve heard the last of it yet.” Priebus said Clinton’s health isn’t an issue for him, but that she “is trying to sweep Benghazi under the rug.” Democrats, who have dismissed Republicans’ ongoing attempts to find more damaging information on Benghazi, played down the GOP’s criticisms again. McCaskill again defended Clinton with a huge compliment - perhaps a public attempt at mending their relationship with a slight against Obama: “She has got the strongest resume for president of anyone who had run in a very long time.” Feinstein said the special committee on Benghazi launched by House Republicans is “ridiculous.” “It’s a hunting mission for a lynch mob,” she said on “State of the Union.” She pointed to the previous four reports, numerous hearings, and thousand-page document reviews as proof that there is nothing left to uncover. But Republicans know that keeping Benghazi in the spotlight could, at best, peel away at Clinton’s favorability and, at worst, implicate her for her role. Given that, Priebus was out with a bold prediction: “Given the month she just had, I actually doubt very much whether she actually will run for president in 2016.” On @meetthepress @GOP chair @Reince says @HillaryClinton probably won't run if she has another month like the last one — Sean Spicer (@seanspicer) May 18, 2014 The VA: Amid the growing scandal about wait times and care at veterans' hospitals, President Obama's chief of staff, Dennis McDonough, said the President is "madder than hell and I have got the scars to prove it." But the head of the Veterans Affairs Department, Eric Shinseki, received tepid support. Dr. Samuel Foote, the retired VA doctor who first spoke to CNN about this story, said on “Fox News Sunday” that firing Shinseki wouldn’t solve much. Rights group calls VA official 'scapegoat' in scandal over wait times, care “It we switch secretaries then the focus will get away from fixing the problem to who the new secretary’s going to be. And then he’ll have three- or six-month or a nine-month grace period because he’s the new guy,” Foote said. “Our best bet at this point is to keep the (current) secretary on board, but I think the President needs to keep him on a pretty short leash and be sure that he's doing the job." Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger had a different take, saying Shinseki should go. “We need to get somebody there … that knows how to fix the problem,” he said. Offering assurance that Shinseki will keep his job – for now – McDonough said on CBS News' "Face the Nation" that the VA head will "continue to work these issues until they're fixed." Kicker: Feinstein said her relationship with the CIA isn’t any better since she publicized the feud between the agency and her oversight committee over alleged spying on her staff’s computers. “I’m not there to be the most popular person in any building,” she said. “When there’s something going on that shouldn’t be, we do something about it.”

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

PWXjt1OcOS6Y5PVt

test

JQ16vpVNvqxYy2Gd

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/19/exclusive-roger-stone-says-russia-related-legal-fees-will-cost-at-least-500k/

Roger Stone Says Russia Related Legal Fees Will Cost At Least $500K

2017-09-19

Trump confidant Roger Stone told ███ Tuesday that a lawsuit and congressional inquires will likely cost him at least $ 500,000 in legal fees . Stone has set up a legal defense fund at WhoframedRogerStone.com to help offset the costs . Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has also set up a website to help pay off his legal fees as the financial burden of Russia election interference probes grows for Trump associates . “ They couldn ’ t beat us in an election so now they try to beat us financially , ” Stone told TheDC . Stone is being sued by Project Democracy , which is run by former Obama administration lawyers , for allegedly being involved in the release of emails from Democratic Party officials . Stone said that this suit will cost more than the preparation for an upcoming hearing before the House Intelligence Committee on Sept. 26 . He also assumes the Senate Intelligence Committee will invite him to testify . The two committees have both launched investigations regarding alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election . “ These f * * * ers can ’ t even prove the Russians hacked the [ Democratic National Committee ( DNC ) ] , because they didn ’ t…nobody can prove it , ” Stone told TheDC . Liberals have focused on Stone ’ s claim that through a middleman he connected with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange who released emails from DNC officials . “ There ’ s a mindset in Washington if you just repeat a lie over and over , just keep repeating it , you don ’ t have to come up with proof , ” Stone said . “ That c * * * sucker [ former CIA Director John Brennan ] can say it as many times as he wants , it won ’ t become true . ” Brennan has testified that he has concerns that Russia might have recruited Trump campaign aides . Stone told TheDC that he has spent around $ 100,000 to dismiss the lawsuit from Project Democracy . The longtime political adviser to Trump is not the only person in the president ’ s orbit facing burdensome legal fees . Reuters reported Tuesday that President Trump is using donations to his campaign and the Republican National Committee to pay off some of his legal fees , which is a perfectly legal procedure . An RNC spokesman told Reuters that the party covered a little over $ 230,000 in legal fees for the president . The Daily Beast also reported Monday that Flynn ’ s legal fees are estimated to exceed $ 1 million .

Trump confidant Roger Stone told The Daily Caller Tuesday that a lawsuit and congressional inquires will likely cost him at least $500,000 in legal fees. Stone has set up a legal defense fund at WhoframedRogerStone.com to help offset the costs. Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has also set up a website to help pay off his legal fees as the financial burden of Russia election interference probes grows for Trump associates. “They couldn’t beat us in an election so now they try to beat us financially,” Stone told TheDC. Stone is being sued by Project Democracy, which is run by former Obama administration lawyers, for allegedly being involved in the release of emails from Democratic Party officials. Stone said that this suit will cost more than the preparation for an upcoming hearing before the House Intelligence Committee on Sept. 26. He also assumes the Senate Intelligence Committee will invite him to testify. The two committees have both launched investigations regarding alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. “These f***ers can’t even prove the Russians hacked the [Democratic National Committee (DNC)], because they didn’t…nobody can prove it,” Stone told TheDC. Liberals have focused on Stone’s claim that through a middleman he connected with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange who released emails from DNC officials. “There’s a mindset in Washington if you just repeat a lie over and over, just keep repeating it, you don’t have to come up with proof,” Stone said. “That c***sucker [former CIA Director John Brennan] can say it as many times as he wants, it won’t become true.” Brennan has testified that he has concerns that Russia might have recruited Trump campaign aides. Stone told TheDC that he has spent around $100,000 to dismiss the lawsuit from Project Democracy. The longtime political adviser to Trump is not the only person in the president’s orbit facing burdensome legal fees. Reuters reported Tuesday that President Trump is using donations to his campaign and the Republican National Committee to pay off some of his legal fees, which is a perfectly legal procedure. An RNC spokesman told Reuters that the party covered a little over $230,000 in legal fees for the president. The Daily Beast also reported Monday that Flynn’s legal fees are estimated to exceed $1 million.

www.dailycaller.com

right

JQ16vpVNvqxYy2Gd

test

gt8uk1e4CmHu4zPw

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2019/march/democrats-new-3-pronged-power-play-if-you-cant-win-change-the-rules

Democrats' New 3-Pronged Power Play: 'If You Can't Win, Change the Rules'

2019-03-20

The Democratic presidential stampede to the 2020 elections is in full swing . There are more than 15 candidates and even more could join the race . And one of the top issues will be changing America 's form of government and the way we elect our president . Democrats have decided America 's political system needs an update . Big on their list is abolishing the US Electoral College – letting the popular vote determine who 's elected president . Elizabeth Warren told supporters this week , `` We can have national voting and that means get rid of the Electoral College . '' It was the Electoral College vote that gave Donald Trump the victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016 . Clinton won the popular vote . America 's founding fathers instituted the Electoral College to protect the nation from a large faction of voters who might want to introduce tyranny . It also encourages a two-party system and pressures candidates to campaign in every state and not just in states where they have strong support . But now Colorado has joined 11 other states in support of the movement use a popular vote to elect the president . Some Democrats also want to add more justices to the US Supreme Court which , in their view , has become increasingly conservative . Beto O'Rourke wants to expand the high court from the current 9 justices to as many as 15 justices and give them term limits . Another Democratic proposal is to lower the voting age to 16 to allow younger teenagers to help pick the next president . President Trump tweeted his response to the Democratic plans overnight , saying , `` The Democrats are getting very 'strange . ' They now want to change the voting age to 16 , abolish the Electoral College , and Increase significantly the number of Supreme Court Justices . Actually , you 've got to win it at the Ballot Box ! '' The Democrats are getting very “ strange. ” They now want to change the voting age to 16 , abolish the Electoral College , and Increase significantly the number of Supreme Court Justices . Actually , you ’ ve got to win it at the Ballot Box ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) March 20 , 2019 President Trump also says he guarantees the Supreme Court wo n't be expanded for six years , while he 's in office .

The Democratic presidential stampede to the 2020 elections is in full swing. There are more than 15 candidates and even more could join the race. And one of the top issues will be changing America's form of government and the way we elect our president. Power Play #1: Kill the Electoral College Democrats have decided America's political system needs an update. Big on their list is abolishing the US Electoral College – letting the popular vote determine who's elected president. Elizabeth Warren told supporters this week, "We can have national voting and that means get rid of the Electoral College." It was the Electoral College vote that gave Donald Trump the victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016. Clinton won the popular vote. America's founding fathers instituted the Electoral College to protect the nation from a large faction of voters who might want to introduce tyranny. It also encourages a two-party system and pressures candidates to campaign in every state and not just in states where they have strong support. But now Colorado has joined 11 other states in support of the movement use a popular vote to elect the president. Power Play #2: Stack the US Supreme Court Some Democrats also want to add more justices to the US Supreme Court which, in their view, has become increasingly conservative. Beto O'Rourke wants to expand the high court from the current 9 justices to as many as 15 justices and give them term limits. Power Play #3: Let 16-Year-Olds Vote Another Democratic proposal is to lower the voting age to 16 to allow younger teenagers to help pick the next president. President Trump tweeted his response to the Democratic plans overnight, saying, "The Democrats are getting very 'strange.' They now want to change the voting age to 16, abolish the Electoral College, and Increase significantly the number of Supreme Court Justices. Actually, you've got to win it at the Ballot Box!" The Democrats are getting very “strange.” They now want to change the voting age to 16, abolish the Electoral College, and Increase significantly the number of Supreme Court Justices. Actually, you’ve got to win it at the Ballot Box! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 20, 2019 President Trump also says he guarantees the Supreme Court won't be expanded for six years, while he's in office.

www1.cbn.com

right

gt8uk1e4CmHu4zPw

test

zDY6QzJBeV9xjGJH

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2018/08/21/dear-democrats-and-republicans

OPINION: Dear Democrats and Republicans, Please Keep Tearing Down Your Government

2018-08-21

J.D. Tuccille, Zuri Davis, Christian Britschgi, Josh Blackman, Cosmo Wenman, Joe Setyon

Anybody expecting respect for the overall government to survive current leadership unscathed is dreaming . And as somebody who considers government little more than a dangerous weapon in the hands of competing tribes of control freaks , all I can say is : More , please . As I write , the GoFundMe campaign `` dedicated to covering Pete 's hefty–and growing–legal costs and his lost income '' is well over $ 400,000 , after initially seeking to raise $ 150,000 for disgraced former FBI agent Peter Strzok . That 's quite a haul for a guy about whom an Inspector General 's report ( PDF ) fretted , `` we were concerned about text messages exchanged by FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and Lisa Page , Special Counsel to the Deputy Director , that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations . '' After the report , Page resigned and Strzok was recommended for a demotion and a 60-day suspension . Instead , FBI Deputy Director David L. Bowdich ordered his firing amidst much Twitter-based cheerleading from President Trump . The enhanced punishment , opponents of the administration charge , was every bit as politicized as Strzok 's texts . `` The firing further unravels the line between partisan politics and the Federal Bureau of Investigation 's proper role as a nonpartisan criminal justice investigative arm , '' insists Harvard law professor Noah Feldman , who sheds no tears for Strzok himself . It 's little surprise , then , that Pew Research finds that Democrats approve of the FBI , which has been investigating the conduct of Trump and company when not sharing ill-considered text messages , while Republicans have lost their taste for the agency . Seventy-seven percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters `` view the agency favorably , compared with 76 % early last year , '' a recent survey found . But `` the share of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents with a positive view of the bureau has fallen 16 percentage points '' from 65 percent to 49 percent . Separately , Trump has been banging the immigration-control drums at a time when his own administration 's Border Patrol data shows apprehensions of illegal immigrants along the Southwest border at their lowest in years . You have to go back to the 1970s to find fewer people scooped up trying to illegally enter the country . So why make a fuss now ? Probably because `` [ i ] t will play well with his anti-immigrant base , '' as University of Arizona Professor Elizabeth Oglesby put it in April , `` especially in an election year . '' Immigration saber-rattling , including the separation of families by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) , polls well with Trump 's fans , but also provokes strong reactions from Trump opponents . That has them demanding not just policy changes and the abolition of ICE ( a sensible goal with which many ███ writers agree ) , but also engaging in more heated responses , like doxing ICE personnel , soliciting assassination attempts , and promoting violent resistance . It 's no shocker that this , too , represents a partisan divide . `` Nearly eight-in-ten conservative Republicans ( 77 % ) view ICE favorably , '' says Pew , while a `` large majority of liberal Democrats ( 82 % ) view ICE unfavorably . '' I 've written before about the use of laws as partisan weapons . That 's become increasingly easy in a country in which lifestyle and political preference increasingly correlate , and people have been sorting themselves accordingly . `` The separation here seeps into the micro level , down to the particular neighborhoods , schools , churches , restaurants and clubs that tend to attract one brand of partisan and repel the other , '' The Washington Post noted in 2016 . That means laws can be used to punish political opponents by targeting their specific preferences , while leaving your own side relatively unscathed . Agencies , too , can be used as partisan weapons , as we saw under the Obama administration when the Internal Revenue Service ( IRS ) was wielded as a bludgeon against conservative organizations with little consequence . Of course , the IRS has a long history of such abuse . `` My father , '' Elliott Roosevelt said of former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt , `` may have been the originator of the concept of employing the IRS as a weapon of political retribution . '' Now that abuse has spread to other areas of government . But there are consequences to weaponizing law and government . `` Now everyone , no matter what their political leanings , will wonder if they too are a political target by an out-of-control agency protected by the Justice Department , '' Investors Business Daily warned in 2015 . Just three years later , Americans support or vilify a growing number of government agencies depending on their partisan affiliations . Laws have become weapons , and agencies are seen as allies or enemies . That has serious consequences for public perception of the overall government within which those agencies operate . Just 18 percent of Americans `` say they trust the federal government to do what is right just about always or most of the time , '' Pew polling found this year . And `` Americans still see big government as top threat '' facing the country , Gallup continues to report , year after year . There 's no ███ to believe that trust will rise or fear decline when people rightfully assume that a government bureau or department in the hands of political opponents will be used to reward friends and punish enemies . Those of us wary of big , intrusive government have warned for years that the mainstream political tribes , left and right , Democrat and Republican , were creating a monster . That monster , with its surveillance , arbitrary and sometimes secretive enforcement mechanisms , impersonal bureaucracy , and intolerance of scrutiny , was dangerous , we warned . It would eventually strangle us all or force us to illegal resistance . Team Red and Team Blue seem to have taken our warnings as `` how-to '' advice . Now they 're gleefully proving every one of our warnings correct as they turn the monster they built against one another . For those of us who cautioned that this day would come , all we can do now is sit back and enjoy the show as those who created the problem now slash away at the legitimacy of their own government .

Anybody expecting respect for the overall government to survive current leadership unscathed is dreaming. And as somebody who considers government little more than a dangerous weapon in the hands of competing tribes of control freaks, all I can say is: More, please. As I write, the GoFundMe campaign "dedicated to covering Pete's hefty–and growing–legal costs and his lost income" is well over $400,000, after initially seeking to raise $150,000 for disgraced former FBI agent Peter Strzok. That's quite a haul for a guy about whom an Inspector General's report (PDF) fretted, "we were concerned about text messages exchanged by FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, Special Counsel to the Deputy Director, that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations." After the report, Page resigned and Strzok was recommended for a demotion and a 60-day suspension. Instead, FBI Deputy Director David L. Bowdich ordered his firing amidst much Twitter-based cheerleading from President Trump. The enhanced punishment, opponents of the administration charge, was every bit as politicized as Strzok's texts. "The firing further unravels the line between partisan politics and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's proper role as a nonpartisan criminal justice investigative arm," insists Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, who sheds no tears for Strzok himself. It's little surprise, then, that Pew Research finds that Democrats approve of the FBI, which has been investigating the conduct of Trump and company when not sharing ill-considered text messages, while Republicans have lost their taste for the agency. Seventy-seven percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters "view the agency favorably, compared with 76% early last year," a recent survey found. But "the share of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents with a positive view of the bureau has fallen 16 percentage points" from 65 percent to 49 percent. Separately, Trump has been banging the immigration-control drums at a time when his own administration's Border Patrol data shows apprehensions of illegal immigrants along the Southwest border at their lowest in years. You have to go back to the 1970s to find fewer people scooped up trying to illegally enter the country. So why make a fuss now? Probably because "[i]t will play well with his anti-immigrant base," as University of Arizona Professor Elizabeth Oglesby put it in April, "especially in an election year." Immigration saber-rattling, including the separation of families by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), polls well with Trump's fans, but also provokes strong reactions from Trump opponents. That has them demanding not just policy changes and the abolition of ICE (a sensible goal with which many Reason writers agree), but also engaging in more heated responses, like doxing ICE personnel, soliciting assassination attempts, and promoting violent resistance. It's no shocker that this, too, represents a partisan divide. "Nearly eight-in-ten conservative Republicans (77%) view ICE favorably," says Pew, while a "large majority of liberal Democrats (82%) view ICE unfavorably." I've written before about the use of laws as partisan weapons. That's become increasingly easy in a country in which lifestyle and political preference increasingly correlate, and people have been sorting themselves accordingly. "The separation here seeps into the micro level, down to the particular neighborhoods, schools, churches, restaurants and clubs that tend to attract one brand of partisan and repel the other," The Washington Post noted in 2016. That means laws can be used to punish political opponents by targeting their specific preferences, while leaving your own side relatively unscathed. Agencies, too, can be used as partisan weapons, as we saw under the Obama administration when the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was wielded as a bludgeon against conservative organizations with little consequence. Of course, the IRS has a long history of such abuse. "My father," Elliott Roosevelt said of former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, "may have been the originator of the concept of employing the IRS as a weapon of political retribution." Now that abuse has spread to other areas of government. But there are consequences to weaponizing law and government. "Now everyone, no matter what their political leanings, will wonder if they too are a political target by an out-of-control agency protected by the Justice Department," Investors Business Daily warned in 2015. Just three years later, Americans support or vilify a growing number of government agencies depending on their partisan affiliations. Laws have become weapons, and agencies are seen as allies or enemies. That has serious consequences for public perception of the overall government within which those agencies operate. Just 18 percent of Americans "say they trust the federal government to do what is right just about always or most of the time," Pew polling found this year. And "Americans still see big government as top threat" facing the country, Gallup continues to report, year after year. There's no reason to believe that trust will rise or fear decline when people rightfully assume that a government bureau or department in the hands of political opponents will be used to reward friends and punish enemies. Those of us wary of big, intrusive government have warned for years that the mainstream political tribes, left and right, Democrat and Republican, were creating a monster. That monster, with its surveillance, arbitrary and sometimes secretive enforcement mechanisms, impersonal bureaucracy, and intolerance of scrutiny, was dangerous, we warned. It would eventually strangle us all or force us to illegal resistance. Team Red and Team Blue seem to have taken our warnings as "how-to" advice. Now they're gleefully proving every one of our warnings correct as they turn the monster they built against one another. For those of us who cautioned that this day would come, all we can do now is sit back and enjoy the show as those who created the problem now slash away at the legitimacy of their own government.

www.reason.com

right

zDY6QzJBeV9xjGJH

test

OVIE2JcpYC5xJReR

media_bias

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/october/tucker-carlson-on-left-wing-mob-and-mainstream-media-theyre-water-carriers-for-the-democratic-party-nbsp

Tucker Carlson on Left-Wing 'Mob' and Media: 'They're Water Carriers for the Democratic Party'

2018-10-22

WASHINGTON – From cities like Portland and San Francisco to the United States Supreme Court , many on the political Left are making their voices heard , sometimes in extreme ways . The latest example : an angry protester raged at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at a Kentucky restaurant Friday . The man told McConnell and his wife , Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao , to `` get out of here '' and `` leave the entire country . '' Protesters later followed McConnell to his car and tossed his to-go box out the door . Fox News ' Tucker Carlson says the outrage is growing with the help of the mainstream media . In an interview with ███ News , Carlson called the mainstream media `` water carriers for the Democratic Party . '' `` If you want to know the way the media will present the news , look at what the Democratic Party 's political objective is for the day , '' Carlson said . `` What are the party 's talking points and then go watch CNN and they 're identical . '' One of President Donald Trump 's latest taglines is `` jobs not mobs , '' suggesting Democrats have become the party of mob rule , an idea Carlson agrees with . `` The Democratic Party obviously is n't in control of its crazy people on the street , okay . Those people are committing acts of violence . They do n't want to admit that because they know it scares normal people , '' Carlson said . `` So , the Democratic Party has to pretend it 's not happening and so immediately the media starts telling you , 'No , there are no mobs . ' '' But what about those who say there 's also violence on the political Right ? `` Well , that 's not true , '' Carlson said . `` I mean , are there crazy people on the Right ? Yeah , of course . Obviously . There are extremists on all sides , for sure . But what there is n't on the Right , right now – and maybe it will change , but I 'm trying to be as honest as I can be – there are n't groups of conservatives screaming at Democratic lawmakers in restaurants or on airplanes or in airports and they 're not actually smashing Starbucks ' windows and blocking traffic . '' Carlson addresses the country 's heated politics in his new book , Ship of Fools : How a Selfish Ruling Class is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution .

WASHINGTON – From cities like Portland and San Francisco to the United States Supreme Court, many on the political Left are making their voices heard, sometimes in extreme ways. The latest example: an angry protester raged at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at a Kentucky restaurant Friday. The man told McConnell and his wife, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, to "get out of here" and "leave the entire country." Protesters later followed McConnell to his car and tossed his to-go box out the door. Fox News' Tucker Carlson says the outrage is growing with the help of the mainstream media. In an interview with CBN News, Carlson called the mainstream media "water carriers for the Democratic Party." "If you want to know the way the media will present the news, look at what the Democratic Party's political objective is for the day," Carlson said. "What are the party's talking points and then go watch CNN and they're identical." One of President Donald Trump's latest taglines is "jobs not mobs," suggesting Democrats have become the party of mob rule, an idea Carlson agrees with. "The Democratic Party obviously isn't in control of its crazy people on the street, okay. Those people are committing acts of violence. They don't want to admit that because they know it scares normal people," Carlson said. "So, the Democratic Party has to pretend it's not happening and so immediately the media starts telling you, 'No, there are no mobs.'" But what about those who say there's also violence on the political Right? "Well, that's not true," Carlson said. "I mean, are there crazy people on the Right? Yeah, of course. Obviously. There are extremists on all sides, for sure. But what there isn't on the Right, right now – and maybe it will change, but I'm trying to be as honest as I can be – there aren't groups of conservatives screaming at Democratic lawmakers in restaurants or on airplanes or in airports and they're not actually smashing Starbucks' windows and blocking traffic." Carlson addresses the country's heated politics in his new book, Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution.

www1.cbn.com

right

OVIE2JcpYC5xJReR

test

KJBBgLCgXCctToYT

lgbt_rights

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Franklin-Graham-gay-marriage-activist-judges-overturn/2014/10/14/id/600670/

Franklin Graham: 'Activist Judges' Overturning Gay Marriage Bans

2014-10-14

Jason Devaney

The Rev . Franklin Graham said Monday that `` activist judges '' are to blame in the legalization of gay marriage.Graham , son of the Rev . Billy Graham and CEO of Samaritan 's Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association , was specifically referring to his home state of North Carolina . Sixty-one percent of the state 's residents , according to the Christian Post , were against same-sex marriages but a federal judge in the state recently overturned the ban on the practice anyway . `` It 's sad when a judge is able to overrule the will of the people , '' Graham told WCNC Charlotte , an NBC affiliate , on Monday . `` This is a democracy , and the people spoke , and we 're seeing that activist judges across the country are overturning the will of the people . We saw that in California . We 're now seeing it here in North Carolina now . I do n't know what will take place . `` Last Friday , U.S. District Court Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr. struck down North Carolina 's ban on gay marriage , a move that followed the Supreme Court 's announcement that it would not hear appeals regarding the legalization of gay marriage . `` The court determines that North Carolina 's laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are unconstitutional as a matter of law , '' Cogburn wrote in his ruling . `` The issue before this court is neither a political issue nor a moral issue . It is a legal issue and it is clear as a matter of what is now settled law in the Fourth Circuit that North Carolina laws prohibiting same sex marriage , refusing to recognize same sex marriages originating elsewhere , and/or threatening to penalize those who would solemnize such marriages , are unconstitutional . `` Cogburn was appointed to his position by President Barack Obama . `` LGBT families in North Carolina will now be treated as equal under the law in North Carolina — a day that so many have fought so hard for , '' said the Rev . Jasmine Beach-Ferrara , executive director of the Campaign for Southern Equality , after Friday 's ruling . `` We celebrate knowing that this shameful chapter in North Carolina 's history has passed . At the same time we know that you can still be fired simply for being gay in North Carolina . Protection from discrimination in the workplace is the next step in our push for full equality . ''

The Rev. Franklin Graham said Monday that "activist judges" are to blame in the legalization of gay marriage.Graham, son of the Rev. Billy Graham and CEO of Samaritan's Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, was specifically referring to his home state of North Carolina. Sixty-one percent of the state's residents, according to the Christian Post , were against same-sex marriages but a federal judge in the state recently overturned the ban on the practice anyway."It's sad when a judge is able to overrule the will of the people," Graham told WCNC Charlotte, an NBC affiliate, on Monday. "This is a democracy, and the people spoke, and we're seeing that activist judges across the country are overturning the will of the people. We saw that in California. We're now seeing it here in North Carolina now. I don't know what will take place."Last Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr. struck down North Carolina's ban on gay marriage, a move that followed the Supreme Court's announcement that it would not hear appeals regarding the legalization of gay marriage."The court determines that North Carolina's laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are unconstitutional as a matter of law," Cogburn wrote in his ruling. "The issue before this court is neither a political issue nor a moral issue. It is a legal issue and it is clear as a matter of what is now settled law in the Fourth Circuit that North Carolina laws prohibiting same sex marriage, refusing to recognize same sex marriages originating elsewhere, and/or threatening to penalize those who would solemnize such marriages, are unconstitutional."Cogburn was appointed to his position by President Barack Obama."LGBT families in North Carolina will now be treated as equal under the law in North Carolina — a day that so many have fought so hard for," said the Rev. Jasmine Beach-Ferrara, executive director of the Campaign for Southern Equality, after Friday's ruling. "We celebrate knowing that this shameful chapter in North Carolina's history has passed. At the same time we know that you can still be fired simply for being gay in North Carolina. Protection from discrimination in the workplace is the next step in our push for full equality."

www.newsmax.com

right

KJBBgLCgXCctToYT

test

WzgINvACeeATralR

race_and_racism

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/06/obama-implicitly-rebukes-trump-with-call-to-reject-normalisation-of-racism

Obama implicitly rebukes Trump with call to reject normalisation of racism

2019-08-06

Joan E Greve, Michael H Fuchs

Trump cited a segment on the TV news show Fox & Friends in response to former president : ‘ Obama had 32 mass shootings during his reign ’ Donald Trump has hit back at Barack Obama after the former president said Americans must “ soundly reject language ” from any leader who “ feeds a climate of fear and hatred or normalises racist sentiments ” in his first public statement since mass shootings in Texas and Ohio that left 31 people dead . Obama ’ s statement did not mention Trump directly , but told Americans “ we are not helpless ” in the face of the country ’ s high frequency of mass shootings . “ And until all of us stand up and insist on holding public officials accountable for changing our gun laws , these tragedies will keep happening , ” Obama wrote . On Tuesday , Trump cited a segment on the TV news show Fox & Friends in response , quoting host Brian Kilmeade as saying : “ Did George Bush ever condemn President Obama after Sandy Hook President Obama had 32 mass shootings during his reign . Not many people said Obama is out of Control . Mass shootings were happening before the President even thought about running for Pres . ” Trump has faced fierce criticism for identifying video games , the internet and mental illness – but not guns – as the cause of the slaughter that left at least 31 dead and 53 injured in less than 24 hours over the weekend . He has also been accused of emboldening white nationalists through his racist statements . The suspect in the El Paso attack posted a racist , anti-immigrant screed featuring language used by Trump shortly before the rampage , investigators say . El Paso , a city on the border of Texas and Mexico , has a majority Hispanic population . Trump is expected to visit El Paso and the scene of Sunday ’ s shooting , in Dayton , Ohio on Wednesday . Beto O ’ Rourke , the 2020 presidential candidate and former El Paso congressman , was among the Democrats who opposed the visit . “ This president , who helped create the hatred that made Saturday ’ s tragedy possible , should not come to El Paso , ” O ’ Rourke tweeted . “ We do not need more division . We need to heal . He has no place here . ” Americans mourn victims of mass shootings – in pictures Read more The shooting at a busy Walmart store in El Paso on Saturday killed 22 people , and a second shooting outside a crowded bar in Dayton early on Sunday killed nine people . The motive of the Dayton shooter , who died in the attack , is not yet clear . His 22 year-old sister was killed in the massacre . Obama , like many presidents before him , has exercised caution to avoid pointed criticism of his successor . But his comments on Monday left little doubt that his call to reject the normalisation of racism referred to Trump , who has spoken disparagingly about immigrants , calling them rapists and murderers , and has decried an “ invasion ” at the southern border . Trump has previously tempered his criticism of white supremacy , though he said in scripted remarks to the country on Monday that the US “ must condemn racism , bigotry and white supremacy ” . He also said he had directed the FBI to examine steps to identify and address domestic terrorism . Obama noted that the El Paso shooting followed a trend of “ troubled individuals who embrace ideologies and see themselves obligated to act violently to preserve white supremacy ” . He advised Americans to also denounce the language of “ leaders who demonise those who don ’ t look like us , or suggest that other people , including immigrants , threaten our way of life , or refer to other people as subhuman ” . Such language had “ been at the root of most human tragedy throughout history ” , Obama added , and had “ no place in our politics and our public life ” . Trump has spent the past month stoking racial resentments , tweeting that four US congresswomen of colour should “ go back ” to their countries , holding a rally where the crowd chanted “ send her back ! ” and deriding the majority African American district that contains part of Baltimore as “ a disgusting , rat and rodent infested mess ” .

Trump cited a segment on the TV news show Fox & Friends in response to former president: ‘Obama had 32 mass shootings during his reign’ Donald Trump has hit back at Barack Obama after the former president said Americans must “soundly reject language” from any leader who “feeds a climate of fear and hatred or normalises racist sentiments” in his first public statement since mass shootings in Texas and Ohio that left 31 people dead. Obama’s statement did not mention Trump directly, but told Americans “we are not helpless” in the face of the country’s high frequency of mass shootings. “And until all of us stand up and insist on holding public officials accountable for changing our gun laws, these tragedies will keep happening,” Obama wrote. On Tuesday, Trump cited a segment on the TV news show Fox & Friends in response, quoting host Brian Kilmeade as saying: “Did George Bush ever condemn President Obama after Sandy Hook President Obama had 32 mass shootings during his reign. Not many people said Obama is out of Control. Mass shootings were happening before the President even thought about running for Pres.” Trump has faced fierce criticism for identifying video games, the internet and mental illness – but not guns – as the cause of the slaughter that left at least 31 dead and 53 injured in less than 24 hours over the weekend. He has also been accused of emboldening white nationalists through his racist statements. The suspect in the El Paso attack posted a racist, anti-immigrant screed featuring language used by Trump shortly before the rampage, investigators say. El Paso, a city on the border of Texas and Mexico, has a majority Hispanic population. Trump is expected to visit El Paso and the scene of Sunday’s shooting, in Dayton, Ohio on Wednesday. Beto O’Rourke, the 2020 presidential candidate and former El Paso congressman, was among the Democrats who opposed the visit. “This president, who helped create the hatred that made Saturday’s tragedy possible, should not come to El Paso,” O’Rourke tweeted. “We do not need more division. We need to heal. He has no place here.” Americans mourn victims of mass shootings – in pictures Read more The shooting at a busy Walmart store in El Paso on Saturday killed 22 people, and a second shooting outside a crowded bar in Dayton early on Sunday killed nine people. The motive of the Dayton shooter, who died in the attack, is not yet clear. His 22 year-old sister was killed in the massacre. Obama, like many presidents before him, has exercised caution to avoid pointed criticism of his successor. But his comments on Monday left little doubt that his call to reject the normalisation of racism referred to Trump, who has spoken disparagingly about immigrants, calling them rapists and murderers, and has decried an “invasion” at the southern border. Trump has previously tempered his criticism of white supremacy, though he said in scripted remarks to the country on Monday that the US “must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy”. He also said he had directed the FBI to examine steps to identify and address domestic terrorism. Obama noted that the El Paso shooting followed a trend of “troubled individuals who embrace ideologies and see themselves obligated to act violently to preserve white supremacy”. He advised Americans to also denounce the language of “leaders who demonise those who don’t look like us, or suggest that other people, including immigrants, threaten our way of life, or refer to other people as subhuman”. Such language had “been at the root of most human tragedy throughout history”, Obama added, and had “no place in our politics and our public life”. Trump has spent the past month stoking racial resentments, tweeting that four US congresswomen of colour should “go back” to their countries, holding a rally where the crowd chanted “send her back!” and deriding the majority African American district that contains part of Baltimore as “a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess”.

www.theguardian.com

left

WzgINvACeeATralR

test

597rEqzRS0j509bW

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/06/29/president-trump-rsquo-s-thin-evangelical-line

President Trump’s Thin Evangelical Line

2017-06-29

We all know that Donald Trump is a blunt , brash New Yorker ( insert your `` New Yawk '' accent here ) . He 's a street fighter and he won the presidency that way . Tens of millions of Americans love his tenacity and penchant for brawling . But there 's a line . And Thursday morning , he crossed it . Tweeting nasty personal insults is just plain wrong , has no upside whatsoever and can actually end up hurting him politically with his crucial evangelical base . You see , when “ Mika and Joe ” trash President Trump , it ’ s good for business and makes headlines . There really isn ’ t a downside for them . But when the president responds in kind , the downside can be treacherous for him . The evangelical attraction to Donald Trump was strong during the GOP primaries and reached even greater heights during the General Election when a record number 81 percent of evangelicals voted for him . But he needs to be very careful if he wants to duplicate or even improve on that number next time around . Calling out the media is one thing but making it personal is quite another . Evangelicals do n't mind President Trump 's unorthodox ways and his fighting spirit . They like when he socks it to Washington bureaucrats and phony politicians . But a pattern of petty personal insults will put Trump in danger of `` evangelical voter apathy '' in 2020 . Diehards will stay with him no matter what but that wo n't be enough to win in 2020 . He needs those , `` anti-Hillary Evangelicals . '' Will they show up and vote for the next democrat nominee ? No . Many of them may just not show up at all . If 81 % turnout becomes 77 % evangelical turnout ( especially in key swing states ) then he 's toast . It 's that simple . He needs evangelicals and he knows it . Any slippage and it 's game , set , match . He can ’ t afford to go down this road . It ’ s not worth it for him . Look , the art of this deal is pretty simple if President Trump wants to seal the deal with evangelicals going forward : he can bash the media , `` the deep state '' and disingenuous politicians all day long . He just should n't make it personal . Evangelicals are watching . And honestly , is it worth it ? I get it . They insult him multiple times daily and Trump ’ s instinct is to punch back ten times harder . But sometimes it just gets way too personal and it can cause him more political harm than good . Seems like a good time for a bible verse not just for President Trump but also for all of us because let 's face it : we 're all guilty of crossing the line from time to time . ... Be kind to each other , tenderhearted , forgiving one another , just as God through Christ has forgiven you . ''

We all know that Donald Trump is a blunt, brash New Yorker (insert your "New Yawk" accent here). He's a street fighter and he won the presidency that way. Tens of millions of Americans love his tenacity and penchant for brawling. But there's a line. And Thursday morning, he crossed it. Tweeting nasty personal insults is just plain wrong, has no upside whatsoever and can actually end up hurting him politically with his crucial evangelical base. You see, when “Mika and Joe” trash President Trump, it’s good for business and makes headlines. There really isn’t a downside for them. But when the president responds in kind, the downside can be treacherous for him. The evangelical attraction to Donald Trump was strong during the GOP primaries and reached even greater heights during the General Election when a record number 81 percent of evangelicals voted for him. But he needs to be very careful if he wants to duplicate or even improve on that number next time around. Calling out the media is one thing but making it personal is quite another. Evangelicals don't mind President Trump's unorthodox ways and his fighting spirit. They like when he socks it to Washington bureaucrats and phony politicians. But a pattern of petty personal insults will put Trump in danger of "evangelical voter apathy" in 2020. Diehards will stay with him no matter what but that won't be enough to win in 2020. He needs those, "anti-Hillary Evangelicals." Will they show up and vote for the next democrat nominee? No. Many of them may just not show up at all. If 81% turnout becomes 77% evangelical turnout (especially in key swing states) then he's toast. It's that simple. He needs evangelicals and he knows it. Any slippage and it's game, set, match. He can’t afford to go down this road. It’s not worth it for him. Look, the art of this deal is pretty simple if President Trump wants to seal the deal with evangelicals going forward: he can bash the media, "the deep state" and disingenuous politicians all day long. He just shouldn't make it personal. Evangelicals are watching. And honestly, is it worth it? I get it. They insult him multiple times daily and Trump’s instinct is to punch back ten times harder. But sometimes it just gets way too personal and it can cause him more political harm than good. Seems like a good time for a bible verse not just for President Trump but also for all of us because let's face it: we're all guilty of crossing the line from time to time. Ephesians 4:32 ...Be kind to each other, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God through Christ has forgiven you."

www1.cbn.com

right

597rEqzRS0j509bW

test

e1xaBHY87dNv5eyj

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-intel-Clapper-GAI/2014/09/30/id/597685/

GAI: Obama Skipped Over Half His Daily Intel Briefs

2014-09-30

In the fallout over President Barack Obama blaming the intelligence community for the rise of the Islamic State , a new report has surfaced showing that he attended less than half of his daily intel briefings.The Government Accountability Institute , an investigative research organization , said the president went to only 42.1 percent of his intelligence meetings , known as the Presidential Daily Brief , or PDB , in the 2,079 days of his presidency through Monday , according to Breitbart The GAI report also revealed during his first term he attended 42.4 percent of the briefings , while Obama has even reduced that number in his second term , with just a 41.3 percent attendance record.During an interview on CBS ’ s “ 60 Minutes ” on Sunday , the president claimed that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had failed to warn the Obama administration that the Islamic State terror group , also known as ISIS , was gaining a strong foothold in Iraq and Syria. “ I think our head of the intelligence community , Jim Clapper , has acknowledged that I think they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria , ” he said.The Daily Beast ’ s Eli Lake alleged on Monday that as long as eight months ago Obama ’ s senior intelligence officials had alerted the White House that ISIS was growing in power while attempting to create a caliphate in Iraq and Syria. “ In the beginning of 2014 , ISIS fighters had defeated Iraqi forces in Fallujah , leading much of the U.S. intelligence community to assess they would try to take more of Iraq , ” wrote Lake , adding that members of the Defense department were “ flabbergasted ” by Obama ’ s statement. “ Either the president doesn ’ t read the intelligence he ’ s getting or he ’ s ( lying ) , ” a former senior Pentagon official who knew of the threat posed by Sunni extremists told the Beast.Breitbart noted that following his controversial TV comments Obama has been accused by people in the intelligence community of lacking interest in “ live ” PDBs , which allow the president to ask follow-up questions , demand further information and challenge intel suppositions.Meanwhile , an Obama national security staffer told the Daily Mail that the PDBs have included threat assessment on ISIS since 2012. “ It 's pretty well-known that the president hasn ’ t taken in-person intelligence briefings with any regularity since the early days of 2009 , ” the staffer said . “ He gets them in writing. “ Unless someone very senior has been shredding the president 's daily briefings and telling him that the dog ate them , highly accurate predictions about ( ISIS ) have been showing up in the Oval Office since before the election. ” The White House said that the president prefers to read his intelligence briefings on his iPad instead of having in-person briefings , according to reports.But Breitbart said , “ The question remains whether a 42 percent attendance record on daily intelligence briefings is good enough for most Americans . ”

In the fallout over President Barack Obama blaming the intelligence community for the rise of the Islamic State, a new report has surfaced showing that he attended less than half of his daily intel briefings.The Government Accountability Institute, an investigative research organization, said the president went to only 42.1 percent of his intelligence meetings, known as the Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB, in the 2,079 days of his presidency through Monday, according to Breitbart The GAI report also revealed during his first term he attended 42.4 percent of the briefings, while Obama has even reduced that number in his second term, with just a 41.3 percent attendance record.During an interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Sunday, the president claimed that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had failed to warn the Obama administration that the Islamic State terror group, also known as ISIS, was gaining a strong foothold in Iraq and Syria.“I think our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that I think they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria,” he said.The Daily Beast’s Eli Lake alleged on Monday that as long as eight months ago Obama’s senior intelligence officials had alerted the White House that ISIS was growing in power while attempting to create a caliphate in Iraq and Syria.“In the beginning of 2014, ISIS fighters had defeated Iraqi forces in Fallujah, leading much of the U.S. intelligence community to assess they would try to take more of Iraq,” wrote Lake , adding that members of the Defense department were “flabbergasted” by Obama’s statement.“Either the president doesn’t read the intelligence he’s getting or he’s (lying),” a former senior Pentagon official who knew of the threat posed by Sunni extremists told the Beast.Breitbart noted that following his controversial TV comments Obama has been accused by people in the intelligence community of lacking interest in “live” PDBs, which allow the president to ask follow-up questions, demand further information and challenge intel suppositions.Meanwhile, an Obama national security staffer told the Daily Mail that the PDBs have included threat assessment on ISIS since 2012.“It's pretty well-known that the president hasn’t taken in-person intelligence briefings with any regularity since the early days of 2009,” the staffer said. “He gets them in writing.“Unless someone very senior has been shredding the president's daily briefings and telling him that the dog ate them, highly accurate predictions about (ISIS) have been showing up in the Oval Office since before the election.”The White House said that the president prefers to read his intelligence briefings on his iPad instead of having in-person briefings, according to reports.But Breitbart said, “The question remains whether a 42 percent attendance record on daily intelligence briefings is good enough for most Americans.”

www.newsmax.com

right

e1xaBHY87dNv5eyj

test

vM5ZSmxonB9Ac4A1

race_and_racism

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/01/body-cameras-not-activated-louisville-george-floyd/

Body Cameras Were Not Activated When David McAtee Was Shot, Louisville Police Chief Fired

2020-06-01

Louisville , Kentucky Mayor Greg Fischer announced Monday afternoon that Louisville Metropolitan Police Chief Steve Conrad had been fired and that body cameras were not activated when David McAtee was killed . “ That lack of institutional failure will not be tolerated , ” said Fischer during the announcement , according to WYMT . Conrad had already announced his resignation in May but was let go early , according to the Courier Journal . David McAtee was shot and killed by LMPD officers and the National Guard this morning . Family and witnesses say law enforcement should have never been there . McAtee was serving food at his bbq spot at the time . His family is praying in front of # lmpd officers # louisville pic.twitter.com/tQ4r2ViCUp — Phylicia Ashley ( @ pashleywave3 ) June 1 , 2020 “ I ’ m not asking people to trust our account , and I want to see it myself , ” said Democratic Kentucky Gov . Andy Beshear to the media on Monday , according to WYMT . Beshear is demanding the release of body camera footage “ before nightfall ” despite Fischer ’ s statement that no body camera footage from officers exists . ( RELATED : REPORT : One Man Killed After National Guard , Louisville Police Return Fire On Crowd ) Fischer has also now extended the nightly curfew of 9 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. in Louisville until June 8th , according to USA Today McAtee was a local business owner who was allegedly holding a community gathering when police arrived to disperse the crowd . Police reportedly opened fire after someone from the crowd began shooting . Monday is the fourth day of protests and riots in Louisville following the death of George Floyd and , separately , of Breonna Taylor . Taylor was killed March 13 in her own home while police were serving a “ no-knock ” search warrant . She was a 26-year-old EMT who was working to help coronavirus victims . Floyd was arrested May 25 by police officers for alleged forgery . A bystander ’ s video shows an officer pinning Floyd to the ground and putting his knee on Floyd ’ s neck .

Louisville, Kentucky Mayor Greg Fischer announced Monday afternoon that Louisville Metropolitan Police Chief Steve Conrad had been fired and that body cameras were not activated when David McAtee was killed. “That lack of institutional failure will not be tolerated,” said Fischer during the announcement, according to WYMT. Conrad had already announced his resignation in May but was let go early, according to the Courier Journal. David McAtee was shot and killed by LMPD officers and the National Guard this morning. Family and witnesses say law enforcement should have never been there. McAtee was serving food at his bbq spot at the time. His family is praying in front of #lmpd officers #louisville pic.twitter.com/tQ4r2ViCUp — Phylicia Ashley (@pashleywave3) June 1, 2020 “I’m not asking people to trust our account, and I want to see it myself,” said Democratic Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear to the media on Monday, according to WYMT. Beshear is demanding the release of body camera footage “before nightfall” despite Fischer’s statement that no body camera footage from officers exists. (RELATED: REPORT: One Man Killed After National Guard, Louisville Police Return Fire On Crowd) Fischer has also now extended the nightly curfew of 9 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. in Louisville until June 8th, according to USA Today McAtee was a local business owner who was allegedly holding a community gathering when police arrived to disperse the crowd. Police reportedly opened fire after someone from the crowd began shooting. Monday is the fourth day of protests and riots in Louisville following the death of George Floyd and, separately, of Breonna Taylor. Taylor was killed March 13 in her own home while police were serving a “no-knock” search warrant. She was a 26-year-old EMT who was working to help coronavirus victims. Floyd was arrested May 25 by police officers for alleged forgery. A bystander’s video shows an officer pinning Floyd to the ground and putting his knee on Floyd’s neck.

www.dailycaller.com

right

vM5ZSmxonB9Ac4A1

test

cGimiJJs6pZhVyPe

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/governors-in-the-spotlight-how-are-they-doing/

Governors in the Spotlight: How Are They Doing?

Jack Park, George Neumayr, Wesley J. Smith, Scott Mckay, James Delmont, Dov Fischer, Rep. Greg Murphy, Joseph P. Duggan, George Parry, Jeffrey Lord

On May 4 , with a more recent update , the Committee to Unleash Prosperity and FreedomWorks released a report card on the COVID-19 response by the Nation ’ s governors . Nine governors , eight of whom were Republicans from the South or Midwest , got A marks . Fifteen , including Gov . Larry Hogan ( R ) of Maryland and Jim Justice of West Virginia ( R ) , got D ’ s , and five Democrats got F ’ s . In the update , one governor was downgraded to an F- . The report considers “ the severity of the virus in each state and the need to keep their citizens safe ” and relates it to “ how measured or damaging their actions have been with respect to safeguarding the economic well-being of their citizens. ” It ’ s premised on the belief that except for “ a few exceptions in some metropolitan areas , the time is long past for every state to reopen safely , smartly , and judiciously so as to end the economic destruction and despair from lockdowns . ” As for the grading , the report explains that A ’ s and B ’ s are for governors who “ are already moving to restore freedom and opportunity , and trusting individuals to follow best practices or isolate themselves based on their own risk assessments. ” The governors who got D ’ s and F ’ s have taken the other tack ; they “ arbitrarily ban activities without respect to any sensible risk versus benefit calculation ” and put their states at “ risk of catastrophic economic collapse . ” The day after the report was first released , there were reports that some governors acted . It may be just sequential correlation , not causation , but those actions should be welcomed . And , as noted below , the courts have also reined in governors guilty of overreaching . California Gov . Gavin Newsom ( D ) , who got a D , said that retail stores could reopen for curbside pickup and allowed nonessential manufacturing to start . Virginia Gov . Ralph Northam ( D ) , who started with an F , shortened the term of his lockdown from June 10 to May 15 . Arizona Gov . Doug Ducey ( R ) , who started with a C , also accelerated the reopening of restaurants and salons . Other governors have responded with less grace . Pennsylvania Gov . Tom Wolf ( D ) , who was unsurprisingly given an F in the report card , criticized business owners moving to reopen notwithstanding his edicts , accusing them of “ cowardly acts. ” He also threatened those businesses that reopen with the loss of health department certifications , liquor licenses , and certificates of occupancy . Finally , Gov . Wolf declared that counties that refused to comply with his orders would not be eligible to receive discretionary federal stimulus funds . In the same way , Michigan Gov . Gretchen Whitmer , who received a D , started by declaring home improvement and landscaping purchases off limits while allowing Michigan residents to buy lottery tickets . She later declared that her diktats were “ not a suggestion ” and compliance with them was “ not optional. ” That ’ s , again , in a state where the problem is concentrated in Detroit and not in the northern parts of the state . New Jersey Gov . Phil Murphy ( D ) , who got an F , was recently downgraded to an F- . The report explains that the downgrade is attributable to , among other things , “ his new comments about leaving the state if you don ’ t like the incompetence of its unemployment office . ” Illinois Gov . J . B. Pritzker was also downgraded from a D to an F after announcing that “ the entire state will stay on full lockdown until May 29 — or later . ” Gov . Murphy also said that the Constitution was above his pay grade . That misguided notion explains why the Second Amendment gets no respect from some . It also explains why some governors like Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear ( D ) , a C grade , thought it was a good idea to prohibit “ faith-based ” “ mass gatherings ” until May 20 , and for state troopers to take the license plate numbers of those attending a drive-in Easter service at Maryville Baptist Church in Kentucky . Federal judges put a stop to that . The Sixth Circuit held that the governor ’ s rule had so many exceptions that it could not be seen as one of general applicability . In that light , the Court observed , “ The Governor has offered no good reason for refusing to trust the congregants who promise to use care in worship in just the same way it trusts accountants , lawyers , and laundromat workers to do the same . ” Wisconsin Gov . Tony Evers ( D ) also got an F. Wisconsin ’ s Supreme Court concluded that the Evers administration ’ s Department of Human Services Secretary-designee Andrea Palm , “ an unelected official , ” exceeded the scope of her authority under state law when she commanded the residents of Wisconsin to “ ‘ stay at home or at their place of residence ’ with certain limited exceptions approved by Palm or risk punishment ‘ by up to 30 days imprisonment or up to a $ 250 fine , or both. ’ ” It held that Palm ’ s directive , which is a “ general order of general applicability , ” had to comply with the state ’ s process for rule-making . Significantly , the court rejected Palm ’ s contention that her order was temporary , observing “ a ‘ limited-in-time scenario ’ is not the power that Palm has seized . ” The Wisconsin Supreme Court pointed out the importance of following the regulatory process . It noted , “ [ I ] t does not follow [ that Palm ] can impose regulation without giving the people faith in the justness of the regulation. ” Arbitrary and overbearing assertions of governmental authority have been met with political protests in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania grounded in a lack of faith that the state ’ s impositions are justified . Our governors must recall that their power derives from the consent of the governed .

On May 4, with a more recent update, the Committee to Unleash Prosperity and FreedomWorks released a report card on the COVID-19 response by the Nation’s governors. Nine governors, eight of whom were Republicans from the South or Midwest, got A marks. Fifteen, including Gov. Larry Hogan (R) of Maryland and Jim Justice of West Virginia (R), got D’s, and five Democrats got F’s. In the update, one governor was downgraded to an F-. The report considers “the severity of the virus in each state and the need to keep their citizens safe” and relates it to “how measured or damaging their actions have been with respect to safeguarding the economic well-being of their citizens.” It’s premised on the belief that except for “a few exceptions in some metropolitan areas, the time is long past for every state to reopen safely, smartly, and judiciously so as to end the economic destruction and despair from lockdowns.” As for the grading, the report explains that A’s and B’s are for governors who “are already moving to restore freedom and opportunity, and trusting individuals to follow best practices or isolate themselves based on their own risk assessments.” The governors who got D’s and F’s have taken the other tack; they “arbitrarily ban activities without respect to any sensible risk versus benefit calculation” and put their states at “risk of catastrophic economic collapse.” The day after the report was first released, there were reports that some governors acted. It may be just sequential correlation, not causation, but those actions should be welcomed. And, as noted below, the courts have also reined in governors guilty of overreaching. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who got a D, said that retail stores could reopen for curbside pickup and allowed nonessential manufacturing to start. Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D), who started with an F, shortened the term of his lockdown from June 10 to May 15. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R), who started with a C, also accelerated the reopening of restaurants and salons. Other governors have responded with less grace. Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D), who was unsurprisingly given an F in the report card, criticized business owners moving to reopen notwithstanding his edicts, accusing them of “cowardly acts.” He also threatened those businesses that reopen with the loss of health department certifications, liquor licenses, and certificates of occupancy. Finally, Gov. Wolf declared that counties that refused to comply with his orders would not be eligible to receive discretionary federal stimulus funds. In the same way, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who received a D, started by declaring home improvement and landscaping purchases off limits while allowing Michigan residents to buy lottery tickets. She later declared that her diktats were “not a suggestion” and compliance with them was “not optional.” That’s, again, in a state where the problem is concentrated in Detroit and not in the northern parts of the state. New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D), who got an F, was recently downgraded to an F-. The report explains that the downgrade is attributable to, among other things, “his new comments about leaving the state if you don’t like the incompetence of its unemployment office.” Illinois Gov. J. B. Pritzker was also downgraded from a D to an F after announcing that “the entire state will stay on full lockdown until May 29 — or later.” Gov. Murphy also said that the Constitution was above his pay grade. That misguided notion explains why the Second Amendment gets no respect from some. It also explains why some governors like Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear (D), a C grade, thought it was a good idea to prohibit “faith-based” “mass gatherings” until May 20, and for state troopers to take the license plate numbers of those attending a drive-in Easter service at Maryville Baptist Church in Kentucky. Federal judges put a stop to that. The Sixth Circuit held that the governor’s rule had so many exceptions that it could not be seen as one of general applicability. In that light, the Court observed, “The Governor has offered no good reason for refusing to trust the congregants who promise to use care in worship in just the same way it trusts accountants, lawyers, and laundromat workers to do the same.” Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) also got an F. Wisconsin’s Supreme Court concluded that the Evers administration’s Department of Human Services Secretary-designee Andrea Palm, “an unelected official,” exceeded the scope of her authority under state law when she commanded the residents of Wisconsin to “ ‘stay at home or at their place of residence’ with certain limited exceptions approved by Palm or risk punishment ‘by up to 30 days imprisonment or up to a $250 fine, or both.’ ” It held that Palm’s directive, which is a “general order of general applicability,” had to comply with the state’s process for rule-making. Significantly, the court rejected Palm’s contention that her order was temporary, observing “a ‘limited-in-time scenario’ is not the power that Palm has seized.” The Wisconsin Supreme Court pointed out the importance of following the regulatory process. It noted, “[I]t does not follow [that Palm] can impose regulation without giving the people faith in the justness of the regulation.” Arbitrary and overbearing assertions of governmental authority have been met with political protests in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania grounded in a lack of faith that the state’s impositions are justified. Our governors must recall that their power derives from the consent of the governed.

www.spectator.org

right

cGimiJJs6pZhVyPe

test

HFtcijZJtOrgmOLY

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/aug/23/david-pecker-immunity-what-does-it-mean-trump-michael-cohen

What does David Pecker's immunity mean for Donald Trump?

2018-08-23

Tom Mccarthy

The National Enquirer boss ’ s deal appears to be more bad news for the president in a bad week After Michael Cohen stood in court Tuesday and said that a candidate for office – Donald Trump – had directed him to broker hush payments to two women , the details of the payments and the nature of their illegality became extremely urgent questions . David Pecker : Trump confidant and National Enquirer boss was given immunity in Cohen case Read more It was suddenly clear that a sitting president might have committed a crime during his candidacy . As Cohen ’ s attorney Lanny Davis put it : “ If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen , then why wouldn ’ t they be a crime for Donald Trump ? ” But federal prosecutors were a step ahead , it appears . In bombshell news stories Tuesday , Vanity Fair and the Wall Street Journal reported that two witnesses – the magazine publisher David Pecker and one of his chief officers , Dylan Howard – had been granted immunity in exchange for their testimony in the matter . The negotiations between prosecutors in the southern district of New York and Pecker and Howard had not been previously disclosed before Thursday . Trump has denied all wrongdoing . The immunity deals appear to be more bad news for Trump in a bad week . If Trump did break the law in connection with the hush payments , the testimony of Pecker and Howard could provide evidence of the crime , because they were involved in both transactions , the Wall Street Journal reported . Or their testimony could be used to prosecute someone else in the Trump Organization or his presidential campaign . In one transaction , the executives helped to arrange for one of their publications , the National Enquirer , to pay $ 150,000 to the former Playboy model Karen McDougal for exclusive rights to her story of an alleged affair with Trump . The story was never published . In a second transaction , Cohen contacted the lawyer who had brokered the McDougal deal , Keith M Davidson , to reach a deal with the pornographic actor Stormy Daniels for a $ 130,000 payment . The role of Pecker and Howard in that second transaction was unclear . Pecker is a longtime friend of Trump ’ s , a past frequent guest at the president ’ s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida and the former publisher of a magazine called Trump Style . During the 2016 presidential campaign , the National Enquirer was an essential ally of the Republican known for railing against “ fake news ” , publishing one cover story announcing that Hillary Clinton had six months to live and another that Ted Cruz ’ s father was “ linked to JFK assassination ! ” . Trump repeated the latter story on Fox News in May 2016 , when Cruz was a primary opponent , saying : “ His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald ’ s being – you know , shot . I mean , the whole thing is ridiculous. ” ( Indeed the allegation is ridiculous . ) Does the prosecutors ’ interest in Pecker and Howard mean that they are investigating someone higher up than Cohen , who has already pleaded guilty ? David Pecker , the tabloid king : meet Trump 's friend and fixer Read more That depends on when the reported immunity deal was made , said Ryan Goodman , a professor at the NYU School of Law and founding co-editor-in-chief of the website Just Security . “ A lot might turn on when prosecutors granted immunity to Pecker and Howard , because if it ’ s earlier on in time , it could mean that they were simply building the case against Michael Cohen , ” Goodman said . “ But the wording of the reporting in Vanity Fair , if true , suggests that the prosecutors are looking specifically at the president himself . “ The president himself can ’ t sleep easy knowing that this is what ’ s occurred in the case . ”

The National Enquirer boss’s deal appears to be more bad news for the president in a bad week After Michael Cohen stood in court Tuesday and said that a candidate for office – Donald Trump – had directed him to broker hush payments to two women, the details of the payments and the nature of their illegality became extremely urgent questions. David Pecker: Trump confidant and National Enquirer boss was given immunity in Cohen case Read more It was suddenly clear that a sitting president might have committed a crime during his candidacy. As Cohen’s attorney Lanny Davis put it: “If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn’t they be a crime for Donald Trump?” But federal prosecutors were a step ahead, it appears. In bombshell news stories Tuesday, Vanity Fair and the Wall Street Journal reported that two witnesses – the magazine publisher David Pecker and one of his chief officers, Dylan Howard – had been granted immunity in exchange for their testimony in the matter. The negotiations between prosecutors in the southern district of New York and Pecker and Howard had not been previously disclosed before Thursday. Trump has denied all wrongdoing. The immunity deals appear to be more bad news for Trump in a bad week. If Trump did break the law in connection with the hush payments, the testimony of Pecker and Howard could provide evidence of the crime, because they were involved in both transactions, the Wall Street Journal reported. Or their testimony could be used to prosecute someone else in the Trump Organization or his presidential campaign. In one transaction, the executives helped to arrange for one of their publications, the National Enquirer, to pay $150,000 to the former Playboy model Karen McDougal for exclusive rights to her story of an alleged affair with Trump. The story was never published. In a second transaction, Cohen contacted the lawyer who had brokered the McDougal deal, Keith M Davidson, to reach a deal with the pornographic actor Stormy Daniels for a $130,000 payment. The role of Pecker and Howard in that second transaction was unclear. Pecker is a longtime friend of Trump’s, a past frequent guest at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida and the former publisher of a magazine called Trump Style. During the 2016 presidential campaign, the National Enquirer was an essential ally of the Republican known for railing against “fake news”, publishing one cover story announcing that Hillary Clinton had six months to live and another that Ted Cruz’s father was “linked to JFK assassination!”. Trump repeated the latter story on Fox News in May 2016, when Cruz was a primary opponent, saying: “His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald’s being – you know, shot. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous.” (Indeed the allegation is ridiculous.) Does the prosecutors’ interest in Pecker and Howard mean that they are investigating someone higher up than Cohen, who has already pleaded guilty? David Pecker, the tabloid king: meet Trump's friend and fixer Read more That depends on when the reported immunity deal was made, said Ryan Goodman, a professor at the NYU School of Law and founding co-editor-in-chief of the website Just Security. “A lot might turn on when prosecutors granted immunity to Pecker and Howard, because if it’s earlier on in time, it could mean that they were simply building the case against Michael Cohen,” Goodman said. “But the wording of the reporting in Vanity Fair, if true, suggests that the prosecutors are looking specifically at the president himself. “The president himself can’t sleep easy knowing that this is what’s occurred in the case.”

www.theguardian.com

left

HFtcijZJtOrgmOLY

test

BXTAizVBYWhOnowy

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment/majority-of-house-democrats-favor-starting-impeachment-proceedings-idUSKCN1US2AG

Majority of House Democrats favor starting impeachment proceedings

2019-08-03

Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - A majority of Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives now favor launching impeachment proceedings against Republican President Donald Trump , after a California lawmaker on Friday became the 118th Democrat to call for the process to begin . “ In the past few years , our nation has seen and heard things from this president that have no place in our democracy , ” Representative Salud Carbajal said in a statement that accused Trump of “ criminal ” behavior . “ I believe it is time to open an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump , ” Carbajal said . The Democrats have a majority of 235 members in the House of Representatives . Support for an impeachment inquiry has jumped by more than two dozen Democrats since former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified on July 24 about his probe of Trump and Russian interference in the 2016 election . But the total of 118 is still far short of the 218 House votes needed to approve an impeachment resolution , and opinion polls continue to show voters sharply divided over the issue . The House is currently on a summer recess and will not return until Sept. 9 . Having a majority of her own caucus favor impeachment could put new pressure on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , who opposes impeachment as a politically risky move unless investigators find powerful evidence of misconduct by Trump that can unify public opinion . In a statement issued Friday , Pelosi gave no sign she was about to change her cautious approach . Instead , she outlined in considerable detail her strategy of Democrats continuing to investigate the president , while also moving in court to get access to more evidence . “ Democrats in the Congress continue to legislate , investigate and litigate , ” Pelosi declared . “ The president will be held accountable . ” Democrats opposing impeachment say the best way to remove Trump is by defeating him in 2020 , when he is up for re-election . Some Democrats worry that too strong a focus on impeachment could eclipse other issues like healthcare and threaten the re-election of Democrats who pried seats away from Republicans last year in regions where many voters oppose impeachment . Trump has denied any wrongdoing and says he was vindicated by the Mueller report , but the special counsel made clear in his testimony to Congress that that was not the case . In his report , Mueller described in detail the extensive contact Trump ’ s team had with Russia during the 2016 election campaign , and how Trump tried to impede Mueller ’ s investigation . While he stopped short of concluding Trump had committed a crime or that his aides had conspired with Moscow , Mueller did not clear him and indicated it was up to Congress to decide the next steps . Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee effectively rebranded their six-month-old oversight investigation of Trump as an impeachment probe last week , when they asked a federal judge for access to Mueller ’ s grand jury evidence to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment against Trump . Despite the mounting impeachment calls , there are no outward signs of a revolt among Democratic lawmakers over Pelosi ’ s attitude , perhaps in part because she has said that lawmakers are free to “ espouse their own position , and to criticize me . ” Democrats appear generally happy with her performance as speaker , especially her ability to stand up to Trump day after day . Pelosi has rallied to the defense of lawmakers Trump has attacked in recent weeks , and sometimes she has returned Trump ’ s fire with fire . Defending her native city of Baltimore against Trump ’ s criticisms that it was a “ rodent-infested mess , ” Pelosi said Thursday that the president ’ s own son-in-law was a “ slumlord ” there .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A majority of Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives now favor launching impeachment proceedings against Republican President Donald Trump, after a California lawmaker on Friday became the 118th Democrat to call for the process to begin. “In the past few years, our nation has seen and heard things from this president that have no place in our democracy,” Representative Salud Carbajal said in a statement that accused Trump of “criminal” behavior. “I believe it is time to open an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump,” Carbajal said. The Democrats have a majority of 235 members in the House of Representatives. Support for an impeachment inquiry has jumped by more than two dozen Democrats since former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified on July 24 about his probe of Trump and Russian interference in the 2016 election. But the total of 118 is still far short of the 218 House votes needed to approve an impeachment resolution, and opinion polls continue to show voters sharply divided over the issue. The House is currently on a summer recess and will not return until Sept. 9. Having a majority of her own caucus favor impeachment could put new pressure on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who opposes impeachment as a politically risky move unless investigators find powerful evidence of misconduct by Trump that can unify public opinion. In a statement issued Friday, Pelosi gave no sign she was about to change her cautious approach. Instead, she outlined in considerable detail her strategy of Democrats continuing to investigate the president, while also moving in court to get access to more evidence. “Democrats in the Congress continue to legislate, investigate and litigate,” Pelosi declared. “The president will be held accountable.” Democrats opposing impeachment say the best way to remove Trump is by defeating him in 2020, when he is up for re-election. Some Democrats worry that too strong a focus on impeachment could eclipse other issues like healthcare and threaten the re-election of Democrats who pried seats away from Republicans last year in regions where many voters oppose impeachment. Trump has denied any wrongdoing and says he was vindicated by the Mueller report, but the special counsel made clear in his testimony to Congress that that was not the case. In his report, Mueller described in detail the extensive contact Trump’s team had with Russia during the 2016 election campaign, and how Trump tried to impede Mueller’s investigation. While he stopped short of concluding Trump had committed a crime or that his aides had conspired with Moscow, Mueller did not clear him and indicated it was up to Congress to decide the next steps. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee effectively rebranded their six-month-old oversight investigation of Trump as an impeachment probe last week, when they asked a federal judge for access to Mueller’s grand jury evidence to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment against Trump. FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump pauses during an address at a campaign rally in Cincinnati, Ohio. U.S., August 1, 2019. REUTERS/Bryan Woolston Despite the mounting impeachment calls, there are no outward signs of a revolt among Democratic lawmakers over Pelosi’s attitude, perhaps in part because she has said that lawmakers are free to “espouse their own position, and to criticize me.” Democrats appear generally happy with her performance as speaker, especially her ability to stand up to Trump day after day. Pelosi has rallied to the defense of lawmakers Trump has attacked in recent weeks, and sometimes she has returned Trump’s fire with fire. Defending her native city of Baltimore against Trump’s criticisms that it was a “rodent-infested mess,” Pelosi said Thursday that the president’s own son-in-law was a “slumlord” there.

www.reuters.com

center

BXTAizVBYWhOnowy

test

ZV7cRIiLwHcNfEPK

fbi

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2016/november/fbi-clinton-foundation-probe-a-very-high-priority

FBI: Clinton Foundation Probe a 'Very High Priority'

2016-11-03

As Election Day approaches , both presidential campaigns are hoping to make gains with minority and women voters . But there are new worries for Hillary and Bill Clinton as the FBI reportedly expands its investigation of the Clinton Foundation . The FBI is looking into charges of a pay-for-play operation at the foundation , one where wealthy and foreign donors made big donations to the Clinton charity in exchange for access to Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state . While Mrs. Clinton may worry about more potentially damaging email leaks from WikiLeaks prior to the election , others are concerned that she is n't getting enough support from black and female voters . President Barack Obama worries the black vote is not as solid for Clinton as it was for him . Campaigning for Clinton in North Carolina , he urged African-Americans and college students to get out and vote . `` I hate to put a little pressure on you , but the fate of the republic rests on your shoulders , '' he warned . The president said if Clinton wins North Carolina , she 'll win the election . He reminded voters that he won the state by only 14,000 votes -- just two votes per precinct . Meanwhile , Donald Trump has gained support in recent days after the FBI reopened its investigation into Clinton emails and one of the latest polls shows Trump picking up some support among women . An Investor 's Business Daily tracking poll shows Trump 's support among female voters has jumped five points in the past three days . As of Tuesday , 39 percent of women said they 're backing Trump . That compares to 34 percent who supported him on Saturday . Clinton still has the clear lead among women , but Trump 's campaign staff is n't giving up . They 're handing out pink signs to female voters attending his rallies . In Pensacola , Trump said he was trying to stay calm . `` No sidetracks Donald , nice and easy , nice because I 've been watching Hillary the last few days she 's totally unhinged . We do n't want any of that , '' he insisted . While Trump campaigned in Florida , Clinton set her sights on the west , hoping to win Arizona . That 's something no Democrat has done in more than 20 years . She made an appeal to Hispanic voters and blasted Trump 's immigration policy , asking , `` He does n't really see Latinos even those who have been here nine or 10 generations as fully American , does he ? '' With just five days to go now until the election , both candidates will be targeting independent voters and minorities , hoping to get those last few votes that could make the difference between victory , or defeat .

As Election Day approaches, both presidential campaigns are hoping to make gains with minority and women voters. But there are new worries for Hillary and Bill Clinton as the FBI reportedly expands its investigation of the Clinton Foundation. Sources told Fox News it's a very high priority. The FBI is looking into charges of a pay-for-play operation at the foundation, one where wealthy and foreign donors made big donations to the Clinton charity in exchange for access to Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state. While Mrs. Clinton may worry about more potentially damaging email leaks from WikiLeaks prior to the election, others are concerned that she isn't getting enough support from black and female voters. President Barack Obama worries the black vote is not as solid for Clinton as it was for him. Campaigning for Clinton in North Carolina, he urged African-Americans and college students to get out and vote. "I hate to put a little pressure on you, but the fate of the republic rests on your shoulders," he warned. The president said if Clinton wins North Carolina, she'll win the election. He reminded voters that he won the state by only 14,000 votes -- just two votes per precinct. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has gained support in recent days after the FBI reopened its investigation into Clinton emails and one of the latest polls shows Trump picking up some support among women. An Investor's Business Daily tracking poll shows Trump's support among female voters has jumped five points in the past three days. As of Tuesday, 39 percent of women said they're backing Trump. That compares to 34 percent who supported him on Saturday. Clinton still has the clear lead among women, but Trump's campaign staff isn't giving up. They're handing out pink signs to female voters attending his rallies. In Pensacola, Trump said he was trying to stay calm. "No sidetracks Donald, nice and easy, nice because I've been watching Hillary the last few days she's totally unhinged. We don't want any of that," he insisted. While Trump campaigned in Florida, Clinton set her sights on the west, hoping to win Arizona. That's something no Democrat has done in more than 20 years. She made an appeal to Hispanic voters and blasted Trump's immigration policy, asking, "He doesn't really see Latinos even those who have been here nine or 10 generations as fully American, does he?" With just five days to go now until the election, both candidates will be targeting independent voters and minorities, hoping to get those last few votes that could make the difference between victory, or defeat.

www1.cbn.com

right

ZV7cRIiLwHcNfEPK

test

aOZHaCGzZxGt9ghW

lgbt_rights

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2020/january/ex-witchs-warning-about-new-disney-show-its-not-a-joke-that-realm-is-very-real

Ex-Witch's Warning About New Disney Show: 'It's Not a Joke... That Realm Is Very Real'

2020-01-21

A new Disney cartoon is teaching kids that being a witch is a good thing . It 's called `` The Owl House '' and recently premiered on the Disney Channel . The show tries to portray witchcraft as a positive tool to fight evil . And some people say there 's nothing to worry about when it comes to a children 's show like this , arguing that it 's just make-believe . But one former witch and lesbian told ███ 's `` The Prayer Link '' that parents need to be very careful about what their children watch . `` I actually watched a movie that was very popular when I was in high school and it was called The Craft , '' said Jenny Weaver . `` And the movie was about four high school witches that had all of this power , that had all of this control . '' Weaver , who grew up in a dysfunctional home , battled depression . She saw the power in the movie as a way out . `` I remember hearing these voices , 'Just kill yourself . Just go away . It would be better off if you would just die . ' And so , I started to cut my wrists severely . I remember having 56 cuts all up and down my arms . My arms were shredded . And it was a way in my mind that I was able to escape , '' explained Weaver . Cutting gave way to the demonic realm and Weaver eventually became a practicing witch . `` It was a demonic hold on my life that caused me to open doors to witchcraft and practicing spells and incantations and studying the religion of Wiccan , '' she said . She added , `` It 's why I tell parents when I minister , it 's not a joke when we say be careful what your children are watching . '' `` I was able to research , and study , and go to little shops , which you would be really surprised that you go into a shop and it 's actually a witchcraft shop under the disguise of just tapping into energy and 'new age ' things . '' `` I 'm telling you it was one of darkest times of my life . That realm is very real , just like the Kingdom of God and the Holy Ghost is real , so is that realm . And when you get in that realm and you open that door because the enemy wants to take you out . '' Weaver , who also became a lesbian and drug addict , said it took years for her to break free . `` I was smoking methamphetamines in dope houses , sleeping in people 's sheds , being tore up by bugs all day long . And so , I remember just crying out to God . I cried out to the top of my lungs , I said 'God Help Me ! ' '' Today Weaver ministers through prophetic worship to thousands via Facebook through her ministry Jenny Weaver Worships . To hear more about Jenny Weaver 's life-changing story , tune into the Prayer Link . You can catch Prayer Link Tuesday nights at 6:30 pm eastern on the ███ News Channel .

A new Disney cartoon is teaching kids that being a witch is a good thing. It's called "The Owl House" and recently premiered on the Disney Channel. The show tries to portray witchcraft as a positive tool to fight evil. And some people say there's nothing to worry about when it comes to a children's show like this, arguing that it's just make-believe. But one former witch and lesbian told CBN's "The Prayer Link" that parents need to be very careful about what their children watch. "I actually watched a movie that was very popular when I was in high school and it was called The Craft," said Jenny Weaver. "And the movie was about four high school witches that had all of this power, that had all of this control." Weaver, who grew up in a dysfunctional home, battled depression. She saw the power in the movie as a way out. "I remember hearing these voices, 'Just kill yourself. Just go away. It would be better off if you would just die.' And so, I started to cut my wrists severely. I remember having 56 cuts all up and down my arms. My arms were shredded. And it was a way in my mind that I was able to escape," explained Weaver. Cutting gave way to the demonic realm and Weaver eventually became a practicing witch. "It was a demonic hold on my life that caused me to open doors to witchcraft and practicing spells and incantations and studying the religion of Wiccan," she said. She added, "It's why I tell parents when I minister, it's not a joke when we say be careful what your children are watching." "I was able to research, and study, and go to little shops, which you would be really surprised that you go into a shop and it's actually a witchcraft shop under the disguise of just tapping into energy and 'new age' things." "I'm telling you it was one of darkest times of my life. That realm is very real, just like the Kingdom of God and the Holy Ghost is real, so is that realm. And when you get in that realm and you open that door because the enemy wants to take you out." Weaver, who also became a lesbian and drug addict, said it took years for her to break free. "I was smoking methamphetamines in dope houses, sleeping in people's sheds, being tore up by bugs all day long. And so, I remember just crying out to God. I cried out to the top of my lungs, I said 'God Help Me!'" That's when her life changed forever. "God rescued me," said Weaver. Today Weaver ministers through prophetic worship to thousands via Facebook through her ministry Jenny Weaver Worships. To hear more about Jenny Weaver's life-changing story, tune into the Prayer Link. You can catch Prayer Link Tuesday nights at 6:30 pm eastern on the CBN News Channel.

www1.cbn.com

right

aOZHaCGzZxGt9ghW

test

2swmL7S91lBcnGEa

politics

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/d1873c0d1e01246c23b76313100381e3

For first time, Biden calls Obama deportations ‘big mistake’

2020-02-15

Bill Barrow

Democratic presidential candidate , former Vice President Joe Biden poses for a photo with attendees after speaking at a campaign event , Saturday , Feb. 15 , 2020 , at K.O . Knudson Middle School in Las Vegas . ( AP Photo/Patrick Semansky ) Democratic presidential candidate , former Vice President Joe Biden poses for a photo with attendees after speaking at a campaign event , Saturday , Feb. 15 , 2020 , at K.O . Knudson Middle School in Las Vegas . ( AP Photo/Patrick Semansky ) LAS VEGAS ( AP ) — Going further than he ever has in expressing regret over Obama administration immigration policy , presidential candidate Joe Biden called it a “ big mistake ” to have deported hundreds of thousands of people without criminal records . “ We took far too long to get it right , ” Biden said in a wide-ranging , sometimes contentious interview with Univision anchor Jorge Ramos . The former vice president later added : “ I think it was a big mistake . Took too long to get it right . ” In written statements included as part of Biden ’ s proposed immigration overhaul , the campaign already had acknowledged “ pain ” surrounding deportations that occurred when he served as President Barack Obama ’ s vice president . But the candidate himself had not so clearly stated his personal regrets . The 20-minute interview was posted to Ramos ’ Facebook page , and Biden aides said portions would be broadcast in coming days on Univision as Biden and his Democratic presidential rivals campaigned in Nevada ahead of the Feb. 22 caucuses , the third nominating contest and the first with a significant Latino population . Biden emphasized to Ramos his proposals to expand legal immigration , bolster the asylum process and end construction of a U.S.-Mexico border wall . The project has been President Donald Trump ’ s hallmark anti-immigration effort . “ This is a big country , ” Biden told Ramos , dismissing “ the idea we can ’ t accommodate more people in the interest of the United States. ” He called “ legal as well as undocumented immigrants ” key contributors to the U.S. economy and society . “ We stand up and act like it ’ s a burden , ” he said . “ It is not a burden . It ’ s a gift . ” Ramos and Biden had a testy exchange during Democrats ’ September primary debate when the high-profile Latino journalist noted Obama ’ s deportation record and asked Biden , “ Why should Latinos trust you ? ” Just as he did in September , Biden rejected any suggestion that Obama ’ s record on immigration is commensurate to Trump ’ s . When Ramos queried Biden this time on 3 million deportations , including an estimated 1.7 million people who had no criminal record , Biden initially pushed back by asserting that previous administrations had “ deported twice as many people , ” a claim he could not support with federal data . Pressed again , Biden relented . “ It was painful , ” Biden said . “ It took too long . But we began to get it right with the DACA program , ” he continued , referring to Obama ’ s executive order that granted legal status to immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children . Biden stuck to his defense that the Obama administration did not “ put kids in cages , ” as Trump has done . Ramos showed Biden a photo of an unaccompanied minor who was apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border and detained during Obama ’ s second term . Biden argued that handling a wave of minors who came alone was different than the Trump administration ’ s decision to separate families at the border . Biden said any children held under the Obama administration were quickly moved out of detention facilities . The Obama administration , Biden noted , increased development aid to Central American countries to encourage migrants to stay by improving their conditions at home . Trump abandoned that approach . “ You know you ’ re not telling the truth here about the comparison of the two things , ” a visibly frustrated Biden told Ramos . Biden mustered a similar retort when Ramos reminded him that , as a senator , Biden supported appropriations for physical border barriers . Biden insisted he supported construction of facilities at “ legal points of entry , ” where he said most drugs and terrorist activity enters . “ Making sure we modernize crossings , ” Biden argued , is different than “ a wall that ( Trump ) wants from sea to shining sea . ” Biden ’ s immigration priorities include ending family separations at the border , rolling back Trump ’ s travel limits on citizens from certain Muslim-majority countries and providing a citizenship path for about 11 million people in the U.S. illegally , including immediately shielding from deportation the immigrants who were brought to the country illegally as children . The former vice president also has pledged to enforce existing asylum law by reversing the Trump administration ’ s moves that have made claiming asylum extremely difficult , while ending the national emergency that Trump has declared to divert Pentagon appropriations to the construction of a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border . As a counter to Trump ’ s wall and asylum limits , Biden calls for increasing the annual cap on refugees from 18,000 to 125,000 . And he emphasized a proposal to spend $ 4 billion in four years aimed at stabilizing Central American governments and economies . The idea , Biden explained in Nevada , is to address the root causes of mass migration and relieve pressure at the U.S. border , where the scene of migrant detention facilities has drawn international attention .

Democratic presidential candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden poses for a photo with attendees after speaking at a campaign event, Saturday, Feb. 15, 2020, at K.O. Knudson Middle School in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) Democratic presidential candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden poses for a photo with attendees after speaking at a campaign event, Saturday, Feb. 15, 2020, at K.O. Knudson Middle School in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) LAS VEGAS (AP) — Going further than he ever has in expressing regret over Obama administration immigration policy, presidential candidate Joe Biden called it a “big mistake” to have deported hundreds of thousands of people without criminal records. “We took far too long to get it right,” Biden said in a wide-ranging, sometimes contentious interview with Univision anchor Jorge Ramos. The former vice president later added: “I think it was a big mistake. Took too long to get it right.” In written statements included as part of Biden’s proposed immigration overhaul, the campaign already had acknowledged “pain” surrounding deportations that occurred when he served as President Barack Obama’s vice president. But the candidate himself had not so clearly stated his personal regrets. The 20-minute interview was posted to Ramos’ Facebook page, and Biden aides said portions would be broadcast in coming days on Univision as Biden and his Democratic presidential rivals campaigned in Nevada ahead of the Feb. 22 caucuses, the third nominating contest and the first with a significant Latino population. Biden emphasized to Ramos his proposals to expand legal immigration, bolster the asylum process and end construction of a U.S.-Mexico border wall. The project has been President Donald Trump’s hallmark anti-immigration effort. “This is a big country,” Biden told Ramos, dismissing “the idea we can’t accommodate more people in the interest of the United States.” He called “legal as well as undocumented immigrants” key contributors to the U.S. economy and society. “We stand up and act like it’s a burden,” he said. “It is not a burden. It’s a gift.” Ramos and Biden had a testy exchange during Democrats’ September primary debate when the high-profile Latino journalist noted Obama’s deportation record and asked Biden, “Why should Latinos trust you?” Just as he did in September, Biden rejected any suggestion that Obama’s record on immigration is commensurate to Trump’s. When Ramos queried Biden this time on 3 million deportations, including an estimated 1.7 million people who had no criminal record, Biden initially pushed back by asserting that previous administrations had “deported twice as many people,” a claim he could not support with federal data. Pressed again, Biden relented. “It was painful,” Biden said. “It took too long. But we began to get it right with the DACA program,” he continued, referring to Obama’s executive order that granted legal status to immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children. Biden stuck to his defense that the Obama administration did not “put kids in cages,” as Trump has done. Ramos showed Biden a photo of an unaccompanied minor who was apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border and detained during Obama’s second term. Biden argued that handling a wave of minors who came alone was different than the Trump administration’s decision to separate families at the border. Biden said any children held under the Obama administration were quickly moved out of detention facilities. The Obama administration, Biden noted, increased development aid to Central American countries to encourage migrants to stay by improving their conditions at home. Trump abandoned that approach. “You know you’re not telling the truth here about the comparison of the two things,” a visibly frustrated Biden told Ramos. Biden mustered a similar retort when Ramos reminded him that, as a senator, Biden supported appropriations for physical border barriers. Biden insisted he supported construction of facilities at “legal points of entry,” where he said most drugs and terrorist activity enters. “Making sure we modernize crossings,” Biden argued, is different than “a wall that (Trump) wants from sea to shining sea.” Biden’s immigration priorities include ending family separations at the border, rolling back Trump’s travel limits on citizens from certain Muslim-majority countries and providing a citizenship path for about 11 million people in the U.S. illegally, including immediately shielding from deportation the immigrants who were brought to the country illegally as children. The former vice president also has pledged to enforce existing asylum law by reversing the Trump administration’s moves that have made claiming asylum extremely difficult, while ending the national emergency that Trump has declared to divert Pentagon appropriations to the construction of a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border. As a counter to Trump’s wall and asylum limits, Biden calls for increasing the annual cap on refugees from 18,000 to 125,000. And he emphasized a proposal to spend $4 billion in four years aimed at stabilizing Central American governments and economies. The idea, Biden explained in Nevada, is to address the root causes of mass migration and relieve pressure at the U.S. border, where the scene of migrant detention facilities has drawn international attention.

www.apnews.com

center

2swmL7S91lBcnGEa

test

mPVHriWgY3ZpTLjj

national_defense

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/US/pentagon-conduct-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-intercept-test-heels/story?id=47724129

US successfully intercepts ICBM in historic test

Elizabeth Mclaughlin, Luis Martinez

The U.S. has `` successfully intercepted '' an intercontinental ballistic missile during the first test of its ground-based intercept system , the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said Tuesday . Interested in North Korea ? Add North Korea as an interest to stay up to date on the latest North Korea news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest The test occurred just days after the North Korean regime launched its ninth missile this year . U.S. officials say today 's test had been planned for years . The ground-based interceptor launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California shortly after 3:30 p.m . ET . A little more than one hour later , the Pentagon confirmed that it had successfully collided with an ICBM-class target over the Pacific Ocean . The ICBM-target was launched from the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands , 4,200 miles away . `` The intercept of a complex , threat-representative ICBM target is an incredible accomplishment for the GMD [ Ground-based Missile Defense ] system and a critical milestone for this program , '' said Missile Defense Agency Director Vice Adm. Jim Syring . `` This system is vitally important to the defense of our homeland , and this test demonstrates that we have a capable , credible deterrent against a very real threat . I am incredibly proud of the warfighters who executed this test and who operate this system every day . '' The ground-based interceptor system is mainly designed to counter a North Korean missile threat , but a U.S. official said Tuesday 's long-scheduled test was coincidental to North Korea 's increased missile testing this year . This was the 18th test of the ground-based interceptor . The last one , in June 2014 , was the first success since 2008 . The system was nine for 17 since 1999 with other types of shorter-range target missiles . Tuesday 's ICBM target had never been tested before . There are 32 ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely , Alaska , and four at Vandenberg . The Missile Defense Agency said in its 2018 fiscal year budget overview that it would deploy eight additional ground-based interceptors in Alaska by the end of 2017 , for a total of 44 , `` to improve protection against North Korean and potential Iranian ICBM threats as they emerge . '' The U.S. tests its ICBMs about twice every year . Earlier this month , the Air Force Global Strike Command test-launched an unarmed Minuteman III ICBM equipped with a single test re-entry vehicle from Vandenberg . The re-entry vehicle landed at Kwajalein Atoll . `` These test launches verify the accuracy and reliability of the ICBM weapon system , providing valuable data to ensure a continued safe , secure and effective nuclear deterrent , '' the Air Force Global Strike Command said in a statement . North Korea has spent the last decade working to develop an ICBM capable of reaching the continental United States . Though North Korea has conducted nine missiles tests in 2017 , none have been ICBMs . The ground-based interceptor being tested Tuesday is different from the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system deployed in South Korea , which is designed to intercept missiles at a lower altitude in their terminal stage . The last test North Korea conducted , on May 28 , was assessed as a short-range ballistic missile , which landed in the Sea of Japan , according to U.S. Pacific Command . Two weeks earlier , North Korea tested a KN-17 medium-range ballistic missile , the first successful launch of its kind for the nation . The Japanese Defense Minister Tomomi Inada told reporters that the missile reached an unprecedented altitude of 1,245 miles . Experts said the missile would have flown much farther if it had been launched on a maximum trajectory — perhaps capable of reaching U.S. military bases in Guam .

The U.S. has "successfully intercepted" an intercontinental ballistic missile during the first test of its ground-based intercept system, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said Tuesday. Interested in North Korea? Add North Korea as an interest to stay up to date on the latest North Korea news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest The test occurred just days after the North Korean regime launched its ninth missile this year. U.S. officials say today's test had been planned for years. The ground-based interceptor launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California shortly after 3:30 p.m. ET. A little more than one hour later, the Pentagon confirmed that it had successfully collided with an ICBM-class target over the Pacific Ocean. The ICBM-target was launched from the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, 4,200 miles away. "The intercept of a complex, threat-representative ICBM target is an incredible accomplishment for the GMD [Ground-based Missile Defense] system and a critical milestone for this program," said Missile Defense Agency Director Vice Adm. Jim Syring. "This system is vitally important to the defense of our homeland, and this test demonstrates that we have a capable, credible deterrent against a very real threat. I am incredibly proud of the warfighters who executed this test and who operate this system every day." The ground-based interceptor system is mainly designed to counter a North Korean missile threat, but a U.S. official said Tuesday's long-scheduled test was coincidental to North Korea's increased missile testing this year. This was the 18th test of the ground-based interceptor. The last one, in June 2014, was the first success since 2008. The system was nine for 17 since 1999 with other types of shorter-range target missiles. Tuesday's ICBM target had never been tested before. There are 32 ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska, and four at Vandenberg. The Missile Defense Agency said in its 2018 fiscal year budget overview that it would deploy eight additional ground-based interceptors in Alaska by the end of 2017, for a total of 44, "to improve protection against North Korean and potential Iranian ICBM threats as they emerge." The U.S. tests its ICBMs about twice every year. Earlier this month, the Air Force Global Strike Command test-launched an unarmed Minuteman III ICBM equipped with a single test re-entry vehicle from Vandenberg. The re-entry vehicle landed at Kwajalein Atoll. "These test launches verify the accuracy and reliability of the ICBM weapon system, providing valuable data to ensure a continued safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent," the Air Force Global Strike Command said in a statement. Growing threat from North Korea North Korea has spent the last decade working to develop an ICBM capable of reaching the continental United States. Though North Korea has conducted nine missiles tests in 2017, none have been ICBMs. The ground-based interceptor being tested Tuesday is different from the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system deployed in South Korea, which is designed to intercept missiles at a lower altitude in their terminal stage. KCNA/AFP/Getty Images The last test North Korea conducted, on May 28, was assessed as a short-range ballistic missile, which landed in the Sea of Japan, according to U.S. Pacific Command. Two weeks earlier, North Korea tested a KN-17 medium-range ballistic missile, the first successful launch of its kind for the nation. The Japanese Defense Minister Tomomi Inada told reporters that the missile reached an unprecedented altitude of 1,245 miles. Experts said the missile would have flown much farther if it had been launched on a maximum trajectory — perhaps capable of reaching U.S. military bases in Guam.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

mPVHriWgY3ZpTLjj

test

LOnPejdTvZploV83

federal_budget

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-blames-gop-ideological-crusade-government-shutdown/story?id=20431889

President Obama Urges GOP to Abandon 'Ideological Crusade,' End Shutdown

Abd. Phillip

Congressional Republicans are `` demanding ransom '' by refusing to fund the government unless Democrats agree to alter the health care law that passed in 2010 , President Obama said today in a Rose Garden address . `` They 're shutting down the government over an ideological crusade to deny affordable health care to many Americans , '' Obama said , flanked by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and beneficiaries of the health care law 's new provisions . `` They are demanding ransom just for doing their job , '' he added . `` This Republican shutdown did not have to happen . '' The statement comes after Obama met in the Oval Office with 12 individuals who have either benefited from the Affordable Care Act 's changes to health insurance coverage or plan to enroll in coverage through the new insurance marketplaces that came online today . Obama lambasted Republicans for making the dismantling of the health care law the `` centerpiece of their agenda , '' and he urged them to pass a budget and end the government shutdown . `` I will not give in to reckless demands by some in the Republican Party to deny affordable health insurance to millions , '' Obama said . `` I will not negotiate over Congress ' ability to pay bills it 's already racked up . With the next , potentially disastrous deadline right around the corner , the president urged lawmakers to raise the debt ceiling , warning `` it 'd be far more dangerous than a government shutdown , as bad as a shutdown is ; it would be an economic shutdown . '' On the first day of the health insurance marketplaces ' opening to accept new enrollment , Obama acknowledged that the online system was experiencing `` glitches '' that he attributed to unexpected high demand . `` More than 1 million people visited healthcare.gov before 7 in the morning , '' Obama said . `` We 're going to be speeding things up in the next few hours to handle this demand exceeding anything we expected . '' Comparing the initial problems to issues with Apple 's rollout of a new operating system , Obama added , `` I do n't remember anybody suggesting Apple should stop selling iPhones or iPads . '' But on Capitol Hill , both Houses of Congress reinforced their original positions today despite a government shutdown that left nearly 800,000 federal employees out of work without pay this morning , and more than a million other `` essential '' employees on the job with many of their paychecks delayed . With national parks and war memorials closed , House Republicans are now looking for ways to blunt the shutdown 's damage , one politically sensitive part of the government at a time . They plan to approve smaller spending bills that would fully fund veterans programs , the National Park Service and the District of Columbia . Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rejected the strategy on the Senate floor this afternoon . `` Just another wacky idea from the Tea Party driven Republicans , '' Reid said . `` We ca n't and we wo n't be forced to chose between the parks and cancer research . '' But Republicans say Democrats are the ones who refuse to negotiate over funding the government as previous presidents and Congresses have in the past . `` Democratic leaders in Congress finally have their prize , a government shutdown that no one seems to want but them , '' Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said . Republicans held late-night votes in the House of Representatives in the early hours this morning to reaffirm their demands that the Democratic Senate agree to undermine President Obama 's health care law in exchange for funding the government and that the Senate appoint representatives to a conference committee on the budget . Democrats , in turn , gaveled the Senate into session this morning only to reject the House 's bill , and Democratic leaders say they will only pass a bill to fund the government with no strings attached . Meanwhile , with the stroke of midnight , the Affordable Care Act 's health exchanges opened for business , allowing the uninsured to purchase health insurance . And despite the Republican strategy to put the brakes on the health care bill , the law was implemented , starting today , regardless of the government shutdown . The impact of the shutdown , however , is being felt in other ways . National parks in Washington and across the country are closed to the public and much of the government will be operating at reduced staffing levels that will lead to widespread delay . People seeking Federal Housing Administration home loans will have to wait until the shutdown ends to secure mortgages . And in Washington , the courts have stopped issuing marriage licenses and performing weddings . The political consequences could be grave for both parties in Congress , but especially for Republicans . According to an ███-Washington Post poll released Monday , 63 percent say they disapprove of Republicans ' handling of the budget debate compared to 50 percent who disapprove of Obama 's handling of the situation . `` The question is how fast does public pressure grow , particularly on Republicans , '' said Sarah Binder , expert in Congress and legislative politics and a professor at George Washington University . `` There are federal employees everywhere . '' `` We underestimate some of the networks within which lawmakers will find themselves back home . ''

Congressional Republicans are "demanding ransom" by refusing to fund the government unless Democrats agree to alter the health care law that passed in 2010, President Obama said today in a Rose Garden address. "They're shutting down the government over an ideological crusade to deny affordable health care to many Americans," Obama said, flanked by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and beneficiaries of the health care law's new provisions. "They are demanding ransom just for doing their job," he added. "This Republican shutdown did not have to happen." The statement comes after Obama met in the Oval Office with 12 individuals who have either benefited from the Affordable Care Act's changes to health insurance coverage or plan to enroll in coverage through the new insurance marketplaces that came online today. Obama lambasted Republicans for making the dismantling of the health care law the "centerpiece of their agenda," and he urged them to pass a budget and end the government shutdown. "I will not give in to reckless demands by some in the Republican Party to deny affordable health insurance to millions," Obama said. "I will not negotiate over Congress' ability to pay bills it's already racked up. "Pass a budget. End this shutdown." With the next, potentially disastrous deadline right around the corner, the president urged lawmakers to raise the debt ceiling, warning "it'd be far more dangerous than a government shutdown, as bad as a shutdown is; it would be an economic shutdown." On the first day of the health insurance marketplaces' opening to accept new enrollment, Obama acknowledged that the online system was experiencing "glitches" that he attributed to unexpected high demand. "More than 1 million people visited healthcare.gov before 7 in the morning," Obama said. "We're going to be speeding things up in the next few hours to handle this demand exceeding anything we expected." Comparing the initial problems to issues with Apple's rollout of a new operating system, Obama added, "I don't remember anybody suggesting Apple should stop selling iPhones or iPads." The Most Surprising Consequences of a Government Shutdown But on Capitol Hill, both Houses of Congress reinforced their original positions today despite a government shutdown that left nearly 800,000 federal employees out of work without pay this morning, and more than a million other "essential" employees on the job with many of their paychecks delayed. With national parks and war memorials closed, House Republicans are now looking for ways to blunt the shutdown's damage, one politically sensitive part of the government at a time. They plan to approve smaller spending bills that would fully fund veterans programs, the National Park Service and the District of Columbia. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rejected the strategy on the Senate floor this afternoon. "Just another wacky idea from the Tea Party driven Republicans," Reid said. "We can't and we won't be forced to chose between the parks and cancer research." But Republicans say Democrats are the ones who refuse to negotiate over funding the government as previous presidents and Congresses have in the past. "Democratic leaders in Congress finally have their prize, a government shutdown that no one seems to want but them," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said. LIVE Updates: Government Shutdown Day 1 Republicans held late-night votes in the House of Representatives in the early hours this morning to reaffirm their demands that the Democratic Senate agree to undermine President Obama's health care law in exchange for funding the government and that the Senate appoint representatives to a conference committee on the budget. Democrats, in turn, gaveled the Senate into session this morning only to reject the House's bill, and Democratic leaders say they will only pass a bill to fund the government with no strings attached. Meanwhile, with the stroke of midnight, the Affordable Care Act's health exchanges opened for business, allowing the uninsured to purchase health insurance. And despite the Republican strategy to put the brakes on the health care bill, the law was implemented, starting today, regardless of the government shutdown. Government Shutdown Standoff: What Happens Next? The impact of the shutdown, however, is being felt in other ways. National parks in Washington and across the country are closed to the public and much of the government will be operating at reduced staffing levels that will lead to widespread delay. People seeking Federal Housing Administration home loans will have to wait until the shutdown ends to secure mortgages. And in Washington, the courts have stopped issuing marriage licenses and performing weddings. Government Shutdown by the Numbers The political consequences could be grave for both parties in Congress, but especially for Republicans. According to an ABC News-Washington Post poll released Monday, 63 percent say they disapprove of Republicans' handling of the budget debate compared to 50 percent who disapprove of Obama's handling of the situation. "The question is how fast does public pressure grow, particularly on Republicans," said Sarah Binder, expert in Congress and legislative politics and a professor at George Washington University. "There are federal employees everywhere." "We underestimate some of the networks within which lawmakers will find themselves back home." ABC News' Jeff Zeleny and Mary Bruce contributed to this report.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

LOnPejdTvZploV83

test

0VON52bx5qyGmWNB

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/09/everbody_hates_rick_santorum_how_the_former_gop_heavyweight_became_a_political_irrelevancy/

Everbody hates Rick Santorum: How the former GOP heavyweight became a political irrelevancy

2015-04-09

Matthew Rozsa

As Americans brace themselves for Rand Paul ’ s just-announced presidential campaign , it is appropriate to take a quick look at the increasing political irrelevancy of another likely candidate , one who less than four years ago nearly wrested the Republican nomination from Mitt Romney . I refer , of course , to former Sen. Rick Santorum ( R-PA ) , who made headlines earlier this week by coming out in support of Indiana ’ s “ Religious Freedom Restoration Act , ” the controversial law that would allow business to discriminate against gay customers -- this in spite of the fact that even a large number of Republicans have joined Democrats , independents , and the general business community in denouncing the bill . Before we explore the connection between Santorum ’ s stance on gay rights and his waning political star , it ’ s important to note that for the last 40 years , the heir apparent to the Republican presidential nomination has been the runner-up from previous years ' primaries : See Ronald Reagan , George H. W. Bush , Bob Dole , John McCain , and Mitt Romney . If that precedent were still in effect , former Sen. Rick Santorum would at the very least rank among the handful of frontrunners . Instead he trails in the single digits , where he has been since the very beginning of this cycle 's polling . According to the Polling Report , he hasn ’ t reached 4 percent in more than a year . The reason for this is as simple as it is monumental : Santorum ’ s political brand is linked to his staunch opposition to gay rights . Even a decade ago , that might have been enough to at least make him a strong contender in the GOP primaries . Today , however , Americans are moving inexorably in favor of full legal equality for the gay community . This has hurt Santorum considerably and , despite his other political weaknesses ( most notably his landslide loss in the Pennsylvania Senate race in 2006 ) , will in and of itself tank his chances at being president . Even worse for Santorum , Republicans are far less religiously-minded in their politics than they ’ ve been in the past . While many conservatives are still quick to express ostensible support for using religion to shape government policies , 7 in 10 perceive religion as losing its influence in American life , with secular and/or non-Christian religious beliefs increasing in this country even as church attendance and specific denominational loyalties continue to decline . “ Religion in general is not diminishing its social impact , but Christianity specifically is losing its authoritative power across society , ” writes Professor Gary Laderman in The Huffington Post . “ What we are witnessing today , and what has been especially visible in the past for some time now , is a process of dechristianization ( not secularization ) . ” Indeed , as Professor Mark Chaves noted in `` American Religion : Contemporary Trends , '' even evangelicals are showing signs of shedding exclusionary attitudes and identifying less strongly with their religious background . Although Christianity has been politicized in America since the earliest days of our republic , the Christian Right as we know it now is a particular and historically quirky breed , known for its religiously-tinted patriotism and conservative stances on issues like gay rights , the drug wars , opposition to the ‘ 60s counterculture , reproductive choice , and the separation of church and state . At least superficially , it continues to shape the GOP today , with 65 percent of Republicans telling a 2013 YouGov poll that they believe the United States has “ gone too far in keeping religion and government separate ” ( as opposed to 36 percent of Independents and 18 percent of Democrats ) and 55 percent favoring establishing Christianity as a state religion ( as opposed to 30 percent of Independents and 26 percent of Democrats ) . While there was no single moment when the Christian Right ’ s grip on the GOP began to weaken , signs have been emerging in the last two presidential elections . Neither John McCain nor Mitt Romney focused on their religiosity in their respective presidential campaigns -- which would have been unthinkable for a Republican presidential aspirant even a decade earlier . ( In Romney 's case , a determining factor was likely significant prejudice from the Christian Right due to his Mormonism . But the fact that this prejudice did not keep him from securing the nomination is in itself notable . ) During that same period , religious conservatives found themselves losing touchstone cultural battles on issues like marijuana legalization , which is now supported by a majority of Americans , and gay marriage , with three-fourths of Americans now living in states that allow same-sex marriages . Even the religiously-based attacks on President Obama -- from rumors that he is a secret Muslim to the claim that he is attacking American Christianity -- have failed to gain traction beyond the converted . None of this means that organized Christianity will stop being a factor in American politics anytime soon . At the same time , the days in which a candidate like Rick Santorum can play a dominant role in Republican Party politics may well be reaching their end .

As Americans brace themselves for Rand Paul’s just-announced presidential campaign, it is appropriate to take a quick look at the increasing political irrelevancy of another likely candidate, one who less than four years ago nearly wrested the Republican nomination from Mitt Romney. I refer, of course, to former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), who made headlines earlier this week by coming out in support of Indiana’s “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” the controversial law that would allow business to discriminate against gay customers -- this in spite of the fact that even a large number of Republicans have joined Democrats, independents, and the general business community in denouncing the bill. Advertisement: Before we explore the connection between Santorum’s stance on gay rights and his waning political star, it’s important to note that for the last 40 years, the heir apparent to the Republican presidential nomination has been the runner-up from previous years' primaries: See Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. If that precedent were still in effect, former Sen. Rick Santorum would at the very least rank among the handful of frontrunners. Instead he trails in the single digits, where he has been since the very beginning of this cycle's polling. According to the Polling Report, he hasn’t reached 4 percent in more than a year. The reason for this is as simple as it is monumental: Santorum’s political brand is linked to his staunch opposition to gay rights. Even a decade ago, that might have been enough to at least make him a strong contender in the GOP primaries. Today, however, Americans are moving inexorably in favor of full legal equality for the gay community. This has hurt Santorum considerably and, despite his other political weaknesses (most notably his landslide loss in the Pennsylvania Senate race in 2006), will in and of itself tank his chances at being president. Advertisement: Even worse for Santorum, Republicans are far less religiously-minded in their politics than they’ve been in the past. While many conservatives are still quick to express ostensible support for using religion to shape government policies, 7 in 10 perceive religion as losing its influence in American life, with secular and/or non-Christian religious beliefs increasing in this country even as church attendance and specific denominational loyalties continue to decline. “Religion in general is not diminishing its social impact, but Christianity specifically is losing its authoritative power across society,” writes Professor Gary Laderman in The Huffington Post. “What we are witnessing today, and what has been especially visible in the past for some time now, is a process of dechristianization (not secularization).” Indeed, as Professor Mark Chaves noted in "American Religion: Contemporary Trends," even evangelicals are showing signs of shedding exclusionary attitudes and identifying less strongly with their religious background. Although Christianity has been politicized in America since the earliest days of our republic, the Christian Right as we know it now is a particular and historically quirky breed, known for its religiously-tinted patriotism and conservative stances on issues like gay rights, the drug wars, opposition to the ‘60s counterculture, reproductive choice, and the separation of church and state. At least superficially, it continues to shape the GOP today, with 65 percent of Republicans telling a 2013 YouGov poll that they believe the United States has “gone too far in keeping religion and government separate” (as opposed to 36 percent of Independents and 18 percent of Democrats) and 55 percent favoring establishing Christianity as a state religion (as opposed to 30 percent of Independents and 26 percent of Democrats). While there was no single moment when the Christian Right’s grip on the GOP began to weaken, signs have been emerging in the last two presidential elections. Neither John McCain nor Mitt Romney focused on their religiosity in their respective presidential campaigns -- which would have been unthinkable for a Republican presidential aspirant even a decade earlier. (In Romney's case, a determining factor was likely significant prejudice from the Christian Right due to his Mormonism. But the fact that this prejudice did not keep him from securing the nomination is in itself notable.) During that same period, religious conservatives found themselves losing touchstone cultural battles on issues like marijuana legalization, which is now supported by a majority of Americans, and gay marriage, with three-fourths of Americans now living in states that allow same-sex marriages. Even the religiously-based attacks on President Obama -- from rumors that he is a secret Muslim to the claim that he is attacking American Christianity -- have failed to gain traction beyond the converted. Advertisement: None of this means that organized Christianity will stop being a factor in American politics anytime soon. At the same time, the days in which a candidate like Rick Santorum can play a dominant role in Republican Party politics may well be reaching their end.

www.salon.com

left

0VON52bx5qyGmWNB

test

FIIQaNyrOxtUP43h

national_defense

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/15/the_last_days_of_washington_d_c_america_can_no_longer_mask_its_steep_decline_partner/

The last days of Washington, D.C.: America can no longer mask its steep decline

2016-04-15

The last days of Washington , D.C. : America can no longer mask its steep decline No matter how relentlessly we couch our military defeats , all empirical evidence point to a single conclusion The dishonesty of words illustrates the dishonesty of America ’ s wars . Since 9/11 , can there be any doubt that the public has become numb to the euphemisms that regularly accompany U.S. troops , drones , and CIA operatives into Washington ’ s imperial conflicts across the Greater Middle East and Africa ? Such euphemisms are meant to take the sting out of America ’ s wars back home . Many of these words and phrases are already so well known and well worn that no one thinks twice about them anymore . Here are just a few : collateral damage for killed and wounded civilians ( a term used regularly since the First Gulf War of 1990-1991 ) . Enhanced interrogation techniques for torture , a term adopted with vigor by George W. Bush , Dick Cheney , and the rest of their administration ( “ techniques ” that were actually demonstrated in the White House ) . Extraordinary rendition for CIA kidnappings of terror suspects off global streets or from remote badlands , often followed by the employment of enhanced interrogation techniques at U.S. black sites or other foreign hellholes . Detainees for prisoners and detention camp for prison ( or , in some cases , more honestly , concentration camp ) , used to describe Guantánamo ( Gitmo ) , among other places established offshore of American justice . Targeted killings for presidentially ordered drone assassinations . Boots on the ground for yet another deployment of “ our ” troops ( and not just their boots ) in harm ’ s way . Even the Bush administration ’ s Global War on Terror , its label for an attempt to transform the Greater Middle East into a Pax Americana , would be redubbed in the Obama years overseas contingency operations ( before any attempt at labeling was dropped for a no-name war pursued across major swathes of the planet ) . As euphemisms were deployed to cloak that war ’ s bitter and brutal realities , over-the-top honorifics were assigned to America ’ s embattled role in the world . Exceptional , indispensable , and greatest have been the three words most commonly used by presidents , politicians , and the gung ho to describe this country . Once upon a time , if Americans thought this way , they felt no need to have their presidents and presidential candidates actually say so -- such was the confidence of the golden age of American power . So consider the constant redeployment of these terms a small measure of America ’ s growing defensiveness about itself , its sense of doubt and decline rather than strength and confidence . To what end this concerted assault on the words we use ? In George Orwell ’ s classic 1946 essay “ Politics and the English Language , ” he noted that his era ’ s equivalents for “ collateral damage ” were “ needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. ” Obviously , not much has changed in the intervening seven decades . And this is , as Orwell intuited , a dangerous way to go . Cloaking violent , even murderous actions in anodyne language might help a few doubting functionaries sleep easier at night , but it should make the rest of us profoundly uneasy . The more American leaders and officials -- and the media that quotes them endlessly -- employ such euphemisms to cloak harsh realities , the more they ensure that such harshness will endure ; indeed , that it is likely to grow harsher and more pernicious as we continue to settle into a world of euphemistic thinking . In the future , some linguist or lexicographer will doubtless compile a dictionary of perpetual war and perhaps ( since they may be linked ) imperial decline , focusing on the grim processes and versions of failure language can cloak . It would undoubtedly explore how certain words and rhetorical devices were used in twenty-first-century America to obscure the heavy burdens that war placed on the country , even as they facilitated its continuingfailed conflicts . It would obviously include classic examples like surge , used in both Iraq and Afghanistan to obscure the way our government rushed extra troops into a battle zone in a moment of failure only ensuring the extension of that failure , and the now-classic phrase shock and awe that obscured the reality of a massive air strike on Baghdad that resulted in the deaths of dozens of civilians ( “ collateral damage ” ) , but not the “ decapitation ” of a hated regime . Don ’ t think , however , that the language of twenty-first-century American war was only meant to lull the public . Less familiar words and terms continue to be used within the military not to clarify tasks at hand but to obscure certain obvious realities even from those sanctioned to deal with them . Takeasymmetrical warfare , the gray zone , and VUCA . Unless you spend time in Department of Defense and military circles , you probably haven ’ t heard of these . Asymmetrical warfare suggests that the enemy fights unfairly and in a thoroughly cowardly fashion , regularly lurking behind and mixing with civilians ( “ hostages ” ) , because that enemy doesn ’ t have the moxie to don uniforms and stand toe-to-toe in a “ kinetic ” smack-down with U.S. troops . As a result , of course , the U.S. must be prepared for underhanded tactics and devious weaponry , including ambushes and IEDs ( improvised explosive devices , or roadside bombs ) , as well as a range of other “ unconventional ” tactics now all too familiar in a world plagued by violent attacks against “ soft ” targets ( aka civilians ) . It must also be prepared to engage an enemy mixed in with a civilian population and so brace itself for the inevitable collateral damage that is now so much the essence of American war . That groups like the Islamic State ( ISIS ) would choose to fight “ asymmetrically ” should hardly come as a surprise to anyone who ’ s ever been confronted by a much bigger and better armed kid in a schoolyard . Misdirection , a sucker punch , a slingshot , even running away to fight another day are “ asymmetrical ” approaches that are sensible indeed for any outgunned and overmatched opponent . The term is a truism , nothing more , when it comes to the realities of our world . It is , however , a useful way of framing matters for those in the Pentagon and the military who don ’ t want to think seriously about the grim course of action , focused significantly on civilian populations , they are pursuing , which often instills anger and the urge for revenge in such populations and so , in the end , runs at cross purposes to stated U.S. aims . The “ gray zone ” is a fuzzy term used in military circles to describe the perplexing nature of lower-level conflicts , often involving non-state actors , that don ’ t qualify as full-fledged wars . These are often fought using non-traditional weapons and tactics ranging from cyber attacks to the propagandizing of potential terror recruits via social media . This “ zone ” is unnerving to Pentagon types in part because the vast majority of the Pentagon ’ s funding goes to conventional weaponry that ’ s as subtle as a sledgehammer : big-ticket items like aircraft carriers , nuclear submarines , main battle tanks , strategic bombers , and wildly expensive multi-role aircraft such as the F-35 ( now estimated to cost roughly $ 1.4 trillion through its lifecycle ) . Much of this weaponry is “ too big to fail ” in the funding wars in Washington , but regularly fails in the field precisely because it ’ s too big to be used effectively against the latest crop of evasive enemies . Hence , that irresolvable gray zone which plagues America ’ s defense planners and operatives . The question the gray zone both raises and obscures is : Why has the U.S. done so poorly when , by its own definition , it remains the biggest , baddest superpower around , the one that outspends its non-state enemies by a factor so large it can ’ t even be calculated ? Keep in mind , for instance , that the 9/11 attacks on American soil were estimated to have cost Osama bin Laden at most a half-million dollars . Multiply that by 400 and you can buy one “ made in America ” F-35 jet fighter . If the gray zone offers little help clarifying America ’ s military dilemmas , what about VUCA ? It ’ s an acronym for volatile , uncertain , complex , and ambiguous , which is meant to describe our post-9/11 world . Of course , there ’ s nothing like an acronym to take the sting out of any world . But as an historian who has read a lot of history books , let me confess that , to the best of my knowledge , the world has always been , is now , and will always be VUCA . For any future historian of the Pentagon ’ s language , let me sum things up this way : instead of honest talk about war in all its ugliness and uncertainty , military professionals of our era have tended to substitute buzz words , catchphrases , and acronyms . It ’ s a way of muddying the water . It allows the world of war to tumble on without serious challenge , which is why it ’ s been so useful in these years to speak of , say , COIN ( Counterinsurgency ) or 4GW ( Fourth-Generation Warfare ) . Much like its most recent enthusiast , General David Petraeus , COIN has once again lost favor in the military , but Fourth-Generation Warfare is still riding high and sounds so refreshingly forward-looking , not like the stale Vietnam-era wine in a post-9/11 bottle that it is . In reality , it ’ s another iteration of insurgency and COIN mixed and matched with Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong ’ s people 's war . To prevail in places like Afghanistan , so 4GW thinkers suggest , one needs to win hearts and minds -- yes , that classic phrase of defeat in Vietnam -- while securing and protecting ( a definite COINage ) the people against insurgents and terrorists . In other words , we ’ re talking about an acronym that immediately begins to congeal if you use older words to describe it like “ pacification ” and “ nation-building. ” The latest 4GW jargon may not help win wars , but it does sometimes win healthy research grants from the government . The fact is that trendy acronyms and snappy buzz words have a way of limiting genuine thinking on war . If America is to win ( or , far better , avoid ) future wars , its war professionals need to look more honestly at that phenomenon in all of its dimensions . So , too , do the American people , for it ’ s in their name that such wars are allegedly waged . These days , Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter often resorts to cancer imagery when describing the Islamic state . `` Parent tumor '' is an image he especially favors -- that is , terrorism as a cancer that America ’ s militarized surgeons need to attack and destroy before it metastasizes and has “ children. ” ( Think of the ISIS franchises in Libya , where the organization has recently doubled in size , Afghanistan , and Yemen . ) Hence the proliferation of “ surgical strikes ” by drones and similarly “ surgical ” Special Ops raids , both of which you could think of as America ’ s equivalent of white blood cells in its war on the cancer of terrorism . But is terrorism really a civilizational cancer that can be “ cured ” via the most aggressive “ kinetic ” treatments ? Can the U.S. render the world cancer-free ? For that ’ s what Carter ’ s language implies . And how does one measure “ progress ” in a “ war ” on the cancer of ISIS ? Indeed , from an outsider ’ s perspective , the proliferation of U.S. military bases around the world ( there are now roughly 800 ) , as well as of drone strikes , Special Ops raids , and massive weapons exports might have a cancerous look to them . In other words , what constitutes a “ cancer ” depends on one ’ s perspective -- and perhaps one ’ s definition of world “ health , ” too . The very notion of progress in America ’ s recent wars is one that a colleague , Michael Murry , recently critiqued . A U.S. Navy Vietnam War Veteran , he wrote me that , for his favorite military euphemism , “ I have to go with ‘ progress ’ as incessantly chanted by the American military brass in Iraq and Afghanistan… “ We go on hearing about 14 years of ‘ progress ’ which , to hear our generals tell it , would vanish in an instant should the United States withdraw its forces and let the locals and their neighbors sort things out . Since when do ‘ fragile gains ’ equate to ‘ progress ’ ? Who in their right mind would invest rivers of blood and trillions of dollars in ‘ fragility ’ ? Now that I think of it , we also have the euphemistic expression of ‘ drawdown ’ substituting for ‘ withdrawal ’ which in turn substitutes for ‘ retreat. ’ The U.S. military and the civilian government it has browbeaten into hapless acquiescence simply can not face the truth of their monumental failures and so must continually bastardize our language in a losing -- almost comical -- attempt to stay one linguistic step ahead of the truth . ” Progress , as Murry notes , basically means nothing when such “ gains , ” in the words of David Petraeus during the surge months in Iraq in 2007 , are both “ fragile ” and “ reversible. ” Indeed , Petraeus repeated the same two words in 2011 to describe similar U.S. “ progress ” in Afghanistan , and today it couldn ’ t be clearer just how much “ progress ” was truly made there . Isn ’ t it time for government officials to stop banging the drums of war talk in favor of “ progress ” when none exists ? Think , for instance , of the American-trained ( and now re-trained ) Iraqi security forces . Each year U.S. officials swear that the Iraqi military is getting ever closer to combat readiness , but much like one of Zeno ’ s paradoxes , the half-steps that military takes under American tutelage never seem to get it into fighting shape . Progress , eternally touted , seems always to lead to regress , eternally explained away , as that army regularly underperforms or its units simply collapse , often abandoning their American-supplied weaponry to the enemy . Here we are , 12 years after the U.S. began training the Iraqi military and once again it seems to be cratering , this time while supposedly on the road to retaking Iraq ’ s second largest city , Mosul , from its Islamic State occupiers . Progress , anyone ? In short , the dishonesty of the words the U.S. military regularly wields illustrates the dishonesty of its never-ending wars . After so many years of failure and frustration , of wars that aren ’ t won and terrorist movements that only seem to spread as its leaders are knocked off , isn ’ t it past time for Americans to ditch phrases like “ collateral damage , ” “ enemy noncombatant , ” “ no-fly zone ” ( or even worse , “ safe zone ” ) , and “ surgical strike ” and adopt a language , however grim , that accurately describes the military realities of this era ? Words matter , especially words about war . So as a change of pace , instead of the usual bloodless euphemisms and vapid acronyms , perhaps the U.S. government could tell the shocking and awful truth to the American people in plain language about the realities and dangers of never-ending war .

The last days of Washington, D.C.: America can no longer mask its steep decline No matter how relentlessly we couch our military defeats, all empirical evidence point to a single conclusion The dishonesty of words illustrates the dishonesty of America’s wars. Since 9/11, can there be any doubt that the public has become numb to the euphemisms that regularly accompany U.S. troops, drones, and CIA operatives into Washington’s imperial conflicts across the Greater Middle East and Africa? Such euphemisms are meant to take the sting out of America’s wars back home. Many of these words and phrases are already so well known and well worn that no one thinks twice about them anymore. Advertisement: Here are just a few: collateral damage for killed and wounded civilians (a term used regularly since the First Gulf War of 1990-1991). Enhanced interrogation techniques for torture, a term adopted with vigor by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the rest of their administration (“techniques” that were actually demonstrated in the White House). Extraordinary rendition for CIA kidnappings of terror suspects off global streets or from remote badlands, often followed by the employment of enhanced interrogation techniques at U.S. black sites or other foreign hellholes. Detainees for prisoners and detention camp for prison (or, in some cases, more honestly, concentration camp), used to describe Guantánamo (Gitmo), among other places established offshore of American justice. Targeted killings for presidentially ordered drone assassinations. Boots on the ground for yet another deployment of “our” troops (and not just their boots) in harm’s way. Even the Bush administration’s Global War on Terror, its label for an attempt to transform the Greater Middle East into a Pax Americana, would be redubbed in the Obama years overseas contingency operations (before any attempt at labeling was dropped for a no-name war pursued across major swathes of the planet). As euphemisms were deployed to cloak that war’s bitter and brutal realities, over-the-top honorifics were assigned to America’s embattled role in the world. Exceptional, indispensable, and greatest have been the three words most commonly used by presidents, politicians, and the gung ho to describe this country. Once upon a time, if Americans thought this way, they felt no need to have their presidents and presidential candidates actually say so -- such was the confidence of the golden age of American power. So consider the constant redeployment of these terms a small measure of America’s growing defensiveness about itself, its sense of doubt and decline rather than strength and confidence. To what end this concerted assault on the words we use? In George Orwell’s classic 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language,” he noted that his era’s equivalents for “collateral damage” were “needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.” Obviously, not much has changed in the intervening seven decades. And this is, as Orwell intuited, a dangerous way to go. Cloaking violent, even murderous actions in anodyne language might help a few doubting functionaries sleep easier at night, but it should make the rest of us profoundly uneasy. Advertisement: The more American leaders and officials -- and the media that quotes them endlessly -- employ such euphemisms to cloak harsh realities, the more they ensure that such harshness will endure; indeed, that it is likely to grow harsher and more pernicious as we continue to settle into a world of euphemistic thinking. The Emptiness of Acronyms In the future, some linguist or lexicographer will doubtless compile a dictionary of perpetual war and perhaps (since they may be linked) imperial decline, focusing on the grim processes and versions of failure language can cloak. It would undoubtedly explore how certain words and rhetorical devices were used in twenty-first-century America to obscure the heavy burdens that war placed on the country, even as they facilitated its continuingfailed conflicts. It would obviously include classic examples like surge, used in both Iraq and Afghanistan to obscure the way our government rushed extra troops into a battle zone in a moment of failure only ensuring the extension of that failure, and the now-classic phrase shock and awe that obscured the reality of a massive air strike on Baghdad that resulted in the deaths of dozens of civilians (“collateral damage”), but not the “decapitation” of a hated regime. Advertisement: Don’t think, however, that the language of twenty-first-century American war was only meant to lull the public. Less familiar words and terms continue to be used within the military not to clarify tasks at hand but to obscure certain obvious realities even from those sanctioned to deal with them. Takeasymmetrical warfare, the gray zone, and VUCA. Unless you spend time in Department of Defense and military circles, you probably haven’t heard of these. Asymmetrical warfare suggests that the enemy fights unfairly and in a thoroughly cowardly fashion, regularly lurking behind and mixing with civilians (“hostages”), because that enemy doesn’t have the moxie to don uniforms and stand toe-to-toe in a “kinetic” smack-down with U.S. troops. As a result, of course, the U.S. must be prepared for underhanded tactics and devious weaponry, including ambushes and IEDs (improvised explosive devices, or roadside bombs), as well as a range of other “unconventional” tactics now all too familiar in a world plagued by violent attacks against “soft” targets (aka civilians). It must also be prepared to engage an enemy mixed in with a civilian population and so brace itself for the inevitable collateral damage that is now so much the essence of American war. Advertisement: That groups like the Islamic State (ISIS) would choose to fight “asymmetrically” should hardly come as a surprise to anyone who’s ever been confronted by a much bigger and better armed kid in a schoolyard. Misdirection, a sucker punch, a slingshot, even running away to fight another day are “asymmetrical” approaches that are sensible indeed for any outgunned and overmatched opponent. The term is a truism, nothing more, when it comes to the realities of our world. It is, however, a useful way of framing matters for those in the Pentagon and the military who don’t want to think seriously about the grim course of action, focused significantly on civilian populations, they are pursuing, which often instills anger and the urge for revenge in such populations and so, in the end, runs at cross purposes to stated U.S. aims. The “gray zone” is a fuzzy term used in military circles to describe the perplexing nature of lower-level conflicts, often involving non-state actors, that don’t qualify as full-fledged wars. These are often fought using non-traditional weapons and tactics ranging from cyber attacks to the propagandizing of potential terror recruits via social media. This “zone” is unnerving to Pentagon types in part because the vast majority of the Pentagon’s funding goes to conventional weaponry that’s as subtle as a sledgehammer: big-ticket items like aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, main battle tanks, strategic bombers, and wildly expensive multi-role aircraft such as the F-35 (now estimated to cost roughly $1.4 trillion through its lifecycle). Much of this weaponry is “too big to fail” in the funding wars in Washington, but regularly fails in the field precisely because it’s too big to be used effectively against the latest crop of evasive enemies. Hence, that irresolvable gray zone which plagues America’s defense planners and operatives. The question the gray zone both raises and obscures is: Why has the U.S. done so poorly when, by its own definition, it remains the biggest, baddest superpower around, the one that outspends its non-state enemies by a factor so large it can’t even be calculated? Keep in mind, for instance, that the 9/11 attacks on American soil were estimated to have cost Osama bin Laden at most a half-million dollars. Multiply that by 400 and you can buy one “made in America” F-35 jet fighter. Advertisement: If the gray zone offers little help clarifying America’s military dilemmas, what about VUCA? It’s an acronym for volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, which is meant to describe our post-9/11 world. Of course, there’s nothing like an acronym to take the sting out of any world. But as an historian who has read a lot of history books, let me confess that, to the best of my knowledge, the world has always been, is now, and will always be VUCA. For any future historian of the Pentagon’s language, let me sum things up this way: instead of honest talk about war in all its ugliness and uncertainty, military professionals of our era have tended to substitute buzz words, catchphrases, and acronyms. It’s a way of muddying the water. It allows the world of war to tumble on without serious challenge, which is why it’s been so useful in these years to speak of, say, COIN (Counterinsurgency) or 4GW(Fourth-Generation Warfare). Much like its most recent enthusiast, General David Petraeus, COIN has once again lost favor in the military, but Fourth-Generation Warfare is still riding high and sounds so refreshingly forward-looking, not like the stale Vietnam-era wine in a post-9/11 bottle that it is. In reality, it’s another iteration of insurgency and COIN mixed and matched with Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong’s people's war. To prevail in places like Afghanistan, so 4GW thinkers suggest, one needs to win hearts and minds -- yes, that classic phrase of defeat in Vietnam -- while securing and protecting (a definite COINage) the people against insurgents and terrorists. In other words, we’re talking about an acronym that immediately begins to congeal if you use older words to describe it like “pacification” and “nation-building.” The latest 4GW jargon may not help win wars, but it does sometimes win healthy research grants from the government. Advertisement: The fact is that trendy acronyms and snappy buzz words have a way of limiting genuine thinking on war. If America is to win (or, far better, avoid) future wars, its war professionals need to look more honestly at that phenomenon in all of its dimensions. So, too, do the American people, for it’s in their name that such wars are allegedly waged. The Truth About “Progress” in America’s Wars These days, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter often resorts to cancer imagery when describing the Islamic state. "Parent tumor" is an image he especially favors -- that is, terrorism as a cancer that America’s militarized surgeons need to attack and destroy before it metastasizes and has “children.” (Think of the ISIS franchises in Libya, where the organization has recently doubled in size, Afghanistan, and Yemen.) Hence the proliferation of “surgical strikes” by drones and similarly “surgical” Special Ops raids, both of which you could think of as America’s equivalent of white blood cells in its war on the cancer of terrorism. But is terrorism really a civilizational cancer that can be “cured” via the most aggressive “kinetic” treatments? Can the U.S. render the world cancer-free? For that’s what Carter’s language implies. And how does one measure “progress” in a “war” on the cancer of ISIS? Indeed, from an outsider’s perspective, the proliferation of U.S. military bases around the world (there are now roughly 800), as well as of drone strikes, Special Ops raids, and massive weapons exports might have a cancerous look to them. In other words, what constitutes a “cancer” depends on one’s perspective -- and perhaps one’s definition of world “health,” too. Advertisement: The very notion of progress in America’s recent wars is one that a colleague, Michael Murry, recently critiqued. A U.S. Navy Vietnam War Veteran, he wrote me that, for his favorite military euphemism, “I have to go with ‘progress’ as incessantly chanted by the American military brass in Iraq and Afghanistan… “We go on hearing about 14 years of ‘progress’ which, to hear our generals tell it, would vanish in an instant should the United States withdraw its forces and let the locals and their neighbors sort things out. Since when do ‘fragile gains’ equate to ‘progress’? Who in their right mind would invest rivers of blood and trillions of dollars in ‘fragility’? Now that I think of it, we also have the euphemistic expression of ‘drawdown’ substituting for ‘withdrawal’ which in turn substitutes for ‘retreat.’ The U.S. military and the civilian government it has browbeaten into hapless acquiescence simply cannot face the truth of their monumental failures and so must continually bastardize our language in a losing -- almost comical -- attempt to stay one linguistic step ahead of the truth.” Progress, as Murry notes, basically means nothing when such “gains,” in the words of David Petraeus during the surge months in Iraq in 2007, are both “fragile” and “reversible.” Indeed, Petraeus repeated the same two words in 2011 to describe similar U.S. “progress” in Afghanistan, and today it couldn’t be clearer just how much “progress” was truly made there. Isn’t it time for government officials to stop banging the drums of war talk in favor of “progress” when none exists? Think, for instance, of the American-trained (and now re-trained) Iraqi security forces. Each year U.S. officials swear that the Iraqi military is getting ever closer to combat readiness, but much like one of Zeno’s paradoxes, the half-steps that military takes under American tutelage never seem to get it into fighting shape. Progress, eternally touted, seems always to lead to regress, eternally explained away, as that army regularly underperforms or its units simply collapse, often abandoning their American-supplied weaponry to the enemy. Here we are, 12 years after the U.S. began training the Iraqi military and once again it seems to be cratering, this time while supposedly on the road to retaking Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul, from its Islamic State occupiers. Progress, anyone? Advertisement: In short, the dishonesty of the words the U.S. military regularly wields illustrates the dishonesty of its never-ending wars. After so many years of failure and frustration, of wars that aren’t won and terrorist movements that only seem to spread as its leaders are knocked off, isn’t it past time for Americans to ditch phrases like “collateral damage,” “enemy noncombatant,” “no-fly zone” (or even worse, “safe zone”), and “surgical strike” and adopt a language, however grim, that accurately describes the military realities of this era? Words matter, especially words about war. So as a change of pace, instead of the usual bloodless euphemisms and vapid acronyms, perhaps the U.S. government could tell the shocking and awful truth to the American people in plain language about the realities and dangers of never-ending war.

www.salon.com

left

FIIQaNyrOxtUP43h

test

5mat1kkATEvqzAgE

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/21/not_so_lame_duck_president_cajoles_trolls_the_gop/

Obama trolls the GOP: How a not-so-lame-duck president left them bumbling

2015-01-21

Joan Walsh

President Obama delivered his second to last State of the Union address with an epic combination of sweet-talking and trash-talking , cajoling and trolling . He brought us the story of Rebekah and Ben Erler , who got through some economic troubles with their family intact . “ It is amazing , ” Rebekah wrote the president , “ what you can bounce back from when you have to…we are a strong , tight-knit family who has made it through some very , very hard times. ” You knew what was coming : Yes , Americans , we too are “ a strong , tight-knit family who has made it through some very , very hard times . ” Or more specifically , we ’ re a strong , tight-knit family whose Republican relatives have been wrong on Russia and Iraq , clueless about climate change and can ’ t even get right with the pope on Cuba . When he commented , `` I have no more campaigns to run , ” and Republicans applauded , Obama shot back : “ I know , because I ’ ve won both of them . ” My personal favorite Obama taunt came during his call for a minimum wage hike . “ To everyone in this Congress who still refuses to raise the minimum wage , I say this : If you truly believe you could work full-time and support a family on less than $ 15,000 a year , go try it . If not , vote to give millions of the hardest-working people in America a raise . ” Anyone who tuned in expecting a conciliatory lame duck president was disappointed . Since almost all of the president ’ s SOTU proposals were available for mass consumption days before the address , the night ’ s big questions involved theater , much of which was provided by Obama himself . But it was fun to watch Republicans frown at so many ideas they once supported . While much of the media framed Obama ’ s plan as a radical break from his first six years , that ’ s silly . I ’ m happy with what the president outlined , but it ’ s essential to say that aside from his community college proposal , he ’ s using mostly old-fashioned GOP ideas , though they 're DOA in this Congress . He ’ s working through the tax code -- providing expanded child tax credits , child care and higher education tax credits and second earner credits -- not providing new social programs . Remember , that was the GOP response to the Great Society : Government is too big ; why not let Americans keep more of their hard earned cash ? Clearly Obama agrees . The plan is pro-family , pro-child , pro-work -- and most of it only goes to the middle class , not the poor ( the new credits are n't refundable for low-income people who do n't pay taxes ) . Specifically , it borrows tax proposals from Republicans like former Rep. Dave Camp and Paul Ryan and Sen. Mike Lee . It brings capital gains taxes back to the level of the GOP ’ s favorite president , Ronald Reagan . You ’ re not hearing much of that from the media . Bill O'Reilly trashed it as Obama ’ s “ Robin Hood ” plan , but you can find “ Robin Hood ” headlines on CNN , Politico and The Hill as well . Another popular comparison was with the French economist who ’ s done the most to chart rising inequality , Thomas Piketty . Matt O ’ Brien in the Washington Post called it Obama ’ s “ Piketty moment ; ” the New York Times found “ shades of Piketty ” in the plan ; the Atlantic said the president “ owes a tip of the cap ” to Piketty . A tip of the cap , maybe . But Piketty himself thinks the top marginal tax rate should be at least 80 percent . Obama doesn ’ t propose anything close to that . Nor does he suggest closing the carried interest loophole or imposing a Wall Street transaction tax , an idea backed by Rep. Chris Van Hollen and other House Democrats . The Bush tax cuts remain standing , for all but the top 2 percent . I don ’ t say any of this to criticize the president ’ s plans , but to chide the media for acting like they ’ re socialism . But even if he doesn ’ t go as far as Piketty or most progressives want , there ’ s plenty in what Obama proposed that ’ s great , and targeted at reversing the massive accumulation of wealth for the top 1 percent ( and particularly , the top .01 percent ) . It will stop folks like Mitt Romney from using IRAs as tax shelters . It will keep the same folks from passing along their stock portfolio to their children without paying capital gains taxes . Maybe most important , he framed his proposals in keeping with the march of American progress that seemed to stop 40 years ago . At every moment of economic change throughout our history , this country has taken bold action to adapt to new circumstances , and to make sure everyone gets a fair shot . We set up worker protections , Social Security , Medicare , and Medicaid to protect ourselves from the harshest adversity . We gave our citizens schools and colleges , infrastructure and the internet – tools they needed to go as far as their effort will take them . He put his community college proposal in that context , and he was right to do so . There were things to quibble with for progressives . He pitched his new trade plans as protecting workers , when unions certainly don ’ t see it that way . He barely mentioned the national agitation over excessive police use of force . He acknowledged differences of opinion on abortion , but didn ’ t mention that the GOP ’ s first major action now that it controls Congress is passing a post-20-week abortion ban ( which he has promised to veto ) . But the president made clear he ’ s going to enjoy his fourth quarter . It took five Republicans to reply this time , and none of them came close .

President Obama delivered his second to last State of the Union address with an epic combination of sweet-talking and trash-talking, cajoling and trolling. He brought us the story of Rebekah and Ben Erler, who got through some economic troubles with their family intact. “It is amazing,” Rebekah wrote the president, “what you can bounce back from when you have to…we are a strong, tight-knit family who has made it through some very, very hard times.” You knew what was coming: Yes, Americans, we too are “a strong, tight-knit family who has made it through some very, very hard times.” Or more specifically, we’re a strong, tight-knit family whose Republican relatives have been wrong on Russia and Iraq, clueless about climate change and can’t even get right with the pope on Cuba. When he commented, "I have no more campaigns to run,” and Republicans applauded, Obama shot back: “I know, because I’ve won both of them.” Advertisement: My personal favorite Obama taunt came during his call for a minimum wage hike. “To everyone in this Congress who still refuses to raise the minimum wage, I say this: If you truly believe you could work full-time and support a family on less than $15,000 a year, go try it. If not, vote to give millions of the hardest-working people in America a raise.” Anyone who tuned in expecting a conciliatory lame duck president was disappointed. Since almost all of the president’s SOTU proposals were available for mass consumption days before the address, the night’s big questions involved theater, much of which was provided by Obama himself. But it was fun to watch Republicans frown at so many ideas they once supported. While much of the media framed Obama’s plan as a radical break from his first six years, that’s silly. I’m happy with what the president outlined, but it’s essential to say that aside from his community college proposal, he’s using mostly old-fashioned GOP ideas, though they're DOA in this Congress. Advertisement: He’s working through the tax code -- providing expanded child tax credits, child care and higher education tax credits and second earner credits -- not providing new social programs. Remember, that was the GOP response to the Great Society: Government is too big; why not let Americans keep more of their hard earned cash? Clearly Obama agrees. The plan is pro-family, pro-child, pro-work -- and most of it only goes to the middle class, not the poor (the new credits aren't refundable for low-income people who don't pay taxes). Specifically, it borrows tax proposals from Republicans like former Rep. Dave Camp and Paul Ryan and Sen. Mike Lee. It brings capital gains taxes back to the level of the GOP’s favorite president, Ronald Reagan. You’re not hearing much of that from the media. Bill O'Reilly trashed it as Obama’s “Robin Hood” plan, but you can find “Robin Hood” headlines on CNN, Politico and The Hill as well. Another popular comparison was with the French economist who’s done the most to chart rising inequality, Thomas Piketty. Matt O’Brien in the Washington Post called it Obama’s “Piketty moment;” the New York Times found “shades of Piketty” in the plan; the Atlantic said the president “owes a tip of the cap” to Piketty. A tip of the cap, maybe. But Piketty himself thinks the top marginal tax rate should be at least 80 percent. Obama doesn’t propose anything close to that. Nor does he suggest closing the carried interest loophole or imposing a Wall Street transaction tax, an idea backed by Rep. Chris Van Hollen and other House Democrats. The Bush tax cuts remain standing, for all but the top 2 percent. I don’t say any of this to criticize the president’s plans, but to chide the media for acting like they’re socialism. Advertisement: But even if he doesn’t go as far as Piketty or most progressives want, there’s plenty in what Obama proposed that’s great, and targeted at reversing the massive accumulation of wealth for the top 1 percent (and particularly, the top .01 percent). It will stop folks like Mitt Romney from using IRAs as tax shelters. It will keep the same folks from passing along their stock portfolio to their children without paying capital gains taxes. Maybe most important, he framed his proposals in keeping with the march of American progress that seemed to stop 40 years ago. Advertisement: At every moment of economic change throughout our history, this country has taken bold action to adapt to new circumstances, and to make sure everyone gets a fair shot. We set up worker protections, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to protect ourselves from the harshest adversity. We gave our citizens schools and colleges, infrastructure and the internet – tools they needed to go as far as their effort will take them. He put his community college proposal in that context, and he was right to do so. There were things to quibble with for progressives. He pitched his new trade plans as protecting workers, when unions certainly don’t see it that way. He barely mentioned the national agitation over excessive police use of force. He acknowledged differences of opinion on abortion, but didn’t mention that the GOP’s first major action now that it controls Congress is passing a post-20-week abortion ban (which he has promised to veto). But the president made clear he’s going to enjoy his fourth quarter. It took five Republicans to reply this time, and none of them came close.

www.salon.com

left

5mat1kkATEvqzAgE

test

3JzQBXnIxcEhXGsu

race_and_racism

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/07/15/doctors-without-borders-accused-institutional-racism-employees/

Doctors Without Borders Accused of ‘Institutional Racism’ by Employees

2020-07-15

Chris Tomlinson

Médecins Sans Frontières ( Doctors Without Borders/MSF ) has been accused of reinforcing “ colonialism and white supremacy ” by 1,000 current and former employees in a letter to the NGO ’ s management . The signatories have demanded an investigation into the activities of the NGO , which provides medical services around the globe and also previously engaged in transporting migrants across the Mediterranean from North Africa . Several prominent members of the NGO spoke out about the group ’ s perceived faults including board members in the UK and in southern Africa who signed the letter that called on the group to get rid of “ decades of power and paternalism ” , Franceinfo reports . Other signatories to the letter denounced a so-called “ white saviour ” mentality among members of the organisation . According to The Guardian , the letter came in response to a statement released by the Italian branch of MSF that stated members of the group should talk about how “ all lives matter ” , with some seeing the phrase as conflicting with the Black Lives Matter movement . Doctors Without Borders Tells Germany to Take Thousands of Migrants from Libya https : //t.co/RyHP30dE5W — Breitbart London ( @ BreitbartLondon ) July 20 , 2019 Claudia Lodesani , Italy ’ s MSF president , later apologised for the statement saying that she and the Italian branch “ fully support and stand with the BLM movement and that , like the whole of MSF , we condemn racism and all discrimination ” . Dr Christos Christou , international president of MSF , said he welcomed the letter . Dr Christou said : “ Our priority is to shift the decision-making closer to where the needs are , and involving the patients and community in designing strategies of intervention . To shrink the decision-making power of Europe and redistribute it to the rest of the world . ” MSF halted its partnership with the French migrant transport NGO SOS Méditerranée in April . But the latter NGO and its ship , the Ocean Viking , have resumed operations in recent weeks . Earlier this month , the Ocean Viking picked up around 180 migrants but was initially denied access to ports in Italy and Malta . The ship was later granted access to a port in Italy after unrest among the migrants on board was reported , including several threats to the crew and suicide attempts by migrants .

Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders/MSF) has been accused of reinforcing “colonialism and white supremacy” by 1,000 current and former employees in a letter to the NGO’s management. The signatories have demanded an investigation into the activities of the NGO, which provides medical services around the globe and also previously engaged in transporting migrants across the Mediterranean from North Africa. Several prominent members of the NGO spoke out about the group’s perceived faults including board members in the UK and in southern Africa who signed the letter that called on the group to get rid of “decades of power and paternalism”, Franceinfo reports. Other signatories to the letter denounced a so-called “white saviour” mentality among members of the organisation. According to The Guardian, the letter came in response to a statement released by the Italian branch of MSF that stated members of the group should talk about how “all lives matter”, with some seeing the phrase as conflicting with the Black Lives Matter movement. Doctors Without Borders Tells Germany to Take Thousands of Migrants from Libya https://t.co/RyHP30dE5W — Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) July 20, 2019 Claudia Lodesani, Italy’s MSF president, later apologised for the statement saying that she and the Italian branch “fully support and stand with the BLM movement and that, like the whole of MSF, we condemn racism and all discrimination”. Dr Christos Christou, international president of MSF, said he welcomed the letter. Dr Christou said: “Our priority is to shift the decision-making closer to where the needs are, and involving the patients and community in designing strategies of intervention. To shrink the decision-making power of Europe and redistribute it to the rest of the world.” MSF halted its partnership with the French migrant transport NGO SOS Méditerranée in April. But the latter NGO and its ship, the Ocean Viking, have resumed operations in recent weeks. Earlier this month, the Ocean Viking picked up around 180 migrants but was initially denied access to ports in Italy and Malta. The ship was later granted access to a port in Italy after unrest among the migrants on board was reported, including several threats to the crew and suicide attempts by migrants.

www.breitbart.com

right

3JzQBXnIxcEhXGsu

test

yBsPieoGNOdCo40m

palestine

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/14/the_religious_rights_no_1_enemy_what_pope_francis_recognition_of_palestine_really_means/

The religious right's No. 1 enemy: What Pope Francis' recognition of Palestine really means

2015-05-14

Patricia Miller

News that the Vatican has officially recognized Palestinian statehood in a new treaty may have less of an impact on the relationship between the Holy See and Palestine than on the already fraught relationship between Pope Francis and an increasingly disgruntled Catholic and evangelical right here in the U.S . That ’ s because Rome ’ s diplomatic recognition of Palestine , while made official on Wednesday , has been proceeding quietly behind the scenes for some time . The Vatican has referred to the “ state of Palestine ” unofficially since the UN recognized the Palestinian state in 2012 . “ We have recognized the State of Palestine ever since it was given recognition by the United Nations and it is already listed as the State of Palestine in our official yearbook , '' said Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi . The treaty itself , which is expected to be signed shortly , “ deals with essential aspects of the life and activity of the Catholic Church in Palestine , ” such as the status of Catholic Church properties and charities . The larger significance of the Vatican ’ s move is the signal it sends to the international community about the recognition of Palestinian statehood . Not surprisingly , the fact that the Vatican appears to be putting its moral authority—and Pope Francis ’ immense personal popularity—behind recognition of the Palestinian state didn ’ t sit well with backers of Israel . A senior Israeli official told the New York Times the move would damage the stalled Middle East peace process . David Harris , head of the American Jewish Committee , called the move `` unhelpful , '' saying , “ Formal Vatican recognition of Palestine , a state that , in reality , does not yet exist , is a regrettable move , counterproductive to all who seek true peace between Israel and the Palestinians . ” But equally likely to be disgruntled are conservative Catholics and evangelicals , many of whom are strong supporters of Israel because of what they believe will be its pivotal role in biblical end-times and oppose the recognition of Palestinian statehood and the changing of any borders in the region that that would likely entail . These religious conservatives have already seen Pope Francis tip the scale in international relations—away from their preferred direction—when he brokered a deal to restore diplomatic relations between the U.S. and still officially communist Cuba . He ’ s also trashed free-market capitalism , decrying the “ idolatry of money ” and trickle-down economics . And his soon-to-be released encyclical on the environment is likely to frame tackling climate change in terms of a deep moral responsibility to future generations . Now , conservatives will feel they ’ ve lost the support of the Vatican on another issue that has transcended its actual particulars to become a touchstone of conservative identity , potentially furthering the rift that has grown between both fiscal and social religious conservatives and Francis , who they hint has no authority to intervene so prominently in non-doctrinal matters . But the reality of the Vatican ’ s position on Palestine is more complicated . As John Allen notes in Crux , like Francis ’ pronouncements on capitalism and the environment , people assume a break from tradition has occurred only because they weren ’ t paying attention to the papacy before rock star Francis . In reality , it is actually a continuation of long-held papal positions . The Vatican ’ s support for Palestine isn ’ t particularly new . When Pope Benedict XVI travelled to the Middle East in 2009 , he pledged support for Palestinian statehood . St. John Paul II made similar statements many times , and was sufficiently fond of former PLO leader Yasser Arafat that he had a set of the Stations of the Cross made out of ivory , presented to him by Arafat as a gift , installed in a small chapel off a Vatican chamber . It ’ s more accurate to view this particular step in the Vatican ’ s relationship with Palestine both as a continuation of the Holy See ’ s long-standing support for Palestinian statehood and as an expression of Francis ’ overriding interest in fostering international peace—and his unique ability and willingness to put his finger on the scales to do so . When Francis toured the Holy Lands last year , he made a highly symbolic stop at the wall dividing Bethlehem from Israel and later invited Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli President Shimon Peres to a prayer summit at the Vatican , where he talked about the “ courage to take concrete steps to achieve peace . ” And it ’ s likely no coincidence that the new treaty with the Palestinian state was announced just days before Francis is set to canonize two Palestinian nuns , Marie Alphonsine Ghattas of Jerusalem and Mariam Bawardy of Galilee , who will become the first Palestinian Arab saints in a Vatican ceremony attended by Abbas . The canonizations , like the Vatican ’ s relationship with Palestine , have been underway long before Francis . But he will use it highlight both the importance of Christians living in Palestine and the need for fairness for the Palestinian people in a way that only a rock star can .

News that the Vatican has officially recognized Palestinian statehood in a new treaty may have less of an impact on the relationship between the Holy See and Palestine than on the already fraught relationship between Pope Francis and an increasingly disgruntled Catholic and evangelical right here in the U.S. That’s because Rome’s diplomatic recognition of Palestine, while made official on Wednesday, has been proceeding quietly behind the scenes for some time. The Vatican has referred to the “state of Palestine” unofficially since the UN recognized the Palestinian state in 2012. “We have recognized the State of Palestine ever since it was given recognition by the United Nations and it is already listed as the State of Palestine in our official yearbook," said Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi. Advertisement: The treaty itself, which is expected to be signed shortly, “deals with essential aspects of the life and activity of the Catholic Church in Palestine,” such as the status of Catholic Church properties and charities. The larger significance of the Vatican’s move is the signal it sends to the international community about the recognition of Palestinian statehood. Not surprisingly, the fact that the Vatican appears to be putting its moral authority—and Pope Francis’ immense personal popularity—behind recognition of the Palestinian state didn’t sit well with backers of Israel. A senior Israeli official told the New York Times the move would damage the stalled Middle East peace process. David Harris, head of the American Jewish Committee, called the move "unhelpful," saying, “Formal Vatican recognition of Palestine, a state that, in reality, does not yet exist, is a regrettable move, counterproductive to all who seek true peace between Israel and the Palestinians.” Advertisement: But equally likely to be disgruntled are conservative Catholics and evangelicals, many of whom are strong supporters of Israel because of what they believe will be its pivotal role in biblical end-times and oppose the recognition of Palestinian statehood and the changing of any borders in the region that that would likely entail. These religious conservatives have already seen Pope Francis tip the scale in international relations—away from their preferred direction—when he brokered a deal to restore diplomatic relations between the U.S. and still officially communist Cuba. He’s also trashed free-market capitalism, decrying the “idolatry of money” and trickle-down economics. And his soon-to-be released encyclical on the environment is likely to frame tackling climate change in terms of a deep moral responsibility to future generations. Now, conservatives will feel they’ve lost the support of the Vatican on another issue that has transcended its actual particulars to become a touchstone of conservative identity, potentially furthering the rift that has grown between both fiscal and social religious conservatives and Francis, who they hint has no authority to intervene so prominently in non-doctrinal matters. Advertisement: But the reality of the Vatican’s position on Palestine is more complicated. As John Allen notes in Crux, like Francis’ pronouncements on capitalism and the environment, people assume a break from tradition has occurred only because they weren’t paying attention to the papacy before rock star Francis. In reality, it is actually a continuation of long-held papal positions. The Vatican’s support for Palestine isn’t particularly new. Allen writes: Advertisement: When Pope Benedict XVI travelled to the Middle East in 2009, he pledged support for Palestinian statehood. St. John Paul II made similar statements many times, and was sufficiently fond of former PLO leader Yasser Arafat that he had a set of the Stations of the Cross made out of ivory, presented to him by Arafat as a gift, installed in a small chapel off a Vatican chamber. It’s more accurate to view this particular step in the Vatican’s relationship with Palestine both as a continuation of the Holy See’s long-standing support for Palestinian statehood and as an expression of Francis’ overriding interest in fostering international peace—and his unique ability and willingness to put his finger on the scales to do so. When Francis toured the Holy Lands last year, he made a highly symbolic stop at the wall dividing Bethlehem from Israel and later invited Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli President Shimon Peres to a prayer summit at the Vatican, where he talked about the “courage to take concrete steps to achieve peace.” And it’s likely no coincidence that the new treaty with the Palestinian state was announced just days before Francis is set to canonize two Palestinian nuns, Marie Alphonsine Ghattas of Jerusalem and Mariam Bawardy of Galilee, who will become the first Palestinian Arab saints in a Vatican ceremony attended by Abbas. The canonizations, like the Vatican’s relationship with Palestine, have been underway long before Francis. But he will use it highlight both the importance of Christians living in Palestine and the need for fairness for the Palestinian people in a way that only a rock star can.

www.salon.com

left

yBsPieoGNOdCo40m

test

QeO9CqqGtYL9jSSy

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/donald-trump-campaign-critics-lindsey-graham/2015/07/22/id/658382/

Trump to Critics: 'I Have to Be Myself'

2015-07-22

Sandy Fitzgerald

People are lining up to criticize Donald Trump 's bombastic style , but he said Wednesday he does n't plan to change anything as the debates and primary caucuses near . `` I have to be myself , '' he told Fox News ' `` Fox & Friends '' program . `` Look , I 've built a great company , great empire , phenomenal success . Saw the filings last week . What I 've done is successful . `` He pointed out that his reality show , `` The Apprentice , '' has , over 14 seasons , `` become one of the most successful shows on television , '' so he has given up `` a lot of money '' to run for the presidency , and moving forward , he does n't plan to change how he operates . `` I do n't want to read teleprompters , '' he said . `` That would be much easier . You do n't learn about a person [ on a teleprompter ] . `` Further , he said he wo n't be hiring a pollster , because he does n't want to have to change his views when a pollster says they are not well-received by the public.But he did n't want to list a potential vice presidential partner , when asked which of his candidates would be suitable . `` Trump is real , '' he replied.As for this week , Trump is n't feeling any regrets at having read out Sen. Lindsey Graham 's private cellphone number during a press conference Tuesday , an action that followed the South Carolina lawmaker and fellow GOP presidential candidate repeatedly called him a `` jackass '' in a CBS interview that morning and in another interview the night before . `` I do n't think he 's popular in his own state , '' Trump said of Graham . `` You heard the applause I was getting . I did it for fun . Everybody had a good time . We had a beyond packed house . The place was amazing , South Carolina . Amazing . I do n't regret it at all . He calls me names . You have to fight back . `` But Trump denied that he does such things out of meanness . `` I want to be nice , '' he said . `` I 'm a nice person . Everybody is calling me names . I guess since I went to No . 1 in the poll , they 're having a field day on me . `` Trump added that the country should also not be backing down in fights . `` We have so many things going wrong , '' he said . `` Look at what China is doing to us , Mexico is doing to us . Mexico , I respect their officials . They 're smarter than our negotiators . They 're killing us on trade . Japan , Saudi Arabia . `` But the people running the United States are `` incompetent , '' he said . `` Look at the Iran deal , which is a disaster , '' he said . `` We do n't get our prisoners back . We give them a scientist but do n't get our prisoners back . They said it was too complicated to ask . `` On Tuesday , during an address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars annual conference in Pittsburgh , President Barack Obama called for the release of the three Americans known to be held in Iran and assistance in finding a fourth missing there , naming them individually during a speech given a week after a nuclear agreement was reached that did not secure the prisoners ' release , reports Fox News But Trump slammed Obama for that demand , saying that the prisoners ' release should have been asked first in the negotiations , and poked fun at Secretary of State John Kerry `` If you had the right messenger , '' like himself or someone he 'd pick , Trump said , the prisoners would have been freed , `` not someone that goes in a bicycle race and breaks a leg at 73 years old . We would have gotten those prisoners back a long time ago . `` Trump also spoke about his plans to fight for veterans , including `` building hospitals officially '' that `` will be run so well , so efficiently . I know the best managers in the country . They do n't have good managers . It 's totally corrupt . `` Trump also talked about his planned trip to the Mexican border on Thursday , saying he was invited by the Border Patrol . `` They want to honor me , thousands of them , '' he said . `` These are tremendous , tough people . They want to do the job . They 're not allowed to do their job by the president essentially ... I 'll be flying in . May never see you again , but we 're going to do it . ''

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com People are lining up to criticize Donald Trump's bombastic style, but he said Wednesday he doesn't plan to change anything as the debates and primary caucuses near."I have to be myself," he told Fox News' "Fox & Friends" program. "Look, I've built a great company, great empire, phenomenal success. Saw the filings last week. What I've done is successful."He pointed out that his reality show, "The Apprentice," has, over 14 seasons, "become one of the most successful shows on television," so he has given up "a lot of money" to run for the presidency, and moving forward, he doesn't plan to change how he operates."I don't want to read teleprompters," he said. "That would be much easier. You don't learn about a person [on a teleprompter]."Further, he said he won't be hiring a pollster, because he doesn't want to have to change his views when a pollster says they are not well-received by the public.But he didn't want to list a potential vice presidential partner, when asked which of his candidates would be suitable."Trump is real," he replied.As for this week, Trump isn't feeling any regrets at having read out Sen. Lindsey Graham's private cellphone number during a press conference Tuesday, an action that followed the South Carolina lawmaker and fellow GOP presidential candidate repeatedly called him a "jackass" in a CBS interview that morning and in another interview the night before."I don't think he's popular in his own state," Trump said of Graham. "You heard the applause I was getting. I did it for fun. Everybody had a good time. We had a beyond packed house. The place was amazing, South Carolina. Amazing. I don't regret it at all. He calls me names. You have to fight back."But Trump denied that he does such things out of meanness."I want to be nice," he said. "I'm a nice person. Everybody is calling me names. I guess since I went to No. 1 in the poll, they're having a field day on me."Trump added that the country should also not be backing down in fights."We have so many things going wrong," he said. "Look at what China is doing to us, Mexico is doing to us. Mexico, I respect their officials. They're smarter than our negotiators. They're killing us on trade. Japan, Saudi Arabia."But the people running the United States are "incompetent," he said."Look at the Iran deal, which is a disaster," he said. "We don't get our prisoners back. We give them a scientist but don't get our prisoners back. They said it was too complicated to ask."On Tuesday, during an address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars annual conference in Pittsburgh, President Barack Obama called for the release of the three Americans known to be held in Iran and assistance in finding a fourth missing there, naming them individually during a speech given a week after a nuclear agreement was reached that did not secure the prisoners' release, reports Fox News But Trump slammed Obama for that demand, saying that the prisoners' release should have been asked first in the negotiations, and poked fun at Secretary of State John Kerry "If you had the right messenger," like himself or someone he'd pick, Trump said, the prisoners would have been freed, "not someone that goes in a bicycle race and breaks a leg at 73 years old. We would have gotten those prisoners back a long time ago."Trump also spoke about his plans to fight for veterans, including "building hospitals officially" that "will be run so well, so efficiently. I know the best managers in the country. They don't have good managers. It's totally corrupt."Trump also talked about his planned trip to the Mexican border on Thursday, saying he was invited by the Border Patrol."They want to honor me, thousands of them," he said. "These are tremendous, tough people. They want to do the job. They're not allowed to do their job by the president essentially ... I'll be flying in. May never see you again, but we're going to do it."

www.newsmax.com

right

QeO9CqqGtYL9jSSy

test

tIYqF2oS7dsCzXaz

federal_budget

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/budget-fight-becomes-president-obamas-big-gamble/

Budget Fight Becomes President Obama’s Big Gamble

Rick Klein

WASHINGTON - President Obama 's budget gamble has only gotten bigger , even as Washington 's response to the self-inflicted crisis has gotten smaller . Now that the sequester has gone into effect - bringing on the spending cuts Obama once guaranteed would never happen - the president is in the awkward place of rooting for it be felt as he and his administration has predicted . At stake is the president 's credibility in the latest round of the seemingly endless budget wars , which seem poised to dominate if not subsume his second term . Even before the cuts began , the president and his top aides were caught stretching the truth of their impact a few times , feeding his critics ' argument that the nation can afford budget trims . Beyond that , the president 's vision for governance is being put to an extraordinary test . With the two sides drained and declaring something of a weary truce , the president 's entire strategy for restoring the latest cuts depends on the public rising up and rejecting cuts to government services . `` The question is , can the American people help persuade their members of Congress to do the right thing ? '' Obama said Friday , in announcing that the once-unthinkable sequester cuts had become unavoidable . If pressure forces the GOP-led House to capitulate , the president may yet win the war with tea party forces that have irrevocably altered the course of his time in office . Get the public engaged in this fight enough to convince Republicans who 've worked with the president on virtually nothing , and that 's a bright spot in a beleaguered Washington . If he loses this battle , though , he 'll find himself locked in perpetual spending crises at least through next year 's congressional elections . The president may ultimately have to cater to Republican demands for even deeper spending cuts , with new tax revenues all but off the table . That 's where the president 's awkward position comes in . As leader of the federal government , he of course wants to mitigate the real-world impact of budget cuts , to make sure people feel as little disruption as possible in their day-to-day lives . But the $ 85 billion in cuts that are now coursing their way through the federal bureaucracy will have real impact . The fact is the president needs that to be the case , to exert the kind of political pressure on Republicans over spending cuts that has n't been there to date . `` My belief is that as this pain starts to gradually spread to communities affected by military spending , to children who need mental health services , to people who care about our border security , I believe that more Republican colleagues who are concerned about this harm to their constituents will choose bipartisan compromise on revenue raising tax reform with serious entitlement reform , '' White House economic adviser Gene Sperling said on ABC 's `` This Week with George Stephanopoulos . '' Republicans have their own problems when it comes to the sequester , both on the substance and in messaging . House Speaker John Boehner has raised alarms about the sequester 's impact on Defense spending , and in an interview that aired today said he was n't sure whether it would `` hurt the economy or not . '' Sen. Kelly Ayotte Keeps Door Open for 'Big Agreement ' on Budget Other Republicans , meanwhile - including many aligned with the tea party - see the sequester as an important step toward what they say is fiscal sanity . Rep. Steve Scalise , R-La. , last week called the sequester `` a big victory '' for the GOP . The one thing Republicans are n't budging on is taxes . That would seem to close out avenues of compromise ; any plan to replace the sequester , the president is saying , must include ridding the tax code of loopholes that primarily benefit the wealthy . The president 's Friday news conference included an extraordinary admission : that he lacks the direct powers to do much about the current state of affairs in Washington . `` What more do you think I should do ? '' he asked reporters , not entirely rhetorically . There are no easy answers to that question . So , with a policy in effect that was designed to be so awful as to force an alternative , all he and his critics can do is wait .

(Carolyn Kaster/AP Photo) ANALYSIS WASHINGTON - President Obama's budget gamble has only gotten bigger, even as Washington's response to the self-inflicted crisis has gotten smaller. Now that the sequester has gone into effect - bringing on the spending cuts Obama once guaranteed would never happen - the president is in the awkward place of rooting for it be felt as he and his administration has predicted. At stake is the president's credibility in the latest round of the seemingly endless budget wars, which seem poised to dominate if not subsume his second term. Even before the cuts began, the president and his top aides were caught stretching the truth of their impact a few times, feeding his critics' argument that the nation can afford budget trims. Beyond that, the president's vision for governance is being put to an extraordinary test. With the two sides drained and declaring something of a weary truce, the president's entire strategy for restoring the latest cuts depends on the public rising up and rejecting cuts to government services. "The question is, can the American people help persuade their members of Congress to do the right thing?" Obama said Friday, in announcing that the once-unthinkable sequester cuts had become unavoidable. Politicians Settle in for Sequestration Long Haul If pressure forces the GOP-led House to capitulate, the president may yet win the war with tea party forces that have irrevocably altered the course of his time in office. Get the public engaged in this fight enough to convince Republicans who've worked with the president on virtually nothing, and that's a bright spot in a beleaguered Washington. If he loses this battle, though, he'll find himself locked in perpetual spending crises at least through next year's congressional elections. The president may ultimately have to cater to Republican demands for even deeper spending cuts, with new tax revenues all but off the table. That's where the president's awkward position comes in. As leader of the federal government, he of course wants to mitigate the real-world impact of budget cuts, to make sure people feel as little disruption as possible in their day-to-day lives. Sequester: What Will Happen But the $85 billion in cuts that are now coursing their way through the federal bureaucracy will have real impact. The fact is the president needs that to be the case, to exert the kind of political pressure on Republicans over spending cuts that hasn't been there to date. "My belief is that as this pain starts to gradually spread to communities affected by military spending, to children who need mental health services, to people who care about our border security, I believe that more Republican colleagues who are concerned about this harm to their constituents will choose bipartisan compromise on revenue raising tax reform with serious entitlement reform," White House economic adviser Gene Sperling said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." Republicans have their own problems when it comes to the sequester, both on the substance and in messaging. House Speaker John Boehner has raised alarms about the sequester's impact on Defense spending, and in an interview that aired today said he wasn't sure whether it would "hurt the economy or not." Sen. Kelly Ayotte Keeps Door Open for 'Big Agreement' on Budget Other Republicans, meanwhile - including many aligned with the tea party - see the sequester as an important step toward what they say is fiscal sanity. Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., last week called the sequester "a big victory" for the GOP. The one thing Republicans aren't budging on is taxes. That would seem to close out avenues of compromise; any plan to replace the sequester, the president is saying, must include ridding the tax code of loopholes that primarily benefit the wealthy. The president's Friday news conference included an extraordinary admission: that he lacks the direct powers to do much about the current state of affairs in Washington. "What more do you think I should do?" he asked reporters, not entirely rhetorically. There are no easy answers to that question. So, with a policy in effect that was designed to be so awful as to force an alternative, all he and his critics can do is wait.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

tIYqF2oS7dsCzXaz

test

MJlHz0J8ql4mkoS1

politics

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/sarah-palin-compares-obama-to-bernie-madoff-sips-from-a-big-gulp-and-jokes-about-her-gun-rack/

Sarah Palin Compares Obama to Bernie Madoff, Sips From a Big Gulp and Jokes About Her (Gun) Rack

Michael Falcone

Sarah Palin served up a generous helping of conservative red meat today , comparing President Obama to white-collar criminal Bernie Madoff , mocking New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for his support of a jumbo soda ban and criticizing the GOP 's post-election attempt at `` putting a fresh coat of rhetorical paint on our party '' rather than focusing on `` restoring the trust of the American people . '' On the final day of the Conservative Political Action Conference just outside Washington , D.C. , Palin delivered one of the most well-received speeches of a weekend that has featured such Republican luminaries as Mitt Romney , Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio . Pausing numerous times for standing ovations , she reserved particular vitriol for President Obama . `` He is considered a good politician , '' the former vice presidential nominee said , referring to Obama , `` which is like saying Bernie Madoff was a good salesmen . The difference being , the president is using our money . '' She exhorted him to `` step away from the teleprompter and do your job . '' Dressed in a zippered black jacket , an American flag cuff , and a gold Star of David necklace , Palin lit up the room . It was a stark contrast to Romney 's address on Friday when he did not even mention the president . But her barbs were not only aimed at Obama . She broadened her criticism to include the `` permanent political class '' who are in `` permanent campaign mode . '' `` Never before have our challenges been so big and our leaders so small , '' Palin said . The former Alaska governor , whose level of influence within the Republican Party is a matter of some debate now that she no longer holds public office , declined to run for president last year and decided against renewing her contract as a political commentator on Fox News , said she brought a message from the `` heartland of America , '' which was simply this : `` Things are bad out here . '' During her remarks , which lasted more than 26 minutes - more time that many other prominent speakers were allotted at the three-day gathering of thousands of conservative leaders and activists - she displayed the same renegade sensibility that won her the admiration of so many Republicans when she emerged from relative obscurity ( a `` hockey mom from Wasilla , '' as she referred to herself today ) to become Sen. John McCain 's running mate in 2008 . `` Now is the time to furlough the consultants , '' she said , echoing a commonly-heard refrain at this weekend 's conference . `` If we truly know what we believe we do not need professionals to tell us . '' And on Saturday she waded in to one of the country 's most intractable policy debates : gun control . `` Background checks ? Yeah , I guess to learn more about a person 's thinking and associations and intentions . More background checks ? '' she said . `` Dandy idea , Mr. President - should have started with yours . '' On gun ownership : `` You should have seen what Todd got me for Christmas . Well , It was n't that exciting . It was a metal rack , case for hunting rifles to put on the back of a four-wheeler . Then though , I had to get something for him to put in the gun case , right . So , this go around , he 's got the rifle , I got the rack . '' On Mayor Michael Bloomberg 's large soda ban : Palin held up a Big Gulp , sipped from a straw and said , `` Bloomberg is not around , our big gulps are safe . We 're cool . Shoot , it 's just pop with low-cal ice-cubes in it . '' On the current state of politics in Washington : `` We do n't have leadership coming out of Washington , we have reality television . '' On young conservatives : `` My only piece of advice to our young college Republicans is you 've got to be thinking Sam Adams , not drinking Sam Adams . And that 's just a joke . I do n't want to know hear from the CEO of some brewery accusing me of being an anti beer-ite . '' On freshman Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas , who introduced her : `` We need more Americans like Ted Cruz . Coming from Texas , Ted Cruz comes to town , chews barbed wire , and spits out rust . '' On Obama administration transparency : `` Barack Obama promised the most transparent administration ever . Barack Obama , you lie . ''

(ABC News) Sarah Palin served up a generous helping of conservative red meat today, comparing President Obama to white-collar criminal Bernie Madoff, mocking New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for his support of a jumbo soda ban and criticizing the GOP's post-election attempt at "putting a fresh coat of rhetorical paint on our party" rather than focusing on "restoring the trust of the American people." On the final day of the Conservative Political Action Conference just outside Washington, D.C., Palin delivered one of the most well-received speeches of a weekend that has featured such Republican luminaries as Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. Pausing numerous times for standing ovations, she reserved particular vitriol for President Obama. "He is considered a good politician," the former vice presidential nominee said, referring to Obama, "which is like saying Bernie Madoff was a good salesmen. The difference being, the president is using our money." She exhorted him to "step away from the teleprompter and do your job." Dressed in a zippered black jacket, an American flag cuff, and a gold Star of David necklace, Palin lit up the room. It was a stark contrast to Romney's address on Friday when he did not even mention the president. But her barbs were not only aimed at Obama. She broadened her criticism to include the "permanent political class" who are in "permanent campaign mode." "Never before have our challenges been so big and our leaders so small," Palin said. The former Alaska governor, whose level of influence within the Republican Party is a matter of some debate now that she no longer holds public office, declined to run for president last year and decided against renewing her contract as a political commentator on Fox News, said she brought a message from the "heartland of America," which was simply this: "Things are bad out here." During her remarks, which lasted more than 26 minutes - more time that many other prominent speakers were allotted at the three-day gathering of thousands of conservative leaders and activists - she displayed the same renegade sensibility that won her the admiration of so many Republicans when she emerged from relative obscurity (a "hockey mom from Wasilla," as she referred to herself today) to become Sen. John McCain's running mate in 2008. "Now is the time to furlough the consultants," she said, echoing a commonly-heard refrain at this weekend's conference. "If we truly know what we believe we do not need professionals to tell us." And on Saturday she waded in to one of the country's most intractable policy debates: gun control. "Background checks? Yeah, I guess to learn more about a person's thinking and associations and intentions. More background checks?" she said. "Dandy idea, Mr. President - should have started with yours." Palin also delivered a series of memorable one-liners: On gun ownership: "You should have seen what Todd got me for Christmas. Well, It wasn't that exciting. It was a metal rack, case for hunting rifles to put on the back of a four-wheeler. Then though, I had to get something for him to put in the gun case, right. So, this go around, he's got the rifle, I got the rack." On Mayor Michael Bloomberg's large soda ban: Palin held up a Big Gulp, sipped from a straw and said, "Bloomberg is not around, our big gulps are safe. We're cool. Shoot, it's just pop with low-cal ice-cubes in it." On the current state of politics in Washington: "We don't have leadership coming out of Washington, we have reality television." On young conservatives: "My only piece of advice to our young college Republicans is you've got to be thinking Sam Adams, not drinking Sam Adams. And that's just a joke. I don't want to know hear from the CEO of some brewery accusing me of being an anti beer-ite." On freshman Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who introduced her: "We need more Americans like Ted Cruz. Coming from Texas, Ted Cruz comes to town, chews barbed wire, and spits out rust." On Obama administration transparency: "Barack Obama promised the most transparent administration ever. Barack Obama, you lie." ABC's Arlette Saenz contributed reporting.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

MJlHz0J8ql4mkoS1

test

zO6yJ011BJs1Drdy

nuclear_weapons

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41140621

North Korea nuclear test: Trump condemns 'hostile' move

Pentagon chief James Mattis says any threat to the US or its allies by North Korea will be met with a `` massive military response '' . His comments came after a national security briefing with President Donald Trump about the secretive communist state 's latest nuclear test . Pyongyang says it has successfully trialled a hydrogen bomb that could be loaded on to a long-range missile . North Korea has defied UN sanctions and international pressure by developing nuclear weapons and test missiles that could potentially reach the US . But speaking to reporters outside the White House , Defence Secretary Mattis said the US had the ability to defend itself and its allies South Korea and Japan , adding that its commitments were `` ironclad '' . `` Any threat to the United States or its territories - including Guam - or our allies will be met with a massive military response , a response both effective and overwhelming . '' However , he said the hope was for denuclearisation , `` because we are not looking to the total annihilation of a country , namely North Korea '' . The UN Security Council is to hold an emergency meeting on Monday to discuss an international response , according to the US mission . Meanwhile , President Trump has warned that America may stop trading with any country that does business with the North . The first suggestion that this was to be a far from normal Sunday in the region came when seismologists ' equipment started picking up readings of an earth tremor in the area where North Korea has conducted nuclear tests before . The US Geological Survey put the tremor at 6.3 magnitude . Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono said there was no doubt this was North Korea 's sixth nuclear test , calling it `` unforgivable '' . Then North Korean state media confirmed this was no earthquake . It claimed the country had conducted its sixth and most powerful nuclear test , detonating a hydrogen bomb that could be loaded onto a long-range missile . North Korean leader Kim Jong-un was pictured with what state media said was a new type of hydrogen bomb . Hydrogen bombs are many times more powerful than an atomic bomb . They use fusion - the merging of atoms - to unleash huge amounts of energy , whereas atomic bombs use nuclear fission , or the splitting of atoms . Analysts say the North 's claims should be treated with caution , but that its nuclear capability is clearly advancing . Officials in China , where the blast was felt as a tremor , said they were carrying out emergency radiation testing along the border with North Korea . Denouncing the test as `` hostile '' and `` dangerous '' , President Trump described the North as a `` rogue nation '' which had become a `` great threat and embarrassment '' to China - Pyongyang 's main ally . He also said South Korea 's `` talk of appeasement '' was not working and that the secretive communist state `` only understands one thing '' . `` The United States is considering , in addition to other options , stopping all trade with any country doing business with North Korea , '' Mr Trump later said in a tweet . North Korea relies on China for about 90 % of its foreign trade . South Korean President Moon Jae-in called for the `` strongest possible '' response , including new UN Security Council sanctions to `` completely isolate '' the country . The country staged a `` live-fire exercise '' late on Sunday simulating an attack on the North 's Punggye-ri nuclear site , military officials said . The drill saw a Hyunmoo surface-to-surface missile and air-to-ground missiles fired from F-15K jets hit targets in the East Sea , also known as the Sea of Japan , according to the Joint Chiefs of Staff quoted by Yonhap news agency . China , meanwhile , also expressed `` strong condemnation '' and said the state `` had ignored the international community 's widespread opposition '' . Russia urged all sides involved to hold talks , saying this was the only way to resolve the Korean peninsula 's problems . UK Prime Minister Theresa May said the `` reckless '' new test represented an `` unacceptable further threat to the international community '' . She called on world leaders to come together to stop North Korea 's `` destabilising actions '' . South Korean officials said the latest test took place in Kilju County , where the North 's Punggye-ri nuclear test site is situated . The `` artificial quake '' was 9.8 times more powerful than the tremor from the North 's fifth test in September 2016 , the state weather agency said . Although experts urged caution , this does appear to be the biggest and most successful nuclear test by North Korea to date - and the messaging is clear . North Korea wants to demonstrate it knows what makes a credible nuclear warhead . Nuclear weapons expert Catherine Dill told the BBC it was not yet clear exactly what nuclear weapon design was tested . `` But based on the seismic signature , the yield of this test definitely is an order of magnitude higher than the yields of the previous tests . '' Current information did not definitively indicate that a thermonuclear weapon had been tested `` but it appears to be a likely possibility at this point '' , she said North Korea 's sixth nuclear test - probably its largest so far - sends out one clear political signal . Despite the bluster and threats from the Trump administration in Washington and near-universal condemnation from around the world , Pyongyang is not going to halt or constrain its nuclear activities . Worryingly , it also suggests that this is a programme that is progressing on all fronts at a faster rate than many had expected . So far all efforts to pressure North Korea - sanctions , isolation and military threats - have all failed to move Pyongyang . Could more be done ? Certainly , but the harshest economic pressure would potentially cripple the regime and push it towards catastrophe - something China is unwilling to countenance . Containment and deterrence will now come to the fore as the world adjusts its policy from seeking to roll-back Pyongyang 's weapons programme to living with a nuclear-armed North Korea . North Korea 's sixth nuclear weapons test is an utter rejection of all that its only ally has called for . Beijing 's response was predictable - condemnation , urging an end to provocation and dialogue . But it also spoke of urging North Korea to `` face up to the firm will '' of the international community to see denuclearisation on the Korean peninsula . There is no sign , though , that China is willing yet to see that `` firm will '' go beyond UN sanctions , which recently clamped down on seafood and iron ore exports , in addition to the coal and minerals that are already banned from crossing the border . It is noteworthy also that this test took place just as the Chinese president was about to welcome a handful of world leaders to the two-day showpiece Brics summit on China 's east coast . Even the state-controlled media will find it hard to ignore the fact that their man has been upstaged - embarrassed too - by its almost universally ostracised ally and neighbour .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Any US response would be "effective and overwhelming" - James Mattis Pentagon chief James Mattis says any threat to the US or its allies by North Korea will be met with a "massive military response". His comments came after a national security briefing with President Donald Trump about the secretive communist state's latest nuclear test. Pyongyang says it has successfully trialled a hydrogen bomb that could be loaded on to a long-range missile. The move has drawn international condemnation. North Korea has defied UN sanctions and international pressure by developing nuclear weapons and test missiles that could potentially reach the US. But speaking to reporters outside the White House, Defence Secretary Mattis said the US had the ability to defend itself and its allies South Korea and Japan, adding that its commitments were "ironclad". "Any threat to the United States or its territories - including Guam - or our allies will be met with a massive military response, a response both effective and overwhelming." Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Nuclear N Korea: What do we know? However, he said the hope was for denuclearisation, "because we are not looking to the total annihilation of a country, namely North Korea". The UN Security Council is to hold an emergency meeting on Monday to discuss an international response, according to the US mission. Meanwhile, President Trump has warned that America may stop trading with any country that does business with the North. What has happened? The first suggestion that this was to be a far from normal Sunday in the region came when seismologists' equipment started picking up readings of an earth tremor in the area where North Korea has conducted nuclear tests before. The US Geological Survey put the tremor at 6.3 magnitude. Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono said there was no doubt this was North Korea's sixth nuclear test, calling it "unforgivable". Then North Korean state media confirmed this was no earthquake. It claimed the country had conducted its sixth and most powerful nuclear test, detonating a hydrogen bomb that could be loaded onto a long-range missile. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption North Korean state media announces "hydrogen bomb" test North Korean leader Kim Jong-un was pictured with what state media said was a new type of hydrogen bomb. Hydrogen bombs are many times more powerful than an atomic bomb. They use fusion - the merging of atoms - to unleash huge amounts of energy, whereas atomic bombs use nuclear fission, or the splitting of atoms. Analysts say the North's claims should be treated with caution, but that its nuclear capability is clearly advancing. Officials in China, where the blast was felt as a tremor, said they were carrying out emergency radiation testing along the border with North Korea. What has the reaction been? Denouncing the test as "hostile" and "dangerous", President Trump described the North as a "rogue nation" which had become a "great threat and embarrassment" to China - Pyongyang's main ally. He also said South Korea's "talk of appeasement" was not working and that the secretive communist state "only understands one thing". "The United States is considering, in addition to other options, stopping all trade with any country doing business with North Korea," Mr Trump later said in a tweet. North Korea relies on China for about 90% of its foreign trade. Image copyright Reuters/KCNA Image caption State media showed North Korean leader Kim Jong-un inspecting what it said was a hydrogen bomb South Korean President Moon Jae-in called for the "strongest possible" response, including new UN Security Council sanctions to "completely isolate" the country. The country staged a "live-fire exercise" late on Sunday simulating an attack on the North's Punggye-ri nuclear site, military officials said. The drill saw a Hyunmoo surface-to-surface missile and air-to-ground missiles fired from F-15K jets hit targets in the East Sea, also known as the Sea of Japan, according to the Joint Chiefs of Staff quoted by Yonhap news agency. China, meanwhile, also expressed "strong condemnation" and said the state "had ignored the international community's widespread opposition". Russia urged all sides involved to hold talks, saying this was the only way to resolve the Korean peninsula's problems. UK Prime Minister Theresa May said the "reckless" new test represented an "unacceptable further threat to the international community". She called on world leaders to come together to stop North Korea's "destabilising actions". What does the test tell us? South Korean officials said the latest test took place in Kilju County, where the North's Punggye-ri nuclear test site is situated. The "artificial quake" was 9.8 times more powerful than the tremor from the North's fifth test in September 2016, the state weather agency said. Although experts urged caution, this does appear to be the biggest and most successful nuclear test by North Korea to date - and the messaging is clear. North Korea wants to demonstrate it knows what makes a credible nuclear warhead. North Korea's nuclear tests Nuclear weapons expert Catherine Dill told the BBC it was not yet clear exactly what nuclear weapon design was tested. "But based on the seismic signature, the yield of this test definitely is an order of magnitude higher than the yields of the previous tests." Current information did not definitively indicate that a thermonuclear weapon had been tested "but it appears to be a likely possibility at this point", she said What can be done? By Jonathan Marcus, BBC defence and diplomatic correspondent North Korea's sixth nuclear test - probably its largest so far - sends out one clear political signal. Despite the bluster and threats from the Trump administration in Washington and near-universal condemnation from around the world, Pyongyang is not going to halt or constrain its nuclear activities. Worryingly, it also suggests that this is a programme that is progressing on all fronts at a faster rate than many had expected. So far all efforts to pressure North Korea - sanctions, isolation and military threats - have all failed to move Pyongyang. Could more be done? Certainly, but the harshest economic pressure would potentially cripple the regime and push it towards catastrophe - something China is unwilling to countenance. Containment and deterrence will now come to the fore as the world adjusts its policy from seeking to roll-back Pyongyang's weapons programme to living with a nuclear-armed North Korea. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Speaking before the new nuclear test, Senator Lindsey Graham told BBC HARDtalk a US attack was inevitable if diplomacy failed Will China clamp down? By Robin Brant, BBC News, Shanghai North Korea's sixth nuclear weapons test is an utter rejection of all that its only ally has called for. Beijing's response was predictable - condemnation, urging an end to provocation and dialogue. But it also spoke of urging North Korea to "face up to the firm will" of the international community to see denuclearisation on the Korean peninsula. There is no sign, though, that China is willing yet to see that "firm will" go beyond UN sanctions, which recently clamped down on seafood and iron ore exports, in addition to the coal and minerals that are already banned from crossing the border. It is noteworthy also that this test took place just as the Chinese president was about to welcome a handful of world leaders to the two-day showpiece Brics summit on China's east coast. Even the state-controlled media will find it hard to ignore the fact that their man has been upstaged - embarrassed too - by its almost universally ostracised ally and neighbour.

www.bbc.com

center

zO6yJ011BJs1Drdy

test

jZqXsukCoJGZN0N8

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-shutdown-lawenforcement/law-enforcement-agencies-squeezed-by-u-s-government-shutdown-idUSKCN1P515R

A declaration of a national emergency wouldn't achieve what Trump wants.

2019-01-11

Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - Federal law enforcement agencies that keep Americans safe are starting to feel the strain of the U.S. government shutdown , in its 21st day , with agents working for no pay and investigations delayed , law enforcement officials said . FBI headquarters building is seen in Washington , U.S. , December 7 , 2018 . ███/Yuri Gripas Training events have been canceled and travel cut back , with President Donald Trump and Congress unable to end the partial shutdown affecting a quarter of the government in a funding standoff over Trump ’ s proposed U.S.-Mexico border wall . “ We still have a responsibility for going after those who might be using this time to flood the streets ” with drugs , a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration ( DEA ) field agent told ███ , asking not to be identified by name . “ For us , it ’ s even a more important time to try to target as much as we can . We still have a safety obligation to the public ... with the limited resources , ” the agent said . Most employees at federal law enforcement agencies - from the FBI and DEA to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Transportation Security Administration - have kept working since Trump ’ s demands on the wall triggered the shutdown on Dec. 22 . “ Non-essential ” personnel across the government have been staying home on furlough , while “ essential ” personnel , which includes many in law enforcement , have been working for no pay . On Friday , many of roughly 800,000 shutdown-affected federal workers will miss their first paychecks . The shutdown began after Trump insisted that $ 5.7 billion for his wall be made a part of any legislation to restore funding for many agencies that expired for unrelated reasons , a demand Democrats oppose . As much as 85 percent of the Justice Department ’ s employees are working , as are nearly 90 percent of the Department of Homeland Security ’ s employees , said department spokesmen . “ It really wears on our members , ” said Nathan Catura , the national president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association , which represents some 27,000 federal agents . “ You feel like a pawn in this big political windstorm . You feel like you ’ re not worth anything , ” he said . In a memo to U.S. Secret Service agents that was seen by ███ , service Director R.D . “ Tex ” Alles urged employees to “ keep an eye out for warning signs of trouble . ” He wrote , “ A quick internet search will validate that financial stress is often the precursor to greater issues , including depression , anxiety and worse . ” While the lack of a paycheck is stressing out some agents , the shutdown has had a limited operational impact so far , several law enforcement officials said . Drug seizures are still occurring . Corrections officers are still reporting to work each day and air passengers are not yet facing overly long security lines in airports . But funding that law enforcement agencies draw on for investigations and some other operations is starting to dwindle . Interviews with witnesses in some DEA investigations have been postponed . Furloughs of some FBI analysts has forced agents to pick up the slack by doing their own background checks - a process that may slow them down , officials told ███ . That means FBI agents doing anti-terrorism or white-collar crime investigations must pull together criminal records and other background materials on their own , without the help of analysts who specialize in such work , Catura said . FBI headquarters “ is doing all they can ” to ensure major investigations continue , said Tom O ’ Connor , president of the FBI Agents Association . The group on Thursday sent a petition to the White House and Congress urging them to end the shutdown . “ FBI operations need funding . We ’ re beginning to raise concerns regarding field operations . Support operations are understaffed , ” O ’ Connor said . Federal prison workers are also growing frustrated . Prior to the government shutdown , the Bureau of Prisons had to deal with a hiring freeze , followed by 6,000 job cuts . “ The great majority of our federal law enforcement officers work in middle America , ” said Eric Young , national president for the Council of Prison Locals for the American Federation of Government Employees union . “ They are very conservative , and they were supportive of Trump . Some still are , but the great majority of them have been totally disenchanted with what they have seen from this administration , ” Young said .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal law enforcement agencies that keep Americans safe are starting to feel the strain of the U.S. government shutdown, in its 21st day, with agents working for no pay and investigations delayed, law enforcement officials said. FBI headquarters building is seen in Washington, U.S., December 7, 2018. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas Training events have been canceled and travel cut back, with President Donald Trump and Congress unable to end the partial shutdown affecting a quarter of the government in a funding standoff over Trump’s proposed U.S.-Mexico border wall. “We still have a responsibility for going after those who might be using this time to flood the streets” with drugs, a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) field agent told Reuters, asking not to be identified by name. “For us, it’s even a more important time to try to target as much as we can. We still have a safety obligation to the public ... with the limited resources,” the agent said. Most employees at federal law enforcement agencies - from the FBI and DEA to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Transportation Security Administration - have kept working since Trump’s demands on the wall triggered the shutdown on Dec. 22. “Non-essential” personnel across the government have been staying home on furlough, while “essential” personnel, which includes many in law enforcement, have been working for no pay. On Friday, many of roughly 800,000 shutdown-affected federal workers will miss their first paychecks. The shutdown began after Trump insisted that $5.7 billion for his wall be made a part of any legislation to restore funding for many agencies that expired for unrelated reasons, a demand Democrats oppose. As much as 85 percent of the Justice Department’s employees are working, as are nearly 90 percent of the Department of Homeland Security’s employees, said department spokesmen. “It really wears on our members,” said Nathan Catura, the national president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, which represents some 27,000 federal agents. “You feel like a pawn in this big political windstorm. You feel like you’re not worth anything,” he said. In a memo to U.S. Secret Service agents that was seen by Reuters, service Director R.D. “Tex” Alles urged employees to “keep an eye out for warning signs of trouble.” He wrote, “A quick internet search will validate that financial stress is often the precursor to greater issues, including depression, anxiety and worse.” While the lack of a paycheck is stressing out some agents, the shutdown has had a limited operational impact so far, several law enforcement officials said. Drug seizures are still occurring. Corrections officers are still reporting to work each day and air passengers are not yet facing overly long security lines in airports. But funding that law enforcement agencies draw on for investigations and some other operations is starting to dwindle. Interviews with witnesses in some DEA investigations have been postponed. Furloughs of some FBI analysts has forced agents to pick up the slack by doing their own background checks - a process that may slow them down, officials told Reuters. That means FBI agents doing anti-terrorism or white-collar crime investigations must pull together criminal records and other background materials on their own, without the help of analysts who specialize in such work, Catura said. “That slows everything down,” he said. FBI headquarters “is doing all they can” to ensure major investigations continue, said Tom O’Connor, president of the FBI Agents Association. The group on Thursday sent a petition to the White House and Congress urging them to end the shutdown. “FBI operations need funding. We’re beginning to raise concerns regarding field operations. Support operations are understaffed,” O’Connor said. Federal prison workers are also growing frustrated. Prior to the government shutdown, the Bureau of Prisons had to deal with a hiring freeze, followed by 6,000 job cuts. “The great majority of our federal law enforcement officers work in middle America,” said Eric Young, national president for the Council of Prison Locals for the American Federation of Government Employees union. “They are very conservative, and they were supportive of Trump. Some still are, but the great majority of them have been totally disenchanted with what they have seen from this administration,” Young said.

www.reuters.com

center

jZqXsukCoJGZN0N8

test

EETsYp6cHeAq6xOa

gun_control_and_gun_rights

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/10/deal-reached-on-background-checks-in-senate/

Deal reached on background checks in Senate

2013-04-10

( CNN ) - Sens . Joe Manchin , D-West Virginia , and Patrick J. Toomey , R-Pennsylvania , plan to announce a bipartisan deal on background checks for gun shows and Internet sales at an 11 a.m. press conference today , CNN 's Dana Bash has learned . A Democratic leadership source says the compromise will likely be the first amendment to gun legislation being considered , after the Senate votes to begin the gun debate Thursday . READ MORE : CNN Poll : Popular background checks also cause worry The breakthrough background check agreement is a key part of gun legislation . Because it has been struck by two senators with strong support from the NRA , they hope to find the 60 votes that will be needed to overcome opposition to pass their amendment The senate is expected to debate gun legislation for at least two weeks . Democrats believe as many as a dozen GOP senators will vote with them , making up for the handful of pro-gun Democrats who might vote against beginning debate on the bill . Fourteen Republicans promise to filibuster taking up the measure . Several Republican senators told CNN Tuesday they would only vote to begin debate on the bill if they were assured by Democrats they would be allowed to offer amendments to the legislation . Democratic leaders want to give senators from both parties ample opportunities to amend the bill and are prepared to debate it beyond a scheduled recess the first week in May , if doing so will increase the chances of passage . “ The way you put together a coalition to pass the bill is to allow as many amendment votes as you can . We are willing to take the time to do that and have that process , ” the aide said . Those negotiators will now have more time to find common ground on language , since the gun debate is expected to be lengthy . Democratic leaders also argue any bill they put on the floor will represent a substantial improvement in gun safety . Many of those additional votes could be politically difficult for centrist Democrats , especially those up for re-election in red states , as Republicans are expected to craft amendments designed to put those senators on the spot . Nevertheless , Democratic leaders have determined it ’ s a risk they need to take if they want to pass substantive legislation to respond to the mass shootings that have plagued the nation in recent years . “ Once we ’ re on it we want to have an open process where there are a lot of votes and we really work through that , ” the aide said .

6 years ago (CNN) - Sens. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, and Patrick J. Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, plan to announce a bipartisan deal on background checks for gun shows and Internet sales at an 11 a.m. press conference today, CNN's Dana Bash has learned. A Democratic leadership source says the compromise will likely be the first amendment to gun legislation being considered, after the Senate votes to begin the gun debate Thursday. READ MORE: CNN Poll: Popular background checks also cause worry The breakthrough background check agreement is a key part of gun legislation. Because it has been struck by two senators with strong support from the NRA, they hope to find the 60 votes that will be needed to overcome opposition to pass their amendment The senate is expected to debate gun legislation for at least two weeks. Democrats believe as many as a dozen GOP senators will vote with them, making up for the handful of pro-gun Democrats who might vote against beginning debate on the bill. Fourteen Republicans promise to filibuster taking up the measure. Several Republican senators told CNN Tuesday they would only vote to begin debate on the bill if they were assured by Democrats they would be allowed to offer amendments to the legislation. Democratic leaders want to give senators from both parties ample opportunities to amend the bill and are prepared to debate it beyond a scheduled recess the first week in May, if doing so will increase the chances of passage. “The way you put together a coalition to pass the bill is to allow as many amendment votes as you can. We are willing to take the time to do that and have that process,” the aide said. Those negotiators will now have more time to find common ground on language, since the gun debate is expected to be lengthy. Democratic leaders also argue any bill they put on the floor will represent a substantial improvement in gun safety. Many of those additional votes could be politically difficult for centrist Democrats, especially those up for re-election in red states, as Republicans are expected to craft amendments designed to put those senators on the spot. Nevertheless, Democratic leaders have determined it’s a risk they need to take if they want to pass substantive legislation to respond to the mass shootings that have plagued the nation in recent years. “Once we’re on it we want to have an open process where there are a lot of votes and we really work through that,” the aide said. - CNN's Ted Barrett contributed to this report.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

EETsYp6cHeAq6xOa

test

9349jIeXEbfbSRgd

fbi

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/september/kavanaugh-accuser-wants-fbi-probe-before-hearing

Kavanaugh Accuser Wants an FBI Probe Before She'll Testify - Now What?

2018-09-18

WASHINGTON – Republicans delayed a Senate Judiciary Committee vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh this week to take Dr. Christine Blasey Ford up on her offer to share with the panel her allegations that he sexually assaulted her in high school . Then , late Tuesday , the 51-year-old research psychologist changed her tune , saying she does n't want to testify until the FBI looks into her claims . `` If she is not going to be part of the hearing that would be a very interesting and unfortunate turn of events , '' remarked Sen. Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK ) . Democrats have also pushed for an FBI investigation , saying it 's `` essential '' to guarding the integrity of Monday 's proceedings . `` The FBI should be given time to reopen its background check on Judge Kavanaugh to speak to any potential witnesses or any relevant individuals , '' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) told his colleagues on the Senate floor Tuesday . `` That way , senators will have necessary information and expert analysis at their disposal at the hearing making it much less likely that it will devolve into a 'he said , she said ' affair , '' he said . Sen. Patty Murray ( D-WA ) said she too thought an FBI probe was necessary to avoid a repeat of the Anita Hill hearings nearly three decades ago . `` I came here because of how Anita Hill was handled and the one thing I do know is that committee members need to have the facts , '' she said . `` That 's why they 're asking for an FBI background investigation . And I believe that that would produce a much better hearing . '' But Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley ( R-IA ) says the idea of an FBI investigation is closed – and nothing the intelligence agency does would have any bearing on what Ford tells the committee . `` The FBI should n't be involved because they do n't want to be , '' the president said earlier this week . `` This is not really their thing . I think politically speaking the senators will do a very good job . '' While Judge Kavanaugh says he 's ready to share his story on Monday , Dr. Ford has not agreed to either a private or public hearing with the committee . In the meantime , the Senate panel has also reached out to Kavanaugh 's friend , Mark Judge , whom Ford says was in the room during the alleged incident . But Judge refused to appear , saying in a statement he has no memory of the alleged assault and never witnessed Kavanaugh acting in the manner Dr. Ford describes . Meanwhile , evangelist Franklin Graham tells ███ News he thinks the allegations are a tactic to keep conservatives off the bench and that people should n't be targeted for something they did as a teenager . `` This is an attempt to smear him , '' Graham charged . `` They could n't find anything else on his record and so this is just an attempt to smear him and smear his name and put a black dot on it . '' `` I hope the Senate is smarter than this and they 're not going to let the process stop moving forward and confirming this man , '' he said . Grassley 's office says the invitation for Dr. Ford to testify on Monday still stands , reiterating that nothing the FBI does would have any bearing on what she tells the committee , and as such , there is no reason for any further delay .

WASHINGTON – Republicans delayed a Senate Judiciary Committee vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh this week to take Dr. Christine Blasey Ford up on her offer to share with the panel her allegations that he sexually assaulted her in high school. Then, late Tuesday, the 51-year-old research psychologist changed her tune, saying she doesn't want to testify until the FBI looks into her claims. "If she is not going to be part of the hearing that would be a very interesting and unfortunate turn of events," remarked Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). Democrats have also pushed for an FBI investigation, saying it's "essential" to guarding the integrity of Monday's proceedings. "The FBI should be given time to reopen its background check on Judge Kavanaugh to speak to any potential witnesses or any relevant individuals," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told his colleagues on the Senate floor Tuesday. "That way, senators will have necessary information and expert analysis at their disposal at the hearing making it much less likely that it will devolve into a 'he said, she said' affair," he said. Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) said she too thought an FBI probe was necessary to avoid a repeat of the Anita Hill hearings nearly three decades ago. "I came here because of how Anita Hill was handled and the one thing I do know is that committee members need to have the facts," she said. "That's why they're asking for an FBI background investigation. And I believe that that would produce a much better hearing." But Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) says the idea of an FBI investigation is closed – and nothing the intelligence agency does would have any bearing on what Ford tells the committee. President Donald Trump agrees. "The FBI shouldn't be involved because they don't want to be," the president said earlier this week. "This is not really their thing. I think politically speaking the senators will do a very good job." While Judge Kavanaugh says he's ready to share his story on Monday, Dr. Ford has not agreed to either a private or public hearing with the committee. In the meantime, the Senate panel has also reached out to Kavanaugh's friend, Mark Judge, whom Ford says was in the room during the alleged incident. But Judge refused to appear, saying in a statement he has no memory of the alleged assault and never witnessed Kavanaugh acting in the manner Dr. Ford describes. Meanwhile, evangelist Franklin Graham tells CBN News he thinks the allegations are a tactic to keep conservatives off the bench and that people shouldn't be targeted for something they did as a teenager. "This is an attempt to smear him," Graham charged. "They couldn't find anything else on his record and so this is just an attempt to smear him and smear his name and put a black dot on it." "I hope the Senate is smarter than this and they're not going to let the process stop moving forward and confirming this man," he said. Grassley's office says the invitation for Dr. Ford to testify on Monday still stands, reiterating that nothing the FBI does would have any bearing on what she tells the committee, and as such, there is no reason for any further delay.

www1.cbn.com

right

9349jIeXEbfbSRgd

test

qzCJijgdMqjn4r0T

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/23/donald-trump-arizona-rally-phoenix

Trump paints himself as the real victim of Charlottesville in angry speech

2017-08-23

David Smith, Cas Mudde

Speaking at a rally in Phoenix , president attempts to counter widespread , bipartisan condemnation of his response to far-right violence Donald Trump has sought to portray himself as the true victim of the deadly events in Charlottesville , launching an all-out assault on the media and branding journalists who “ do not like our country ” as the true source of division in America . Protests at Donald Trump rally in Phoenix - in pictures Read more At a rally in Phoenix , evocative of his populist election campaign , the US president attacked coverage of his response to the white supremacist violence and complained bitterly to his audience about how he had been treated . He re-read three statements he made in the wake of the tragedy and , deploying authoritarian rhetoric , declared : “ It ’ s time to expose the crooked media deceptions and to challenge the media for their role in fomenting divisions and yes , by the way , they are trying to take away our history and our heritage. ” The crowd – some scowling , some laughing – turned and jeered at journalists in the media enclosure and chanted : “ CNN sucks ! CNN sucks ! ” Even as he spoke protesters outside the Phoenix Convention Center had gathered to voice anger at his presence . Police used smoke bombs and teargas on the crowds after plastic bottles were reportedly thrown . The rally was the latest example of Trump as a Jekyll and Hyde public performer , coming just 24 hours after a sober speech to the military setting out future strategy in Afghanistan . On Tuesday he was back in his element , pugnacious and freewheeling , throwing red meat to an eager crowd . The arena , which has a capacity of 19,000 , was mostly full of people waving signs saying “ Drain the swamp ” , “ Make America proud again ” and “ Women for Trump ” . Quick guide What happened at the Charlottesville protests ? Show Hide What happened in Charlottesville on 12 August ? White nationalists gathered in Charlottesville , Virginia , to protest against a plan to remove a statue of Robert E Lee , the Confederacy ’ s top general in the American civil war . Demonstrators chanted racist statements , carried antisemitic placards and held torches during the “ Unite the Right ” rally , which was organised by white nationalist Jason Kessler . The march was met by anti-fascist demonstrators , and some skirmishes broke out before James Fields , 20 , allegedly ploughed a car into a group of counter-demonstrators . Civil rights activist Heather Heyer , 32 , died and others were injured . Fields has been charged with murder . The president caused outrage when , in a chaotic press conference at Trump Tower , he blamed “ both sides ” for the carnage in Charlottesville . On Tuesday night he insisted that he had in fact condemned hatred , bigotry and violence as well as neo-Nazis , white supremacists and the Ku Klux Klan . Play Video 0:52 Protests erupt after Trump ’ s rally in Arizona – video He took his first statement on Charlottesville from his pocket and told his audience : “ You know where my heart is . I ’ m really doing this to show you how damned dishonest these people are … I don ’ t want to bore you with this but it shows you how dishonest they are . ” Trump proceeded to read out the remarks to polite applause , although he failed to repeat the inflammatory words he had used when he blamed “ both sides ” . He repeatedly broke off from his teleprompter to call out “ the failing New York Times ” and Washington Post , which he branded “ a lobbying tool for Amazon ” . Amazon ’ s founder , Jeff Bezos , bought the Post but the entities have no relationship . But it was when the president mentioned CNN – “ which is so bad and so pathetic and their ratings are going down ” – that the crowd booed loudly and burst into a chorus of “ CNN sucks ! ” Trump even made reference to the former CNN contributor Jeffrey Lord , who was fired for tweeting the Nazi salute “ Sieg Heil ” at a liberal activist . “ Poor Jeffrey , ” the president said . “ I guess he was getting a little bit fed up and was probably fighting back too hard and they said , ‘ We got ta get out of here . ’ ” The president also mocked the protesters outside , claiming the turnout against Tuesday ’ s rally was lower than expected . He returned to a theme of moral equivalence for which he was criticised in the wake of Charlottesville : “ You know , they show up in the helmets and the black masks . They ’ ve got clubs and they ’ ve got everything . “ Antifa ! ” he shouted – a term used to describe anti-fascist groups . In a drawn-out performance piece , Trump read out his second and third pronouncements in the aftermath of Charlottesville , while throwing in that he lives “ in a bigger , more beautiful apartment ” than the elites aligned against him , “ and I live in the White House too ” . Then came perhaps his key line : “ The media can attack me but where I draw the line is when they attack you , which is what they do , when they attack the decency of our supporters . You are honest , hard-working , taxpaying Americans – and by the way , you ’ re overtaxed , but we ’ re going to get your taxes down – who love our nation , obey our laws and care for our people . “ It ’ s time to expose the crooked media deceptions and to challenge the media for their role in fomenting divisions and yes , by the way , they are trying to take away our history and our heritage . You see that . These are truly dishonest people . Not all of them . You have some very good reporters , you have some very fair journalists . But for the most part , these are really , really dishonest people . “ They ’ re bad people and I really think they don ’ t like our country . I really believe that . And I don ’ t believe they ’ re going to change and that ’ s why I do this . If they would change , I would never say it . The only people giving a platform to these hate groups is the media itself and the fake news . ” Trump then mocked the cameras in the arena , claiming they were turning off their red lights and stopping live coverage . “ These are sick people . You would think they want to make our country great again and I honestly believe they don ’ t . If you want to discover the source of the division in our country , look no further than the fake news and the crooked media , which would rather get ratings and clicks than tell the truth . ” The crowd turned around several times to boo and shout epithets at the media . The tactic was similar to Trump ’ s last rally in West Virginia , when he sought to blame Democrats for the investigation into his campaign ’ s alleged collusion with Russia , and cast it as an attack on his own supporters . But he went on to praise conservative Fox News for “ treating me fairly ” . Earlier , speakers at the rally had included the housing secretary , Ben Carson , who is African American , and Alveda King , the niece of the civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr . Prominent behind the speakers was an African American man wearing a T-shirt that said : ‘ Trump & Republicans are not racist . ’ During his sprawling 75-minute speech , the president turned to illegal immigration , a major issue for his base in Arizona . He dropped a clear hint that he intends to pardon Joe Arpaio , the former sheriff of Maricopa county , over his conviction for breaking the law with immigration patrols . He asked : “ Do the people in this room like Sheriff Joe ? ” There was a roar from the crowd and chants of “ Pardon Joe ! ” Arpaio was in the crowd . Trump said : “ Was Sheriff Joe convicted for doing his job ? He should have had a jury . I ’ ll make a prediction . I think he ’ s going to be just fine . But I won ’ t do it tonight because I don ’ t want to cause any controversy . ” In another startling moment , Trump , who hours earlier had visited the border at Yuma , threatened to shut down the federal government unless Congress provided funding for his promised border wall . He told the rally that he had a message for “ obstructionist ” Democrats . The House has passed a spending bill with funding for the border wall but it faces an uncertain future in the Senate . “ If we have to close down our government , we ’ re building that wall , ” he said . “ We ’ re going to have our wall . The American people voted for immigration control . We ’ re going to get that wall . ” Trump accused Democrats of putting US security at risk by not supporting the proposal , one of his most popular campaign promises . The crowd erupted in cries of : “ Build that wall ! ” Trump also took swipes at Arizona ’ s two senators , Jeff Flake and John McCain , who have criticised him . He said that after his well-received address on Monday , he was told : “ Please , please Mr President , don ’ t mention any names . So I won ’ t . ” He continued : “ I will not mention any names – very presidential . And nobody wants me to mention your other senator [ Flake ] , who ’ s weak on border , weak on crime . Nobody knows who the hell he is ! See , I haven ’ t mentioned any names , so now everybody ’ s happy . ” On a night when he had brought his verbal machine gun , Trump also took aim at the Nafta trade deal with Canada and Mexico , which is being renegotiated . “ Personally , I don ’ t think we can make a deal , ” he said . “ I think we ’ ll end up probably terminating Nafta at some point . ”

Speaking at a rally in Phoenix, president attempts to counter widespread, bipartisan condemnation of his response to far-right violence Donald Trump has sought to portray himself as the true victim of the deadly events in Charlottesville, launching an all-out assault on the media and branding journalists who “do not like our country” as the true source of division in America. Protests at Donald Trump rally in Phoenix - in pictures Read more At a rally in Phoenix, evocative of his populist election campaign, the US president attacked coverage of his response to the white supremacist violence and complained bitterly to his audience about how he had been treated. He re-read three statements he made in the wake of the tragedy and, deploying authoritarian rhetoric, declared: “It’s time to expose the crooked media deceptions and to challenge the media for their role in fomenting divisions and yes, by the way, they are trying to take away our history and our heritage.” The crowd – some scowling, some laughing – turned and jeered at journalists in the media enclosure and chanted: “CNN sucks! CNN sucks!” Even as he spoke protesters outside the Phoenix Convention Center had gathered to voice anger at his presence. Police used smoke bombs and teargas on the crowds after plastic bottles were reportedly thrown. Facebook Twitter Pinterest A taxi driver becomes trapped as police pepper spray and tear gas demonstrators after a rally by Donald Trump in Phoenix. Photograph: David McNew/Getty Images The rally was the latest example of Trump as a Jekyll and Hyde public performer, coming just 24 hours after a sober speech to the military setting out future strategy in Afghanistan. On Tuesday he was back in his element, pugnacious and freewheeling, throwing red meat to an eager crowd. The arena, which has a capacity of 19,000, was mostly full of people waving signs saying “Drain the swamp”, “Make America proud again” and “Women for Trump”. Quick guide What happened at the Charlottesville protests? Show Hide What happened in Charlottesville on 12 August? White nationalists gathered in Charlottesville, Virginia, to protest against a plan to remove a statue of Robert E Lee, the Confederacy’s top general in the American civil war. Demonstrators chanted racist statements, carried antisemitic placards and held torches during the “Unite the Right” rally, which was organised by white nationalist Jason Kessler. The march was met by anti-fascist demonstrators, and some skirmishes broke out before James Fields, 20, allegedly ploughed a car into a group of counter-demonstrators. Civil rights activist Heather Heyer, 32, died and others were injured. Fields has been charged with murder. The president caused outrage when, in a chaotic press conference at Trump Tower, he blamed “both sides” for the carnage in Charlottesville. On Tuesday night he insisted that he had in fact condemned hatred, bigotry and violence as well as neo-Nazis, white supremacists and the Ku Klux Klan. Play Video 0:52 Protests erupt after Trump’s rally in Arizona – video He took his first statement on Charlottesville from his pocket and told his audience: “You know where my heart is. I’m really doing this to show you how damned dishonest these people are … I don’t want to bore you with this but it shows you how dishonest they are.” Trump proceeded to read out the remarks to polite applause, although he failed to repeat the inflammatory words he had used when he blamed “both sides”. He repeatedly broke off from his teleprompter to call out “the failing New York Times” and Washington Post, which he branded “a lobbying tool for Amazon”. Amazon’s founder, Jeff Bezos, bought the Post but the entities have no relationship. But it was when the president mentioned CNN – “which is so bad and so pathetic and their ratings are going down” – that the crowd booed loudly and burst into a chorus of “CNN sucks!” Trump even made reference to the former CNN contributor Jeffrey Lord, who was fired for tweeting the Nazi salute “Sieg Heil” at a liberal activist. “Poor Jeffrey,” the president said. “I guess he was getting a little bit fed up and was probably fighting back too hard and they said, ‘We gotta get out of here.’” The president also mocked the protesters outside, claiming the turnout against Tuesday’s rally was lower than expected. He returned to a theme of moral equivalence for which he was criticised in the wake of Charlottesville: “You know, they show up in the helmets and the black masks. They’ve got clubs and they’ve got everything. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Protestors gather outside Donald Trump’s rally in Phoenix, Arizona. Photograph: Sandy Huffaker/Reuters “Antifa!” he shouted – a term used to describe anti-fascist groups. In a drawn-out performance piece, Trump read out his second and third pronouncements in the aftermath of Charlottesville, while throwing in that he lives “in a bigger, more beautiful apartment” than the elites aligned against him, “and I live in the White House too”. Then came perhaps his key line: “The media can attack me but where I draw the line is when they attack you, which is what they do, when they attack the decency of our supporters. You are honest, hard-working, taxpaying Americans – and by the way, you’re overtaxed, but we’re going to get your taxes down – who love our nation, obey our laws and care for our people. “It’s time to expose the crooked media deceptions and to challenge the media for their role in fomenting divisions and yes, by the way, they are trying to take away our history and our heritage. You see that. These are truly dishonest people. Not all of them. You have some very good reporters, you have some very fair journalists. But for the most part, these are really, really dishonest people. “They’re bad people and I really think they don’t like our country. I really believe that. And I don’t believe they’re going to change and that’s why I do this. If they would change, I would never say it. The only people giving a platform to these hate groups is the media itself and the fake news.” Trump then mocked the cameras in the arena, claiming they were turning off their red lights and stopping live coverage. “These are sick people. You would think they want to make our country great again and I honestly believe they don’t. If you want to discover the source of the division in our country, look no further than the fake news and the crooked media, which would rather get ratings and clicks than tell the truth.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest Pro-Trump supporters outside the Phoenix rally. Photograph: Sandy Huffaker/Reuters The crowd turned around several times to boo and shout epithets at the media. The tactic was similar to Trump’s last rally in West Virginia, when he sought to blame Democrats for the investigation into his campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia, and cast it as an attack on his own supporters. But he went on to praise conservative Fox News for “treating me fairly”. Earlier, speakers at the rally had included the housing secretary, Ben Carson, who is African American, and Alveda King, the niece of the civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. Prominent behind the speakers was an African American man wearing a T-shirt that said: ‘Trump & Republicans are not racist.’ During his sprawling 75-minute speech, the president turned to illegal immigration, a major issue for his base in Arizona. He dropped a clear hint that he intends to pardon Joe Arpaio, the former sheriff of Maricopa county, over his conviction for breaking the law with immigration patrols. He asked: “Do the people in this room like Sheriff Joe?” There was a roar from the crowd and chants of “Pardon Joe!” Arpaio was in the crowd. Trump said: “Was Sheriff Joe convicted for doing his job? He should have had a jury. I’ll make a prediction. I think he’s going to be just fine. But I won’t do it tonight because I don’t want to cause any controversy.” In another startling moment, Trump, who hours earlier had visited the border at Yuma, threatened to shut down the federal government unless Congress provided funding for his promised border wall. He told the rally that he had a message for “obstructionist” Democrats. The House has passed a spending bill with funding for the border wall but it faces an uncertain future in the Senate. “If we have to close down our government, we’re building that wall,” he said. “We’re going to have our wall. The American people voted for immigration control. We’re going to get that wall.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest A pro-Trump supporter holds a firearm in Phoenix. Photograph: Sandy Huffaker/Reuters Trump accused Democrats of putting US security at risk by not supporting the proposal, one of his most popular campaign promises. The crowd erupted in cries of: “Build that wall!” Trump also took swipes at Arizona’s two senators, Jeff Flake and John McCain, who have criticised him. He said that after his well-received address on Monday, he was told: “Please, please Mr President, don’t mention any names. So I won’t.” He continued: “I will not mention any names – very presidential. And nobody wants me to mention your other senator [Flake], who’s weak on border, weak on crime. Nobody knows who the hell he is! See, I haven’t mentioned any names, so now everybody’s happy.” On a night when he had brought his verbal machine gun, Trump also took aim at the Nafta trade deal with Canada and Mexico, which is being renegotiated. “Personally, I don’t think we can make a deal,” he said. “I think we’ll end up probably terminating Nafta at some point.”

www.theguardian.com

left

qzCJijgdMqjn4r0T

test

jV3XtsTsjfaBbQyb

politics

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2019/may/probe-inconclusive-on-va-governor-northams-racist-yearbook-pic

Probe Inconclusive on VA Governor Northam's Racist Yearbook Pic

2019-05-22

NORFOLK , Va. ( AP ) - An investigation ordered up by a Virginia medical school failed to determine whether Gov . Ralph Northam is in a 1984 yearbook photo of a man in blackface next to someone in a Ku Klux Klan hood . Investigators with a law firm hired by Eastern Virginia Medical School said Wednesday they could n't `` conclusively determine '' the identities of either person in the 35-year-old photo . They also said they could n't discern how the picture was placed on Northam 's yearbook page , but found no evidence it was placed there by mistake or as a prank . The findings are unlikely to have a major effect on state politics or Northam , who has been trying to regain his footing for several months . Virginia politics was turned upside down in a matter of hours in early February after a conservative website posted a picture of Northam 's medical school yearbook page . The Democratic governor issued two apologies within hours , initially indicating that he was one of the people in the picture . By midnight it appeared his entire political base was gone , with the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus , other key Democratic groups and top allies calling on him to resign . Northam reversed course at a news conference the next day , saying he was convinced it was not him in the picture , while revealing that he did in fact wear blackface once decades ago , to look like Michael Jackson for a dance contest . Defying calls to resign , he said he wanted to focus his remaining three years in office on addressing longstanding racial inequities . While he was all but invisible in February and much of March , the governor is making routine public appearances again . And he 's won praise from black lawmakers and others for several recent policy moves . Those include ending the suspension of driver 's licenses for motorists with unpaid court fines and costs , and a review into how public schools teach the nation 's racial history . The heat for Northam to resign significantly lessened after scandal enveloped his potential successors . Two women publicly accused Lt. Gov . Justin Fairfax of sexual assault , which he denies . And Attorney General Mark Herring announced he 'd also worn blackface in college , just days after he too called on Northam to resign . Both Fairfax and Herring also resisted calls to resign . And other politicians around the South soon had their own explaining to do over yearbook images taken long ago . But the incident will forever mark Northam 's time in office , and opponents still use it against him . House Majority Leader Del . Todd Gilbert recently said Northam had chosen to `` repair his own racist legacy , '' rather than protect victims of domestic abuse after the governor vetoed a bill requiring a mandatory jail term for repeat domestic abusers .

NORFOLK, Va. (AP) - An investigation ordered up by a Virginia medical school failed to determine whether Gov. Ralph Northam is in a 1984 yearbook photo of a man in blackface next to someone in a Ku Klux Klan hood. Investigators with a law firm hired by Eastern Virginia Medical School said Wednesday they couldn't "conclusively determine" the identities of either person in the 35-year-old photo. They also said they couldn't discern how the picture was placed on Northam's yearbook page, but found no evidence it was placed there by mistake or as a prank. The findings are unlikely to have a major effect on state politics or Northam, who has been trying to regain his footing for several months. Virginia politics was turned upside down in a matter of hours in early February after a conservative website posted a picture of Northam's medical school yearbook page. The Democratic governor issued two apologies within hours, initially indicating that he was one of the people in the picture. By midnight it appeared his entire political base was gone, with the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus, other key Democratic groups and top allies calling on him to resign. Northam reversed course at a news conference the next day, saying he was convinced it was not him in the picture, while revealing that he did in fact wear blackface once decades ago, to look like Michael Jackson for a dance contest. Defying calls to resign, he said he wanted to focus his remaining three years in office on addressing longstanding racial inequities. While he was all but invisible in February and much of March, the governor is making routine public appearances again. And he's won praise from black lawmakers and others for several recent policy moves. Those include ending the suspension of driver's licenses for motorists with unpaid court fines and costs, and a review into how public schools teach the nation's racial history. The heat for Northam to resign significantly lessened after scandal enveloped his potential successors. Two women publicly accused Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax of sexual assault, which he denies. And Attorney General Mark Herring announced he'd also worn blackface in college, just days after he too called on Northam to resign. Both Fairfax and Herring also resisted calls to resign. And other politicians around the South soon had their own explaining to do over yearbook images taken long ago. But the incident will forever mark Northam's time in office, and opponents still use it against him. House Majority Leader Del. Todd Gilbert recently said Northam had chosen to "repair his own racist legacy," rather than protect victims of domestic abuse after the governor vetoed a bill requiring a mandatory jail term for repeat domestic abusers. Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

www1.cbn.com

right

jV3XtsTsjfaBbQyb

test

DKP0NkLdmpl6CbQD

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/01/why-is-america-moving-left/

Why is America Moving Left?

2015-06-01

Thomas D. Williams

Statistics from the most recent Gallup poll indicate that Americans ’ moral views have become increasingly liberal over the past 14 years , with U.S. citizens tending to approve of behavior they would have deemed immoral or sinful just a generation ago . The biggest change percentage-wise has been in Americans ’ positive moral evaluation of polygamy and human cloning , both of which more than doubled since first measured by Gallup in the early 2000s . In 2003 , a mere 7 % thought that polygamy was morally acceptable , whereas in 2015 , the figure has grown to 16 % . Similarly , the recent poll found that 15 % of Americans now accept human cloning , up from just 7 % of the population in 2001 . Approval of gay and lesbian relations has also soared in the same time period , with an absolute majority of 63 % of the population now seeing nothing wrong with this behavior , as opposed to 40 % in 2001—an increase of 23 percent . In 2001 , a majority of 53 % of U.S. citizens already approved of fornication , and this group has continued to swell also , with 68 % now viewing sex between unmarried people as morally unproblematic . The study found , in fact , that in nearly all of the 16 categories compared , Americans ’ moral views had shifted left , with the exception of only two : the death penalty and scientific experimentation on animals . Unsurprisingly , the leftward shift in Americans ’ moral views has been matched by a corresponding loss of religiosity . A recent Pew Center study on religion in the United States found that despite America ’ s reputation as one of the more religious countries in the world , it has experienced a notable dip in religiosity in the past seven years . The religious category to take the biggest hit was Christianity , especially “ mainline ” Christianity , which fell by 3.4 percent . Though the United States is still a statistically “ Christian nation , ” with about 70 % identifying themselves as followers of Jesus , it is markedly less so than even a generation ago . Evangelicalism , on the other hand , saw significantly smaller losses than mainline Protestant churches , dropping less than one percent of its adherents during this same period . Those identifying as Evangelicals fell from 26.3 to 25.4 % for a total loss in membership of just 0.9 % . Though it is impossible to establish a strict causal relationship between the two phenomena of moral liberalism and declining religiosity , the correlation between them is still striking . What may not seem immediately apparent is why as Americans become increasingly progressive , they are abandoning liberal religious denominations in favor of conservative ones . One theory , advanced by Arthur E. Farnsley II , a professor of religious studies at Indiana University , is that the more churches resemble society at large in terms of their moral teachings and understanding of the meaning of human existence , the less relevant they are . Why continue to attend church services to hear the same message you get from reigning culture ? Religion only makes a difference when it offers an alternative account of reality , distinguishable from secular culture . It is , in fact , the countercultural religious groups that are holding on to their membership . Farnsley suggests , therefore , that the more liberal religious groups will continue to lose members and influence “ because they are already on the modernist side , meaning many of their core values are expressed in other institutions , including government . ” Much of the decline in membership for mainstream Christianity seems to be the result of a loss of recognizable Christian identity in those churches . Four particular phenomena stand out in this trend away from Christian tradition . In the first place , mainstream Christian churches have shifted focus from the worship of God to social justice issues . As churches have moved away from a God-centered vision to a human-centered approach , they have come to resemble many other philanthropic institutions with no particularly religious character . As churches look more and more like humanitarian associations , the allegiance of their members has dropped correspondingly . A second discernible phenomenon has been the unmooring of mainstream Christianity from its biblical roots . Many Christians seem to find Christ ’ s moral teachings increasingly embarrassing in an age that is tolerant of virtually any consensual human behavior . Abandoning a more literal approach to biblical morality , many have reinterpreted even the clearest biblical doctrines to make them resemble societal trends . As sociological criteria have replaced biblical principles as a moral guide , the Bible has been reduced to a source of “ spiritual inspiration. ” Having lost their belief in the power of the Bible to teach moral truth , many have drifted away from Christianity altogether . A third development has been a shift in emphasis from eternity to the here and now . Traditionally , Christianity placed greater importance on the “ salvation of souls ” than on the immediate benefits of religion , meaning that more attention was given to the “ eternal truths ” of final judgment , heaven and hell , than to the psychological rewards of faith . As mainstream Christians have abandoned talk of eternity in favor of secular concerns , they have found that “ secular ” solutions seem better suited to meet their needs . A final trend among mainstream Christian churches has been a progressive lowering of the moral bar , seemingly out of fear of appearing “ judgmental ” or “ hypocritical. ” Confusing judgmentalism with the ability to tell right from wrong , many Christians have moved in the direction of withdrawing disapproval from all but the most egregious sins . The lower the bar , the fewer fail to get over it : “ I ’ m okay . You ’ re okay. ” Similarly , some have confused hypocrisy with a simple failure to live up to one ’ s moral ideals , and have embraced the facile solution of chucking their ideals . Hypocrisy , in fact , becomes impossible when one no longer endorses any moral standards . What all this means for the future is uncertain , but there are no signs of a reversal of the liberalizing trend any time soon . It seems , rather , to be gaining momentum . The message for churches , however , seems relatively clear . For those who wish to hold on to their members and possibly even attract new ones , a recovery of a clearer Christian identity is indispensable , even at the risk of appearing countercultural .

Statistics from the most recent Gallup poll indicate that Americans’ moral views have become increasingly liberal over the past 14 years, with U.S. citizens tending to approve of behavior they would have deemed immoral or sinful just a generation ago. The biggest change percentage-wise has been in Americans’ positive moral evaluation of polygamy and human cloning, both of which more than doubled since first measured by Gallup in the early 2000s. In 2003, a mere 7% thought that polygamy was morally acceptable, whereas in 2015, the figure has grown to 16%. Similarly, the recent poll found that 15% of Americans now accept human cloning, up from just 7% of the population in 2001. Approval of gay and lesbian relations has also soared in the same time period, with an absolute majority of 63% of the population now seeing nothing wrong with this behavior, as opposed to 40% in 2001—an increase of 23 percent. In 2001, a majority of 53% of U.S. citizens already approved of fornication, and this group has continued to swell also, with 68% now viewing sex between unmarried people as morally unproblematic. The study found, in fact, that in nearly all of the 16 categories compared, Americans’ moral views had shifted left, with the exception of only two: the death penalty and scientific experimentation on animals. Unsurprisingly, the leftward shift in Americans’ moral views has been matched by a corresponding loss of religiosity. A recent Pew Center study on religion in the United States found that despite America’s reputation as one of the more religious countries in the world, it has experienced a notable dip in religiosity in the past seven years. The religious category to take the biggest hit was Christianity, especially “mainline” Christianity, which fell by 3.4 percent. Though the United States is still a statistically “Christian nation,” with about 70% identifying themselves as followers of Jesus, it is markedly less so than even a generation ago. Evangelicalism, on the other hand, saw significantly smaller losses than mainline Protestant churches, dropping less than one percent of its adherents during this same period. Those identifying as Evangelicals fell from 26.3 to 25.4% for a total loss in membership of just 0.9%. Though it is impossible to establish a strict causal relationship between the two phenomena of moral liberalism and declining religiosity, the correlation between them is still striking. What may not seem immediately apparent is why as Americans become increasingly progressive, they are abandoning liberal religious denominations in favor of conservative ones. One theory, advanced by Arthur E. Farnsley II, a professor of religious studies at Indiana University, is that the more churches resemble society at large in terms of their moral teachings and understanding of the meaning of human existence, the less relevant they are. Why continue to attend church services to hear the same message you get from reigning culture? Religion only makes a difference when it offers an alternative account of reality, distinguishable from secular culture. It is, in fact, the countercultural religious groups that are holding on to their membership. Farnsley suggests, therefore, that the more liberal religious groups will continue to lose members and influence “because they are already on the modernist side, meaning many of their core values are expressed in other institutions, including government.” Much of the decline in membership for mainstream Christianity seems to be the result of a loss of recognizable Christian identity in those churches. Four particular phenomena stand out in this trend away from Christian tradition. In the first place, mainstream Christian churches have shifted focus from the worship of God to social justice issues. As churches have moved away from a God-centered vision to a human-centered approach, they have come to resemble many other philanthropic institutions with no particularly religious character. As churches look more and more like humanitarian associations, the allegiance of their members has dropped correspondingly. A second discernible phenomenon has been the unmooring of mainstream Christianity from its biblical roots. Many Christians seem to find Christ’s moral teachings increasingly embarrassing in an age that is tolerant of virtually any consensual human behavior. Abandoning a more literal approach to biblical morality, many have reinterpreted even the clearest biblical doctrines to make them resemble societal trends. As sociological criteria have replaced biblical principles as a moral guide, the Bible has been reduced to a source of “spiritual inspiration.” Having lost their belief in the power of the Bible to teach moral truth, many have drifted away from Christianity altogether. A third development has been a shift in emphasis from eternity to the here and now. Traditionally, Christianity placed greater importance on the “salvation of souls” than on the immediate benefits of religion, meaning that more attention was given to the “eternal truths” of final judgment, heaven and hell, than to the psychological rewards of faith. As mainstream Christians have abandoned talk of eternity in favor of secular concerns, they have found that “secular” solutions seem better suited to meet their needs. A final trend among mainstream Christian churches has been a progressive lowering of the moral bar, seemingly out of fear of appearing “judgmental” or “hypocritical.” Confusing judgmentalism with the ability to tell right from wrong, many Christians have moved in the direction of withdrawing disapproval from all but the most egregious sins. The lower the bar, the fewer fail to get over it: “I’m okay. You’re okay.” Similarly, some have confused hypocrisy with a simple failure to live up to one’s moral ideals, and have embraced the facile solution of chucking their ideals. Hypocrisy, in fact, becomes impossible when one no longer endorses any moral standards. What all this means for the future is uncertain, but there are no signs of a reversal of the liberalizing trend any time soon. It seems, rather, to be gaining momentum. The message for churches, however, seems relatively clear. For those who wish to hold on to their members and possibly even attract new ones, a recovery of a clearer Christian identity is indispensable, even at the risk of appearing countercultural. Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter @tdwilliamsrome.

www.breitbart.com

right

DKP0NkLdmpl6CbQD

test

TZbz8FXvoIBcnoza

fbi

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50706835

Pensacola attack is presumed terrorism - FBI

The FBI says it is treating Friday 's deadly attack on a Florida navy base as a presumed terrorist attack . The Saudi gunman - who was training at the Pensacola site - killed three sailors before he was shot dead . Special agent Rachel Rojas said the FBI was trying to determine if he had acted alone or had connections to a group . She said other Saudi students had been questioned but not arrested . They were reportedly confined to the base and co-operating with investigators . The victims of the attack have been named as Joshua Kaleb Watson , 23 , Mohammed Sameh Haitham , 19 , and Cameron Scott Walters , 21 . The US Navy said the sailors `` showed exceptional heroism and bravery in the face of evil '' . In Sunday 's press conference , Ms Rojas gave almost no details of the investigation 's findings so far . However , she did say that the gunman , 21-year-old Mohammed Alshamrani , bought his weapon legally in the US . It was a 9mm handgun . It has been reported in US media that Alshamrani played mass-shooting videos to others at a dinner earlier in the week , according to an anonymous official briefed on the investigation . A Twitter user appearing to match Alshamrani 's identity also made a series of anti-US posts before the shooting , an online monitoring group says . Alshamrani had also filed a formal complaint against one of his instructors over a nickname which he said had humiliated him . Alshamrani alleged the instructor had called him `` Porn Stash '' , an apparent reference to the moustache of a porn actor , in front of 10 other aviation students in April . `` I was infuriated as to why he would say that in front of the class , '' Alshamrani wrote in the complaint , the New York Times reported . At a separate press conference on Sunday , Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said the gunman had `` a major social media trail '' and called for more stringent security measures . `` This guy was somebody who just had a deep-seated hatred for the United States and that was pretty clear from that , '' he said . `` My view is that ... for us to be bringing in these foreign nationals , you have to take precautions to protect the country . '' The Pensacola base has long offered aviation training to foreign military forces . Saudi pilots started training there in 1995 , alongside other personnel from Italy , Singapore and Germany . Cpt Kinsella Jnr said that about 200 international students were enrolled in programmes there . According to its website , the base employs more than 16,000 military and 7,400 civilian personnel . Alshamrani was a second lieutenant in the Saudi Air Force . Earlier US Defence Secretary Mark Esper ordered a review of the screening process for foreign military in the US . Mr Esper told Fox News Sunday he had instructed top defence officials to look into security measures at bases . President Donald Trump has also pledged to review foreign military programmes . Authorities were alerted to the shooting at the Pensacola base at 06:51 ( 11:51 GMT ) . It took place across two floors of a classroom building and ended when a sheriff 's deputy killed Alshamrani . Eight people were also injured in the shooting , including two officers , who are expected to recover . Family members of Joshua Kaleb Watson said he was shot several times but made it out of the building to alert first responders . On Facebook , his brother Adam Watson wrote : `` He died a hero and we are beyond proud but there is a hole in our hearts that can never be filled . '' Capt Tim Kinsella , the base 's commanding officer , said of the three sailors killed : `` When confronted , they did n't run from danger ; they ran towards it and saved lives . '' Saudi Arabia is a key US ally in the Middle East and President Trump said the Saudi king called him after the attack to `` express his sincere condolences and give his sympathies to the families and friends of the warriors who were killed '' . Just as he did in the wake of the murder of the dissident Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in his country 's consulate in Istanbul , President Trump is seeking to play down the significance of the Pensacola shooting . For a president who largely sees foreign policy in transactional terms , Saudi Arabia is a great customer for the US . Billions of dollars in weapons sales translates into more than 5,500 temporary visas being issued to the Saudi military to come to the US . Saudi personnel make up about 16 % of the foreign personnel being trained at US military schools and other facilities . The Pensacola shooting is already raising questions about the vetting of these individuals . But more broadly it once again highlights the long-standing relationship between Washington and Riyadh - a relationship that many critics in Congress see as increasingly dubious in the wake of the Khashoggi murder and the Saudi military onslaught in Yemen .

Image copyright US Navy Image caption Mohammad Sameh Haitham and Joshua Kaleb Watson were two of three young sailors killed The FBI says it is treating Friday's deadly attack on a Florida navy base as a presumed terrorist attack. The Saudi gunman - who was training at the Pensacola site - killed three sailors before he was shot dead. Special agent Rachel Rojas said the FBI was trying to determine if he had acted alone or had connections to a group. She said other Saudi students had been questioned but not arrested. They were reportedly confined to the base and co-operating with investigators. The victims of the attack have been named as Joshua Kaleb Watson, 23, Mohammed Sameh Haitham, 19, and Cameron Scott Walters, 21. The US Navy said the sailors "showed exceptional heroism and bravery in the face of evil". In Sunday's press conference, Ms Rojas gave almost no details of the investigation's findings so far. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Rachel Rojas says there is no new 'credible' threat following the shooting However, she did say that the gunman, 21-year-old Mohammed Alshamrani, bought his weapon legally in the US. It was a 9mm handgun. It has been reported in US media that Alshamrani played mass-shooting videos to others at a dinner earlier in the week, according to an anonymous official briefed on the investigation. A Twitter user appearing to match Alshamrani's identity also made a series of anti-US posts before the shooting, an online monitoring group says. Alshamrani had also filed a formal complaint against one of his instructors over a nickname which he said had humiliated him. Alshamrani alleged the instructor had called him "Porn Stash", an apparent reference to the moustache of a porn actor, in front of 10 other aviation students in April. "I was infuriated as to why he would say that in front of the class," Alshamrani wrote in the complaint, the New York Times reported. Image copyright Reuters Image caption The gunman has been officially named as Mohammed Alshamrani by the FBI At a separate press conference on Sunday, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said the gunman had "a major social media trail" and called for more stringent security measures. "This guy was somebody who just had a deep-seated hatred for the United States and that was pretty clear from that," he said. "My view is that... for us to be bringing in these foreign nationals, you have to take precautions to protect the country." Why were Saudis at the US base? The Pensacola base has long offered aviation training to foreign military forces. Saudi pilots started training there in 1995, alongside other personnel from Italy, Singapore and Germany. Cpt Kinsella Jnr said that about 200 international students were enrolled in programmes there. According to its website, the base employs more than 16,000 military and 7,400 civilian personnel. Alshamrani was a second lieutenant in the Saudi Air Force. Earlier US Defence Secretary Mark Esper ordered a review of the screening process for foreign military in the US. Mr Esper told Fox News Sunday he had instructed top defence officials to look into security measures at bases. President Donald Trump has also pledged to review foreign military programmes. What happened on Friday? Authorities were alerted to the shooting at the Pensacola base at 06:51 (11:51 GMT). It took place across two floors of a classroom building and ended when a sheriff's deputy killed Alshamrani. Eight people were also injured in the shooting, including two officers, who are expected to recover. Family members of Joshua Kaleb Watson said he was shot several times but made it out of the building to alert first responders. On Facebook, his brother Adam Watson wrote: "He died a hero and we are beyond proud but there is a hole in our hearts that can never be filled." Capt Tim Kinsella, the base's commanding officer, said of the three sailors killed: "When confronted, they didn't run from danger; they ran towards it and saved lives." Saudi Arabia is a key US ally in the Middle East and President Trump said the Saudi king called him after the attack to "express his sincere condolences and give his sympathies to the families and friends of the warriors who were killed". Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Florida governor: "The Saudi government will owe a debt here" Questions over the US-Saudi relationship Just as he did in the wake of the murder of the dissident Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in his country's consulate in Istanbul, President Trump is seeking to play down the significance of the Pensacola shooting. For a president who largely sees foreign policy in transactional terms, Saudi Arabia is a great customer for the US. Billions of dollars in weapons sales translates into more than 5,500 temporary visas being issued to the Saudi military to come to the US. Saudi personnel make up about 16% of the foreign personnel being trained at US military schools and other facilities. The Pensacola shooting is already raising questions about the vetting of these individuals. But more broadly it once again highlights the long-standing relationship between Washington and Riyadh - a relationship that many critics in Congress see as increasingly dubious in the wake of the Khashoggi murder and the Saudi military onslaught in Yemen.

www.bbc.com

center

TZbz8FXvoIBcnoza

test

LAetB1otAzM9lx1Y

politics

Guest Writer - Right

https://spectator.org/if-only-trump-had-known-what-he-did-not-yet-know-about-d-c/

OPINION: If Only Trump Had Known What He Did Not Yet Know About D.C.

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

Even President Trump ’ s supporters do not fully realize the job he has done . As I have written in the past , during the course of a wonderful rabbinic career that has given me so much personal satisfaction and fulfillment and that hopefully has touched the lives of my flocks , I once endured the Twilight Zone interlude of being rabbi of one of the worst Nightmare Congregations in America . ( Two of my dearest friends , both Christian pastors , have enlightened me that the experience was not unique , and both pointed me to an extraordinary book , Clergy Killers , that lays out the despicable phenomenon of Houses of G-d of all faiths where outlier ego-driven laity can destroy spiritual harmony as they superimpose their personal social pathologies on everyone in their church , temple , or synagogue . ) During that brief thirty-month journey in the Twilight Zone , there was a coterie of only a dozen jerks out to sabotage my every effort despite the warm support and even deep love I enjoyed among the vast majority of that congregation of 250 or so people . But the jerks comprised the inner circle , the “ Board of Directors , ” comprised of some wonderful people out-shouted by determined ego-driven laity who knew so very little about conducting a religious community but a great deal about internal political manipulations and striving for crumbs of vainglory . I recount this brief nightmare — and thank G-d Almig-ty it was only a passing phase , a blip in a pulpit career of more than a quarter century — because I therefore appreciate more deeply from that personal experience what President Trump has accomplished against all odds . As a rabbi , I constantly was being harassed by the Gang of Miscreants who were determined to stop my every religious and spiritual initiative . I tried to bring in a marvelous young married couple as Youth Directors , and the Board produced a false budget that showed we could not afford it . Inasmuch as I had spent more than a decade as a trained high-stakes civil litigation attorney , I had more experience than do most rabbis in analyzing a complex budget . It took me days to pierce through the errors and to educate enough sympathetic Board members so that we indeed hired that couple — with plenty of money to spare — but there was grief to endure . There was the case of the person who had harassed two women , but who was very well inter-connected with the powers in charge , and I had to decide whether I make the issue of his removal a central crusade of my rabbinate . I did make it so , and I won , but it came at a severe personal cost that I still never have regretted . If a rabbi will not stand for zero tolerance , who will ? There was the case of the Board officer who entered my office and , in my presence , viciously swiped his arm across my desk and sent everything flying : my stacks of papers , my business cards , my holy books . Indeed , each and every sabotage , each and every effort to provoke me , disrupted my longer-term programs . I still accomplished many of my goals , and sixty of the 150 congregational households followed me when I departed from that place and started a new shul , but I often had to delay programs , reduce projects , reorient my schedule , even reschedule important pastoral-care sessions to deal with the daily attacks , investigations , and other harassments . During those years , I uncharacteristically did very little outside writing because something had to give time-wise . I am going to assume , dollars to donuts , that several of this column ’ s readers have encountered something similar . Not necessarily at a church or temple , but maybe at a law firm or an accounting firm , a medical department at a hospital , a standard office setting . The internecine petty sabotage of office politics where mediocrities who never achieve anything great choose to live to sabotage those who surpass them . These are the themes of so many of Ayn Rand ’ s greatest novels : The Fountainhead , Atlas Shrugged , We the Living — where mediocrities who themselves never could build , design , or even conceptualize a great edifice devote their efforts to tearing down a great architect , where incompetents who can not run a railroad or a steel mill do all they can to sabotage the successes and achievements of those who can . This is what President Trump has been dealing with from the day he walked into the Presidency . The Mediacracy ’ s mediocrities set out to destroy him from Day One . The lies began immediately : He is an anti-Semite . Lie . He took a bust of Rev . Dr. King out of the oval office . Lie . He is a White supremacist . Lie . No sooner was he at work than the hordes descended on his spokesman , Sean Spicer . Later they would throw the next spokesperson and her family out of a restaurant . And that evil Mueller Inquisition . One of these days , between tomorrow and the end of Mr. Trump ’ s second term in six years , we will see that Mr. Trump did not collude with Putin , but that Inquisition has taken so much air out of his every day . The President does not lay it out for us , but he surely needs to meet with his lawyers , deal with strategy over whether to give a deposition ( Don ’ t You Dare , Mr . President ! ) , review a gazillion documents . He has to watch friends and supporters get harassed with midnight SWAT raids , thrown into prison over nonsense because every single human being can accidentally have an innocent memory lapse or misstate a fact when subjected to hours of trick questions . Frankly , I don ’ t know how he has achieved so much so fast . ISIS was spreading into a caliphate , and he finished them . North Korea was launching ballistic missiles , and he stopped it , even getting the Doughboy to return the remains of American heroes who had fallen there half a century earlier . He got back that pastor from Turkey . He has imposed brutal sanctions on Putin and started arming Ukraine after Obama kowtowed to Putin and ended our promised missile defenses that we were supposed to provide Poland and the Czech Republic . He ended our insane cash flow to terrorists of the Palestine Authority , which was using your and my millions to finance the families of convicted murderers , bombers , and other terrorists while producing schoolbooks that teach eternal hate to children . He turned America from an energy net-importing country to net-exporting country . He reversed the stagnancy of the Obama Wasted Decade ’ s dead economy and made it robust . The tax cuts . Manufacturing in the Rust Belt that was deemed hopelessly dead has revived . Our aluminum and steel industries are back . Veterans have new medical choices for care . The Obamacare tax penalty is dead . An unprecedented rush of new conservative federal judges have assumed their lifetime bench appointments in the federal district and appellate circuit courts , with another 54 now nominated and proceeding through The Resistance . He has wiped out scores of Obama regulations that stagnated the economy and our lives , even as he got us out of the Obama Iran Giveaway , the Paris Climate Accord that imposed on America but not on China , India , or anyone else . He got us out of the TPP and renegotiated the disastrous NAFTA . And oh how valiantly he has fought to prop up our southern border and to stop the flow of opioids , human trafficking , and gang thugs and terrorists . Through all this he has had to deal with The Resistance , false charges of Russian collusion from people who themselves colluded with Russians , an Obama-and-Clinton stacked Ninth Circuit court of appeals , a murder of crows at CBS , NBC , ABC , MSNBC , CNN , the NYT , and WaPo that will not give him a chance . They attack everything he does , everything he says . One week they make an Omarosa their hero . The next week Avenatti — until he gets charged with battering a woman . The pole dancer whose main legal accomplishment so far has been to lose lawsuits against the President and get stuck with paying the President ’ s attorneys ’ fees in the six figures . One week it is a Michael Cohen who , when not giving the media the anti-Trump quotes that make them salivate , is being imprisoned for one crime or another , with a rap sheet that goes to taxi medallions . Another week a lie that the President suborned perjury . Meanwhile , every time he gets a physical exam that results in a doctor innocently announcing that the President is in good health , the same Mediacracy mediocrities set about to destroy the doctor . Abort them ! It is amazing that this President has achieved so much so soon . I know from my Twilight Zone congregation of thirty months what it was like trying to get a job done when mediocrities set up daily obstacles , investigations , and demanded endless reports . But that is “ small potatoes ” compared to turning around the United States and the course of our country ’ s history . It is amazing that he has achieved so much . They mock his wife . Go ahead and mock an African-American accent the way that Jimmy Kimmel has done in blackface . Go ahead and mock a Hispanic accent , as once was permitted in the days of Dick Tracy and Go-Go Gomez , or Bill Dana and Jose Jimenez , or The Frito Bandito . You can ’ t do that anymore — and , OK , fine . Let us indeed be copacetic with respecting cultures and accents . But Chelsea Handler may mock Melania Trump ’ s accent , even though Melania is twenty times smarter than a Chelsea Handler and speaks more languages than Handler even knows exist . Then they analyze Melania ’ s clothes , and they publish page-one stories about every outfit ’ s “ hidden message ” — invariably that she is about to ask for a divorce . Or where is she ? Why is she hiding ? They hound her ; who can blame her for staying out of their glare for a few days or weeks ? Let her recuperate from surgery . So then they go after his son . Then after his daughter , then after his son-in-law . They even go after the tall-but-still little kid when poor Barron falls asleep or closes his eyes . They write that he is autistic . Who goes after kids like that in a civil society ? They are vicious . Let us be forthright : Here is the President ’ s one flaw , and Chris Christie has been spot-on , though self-serving , through his book tour . Donald Trump came to Washington . D.C. too cockamamie-sure that he knows everything about everything and therefore can navigate anything on his own . He took on a chief of staff and a press spokesman blithely because , oh , may as well . He picked cabinet members based on considerations — and I do get it — as to what would satisfy the Mediacracy wolves ’ thirst for blood . So he owed Jeff Sessions eternal gratitude — he really did — for being the only United States Senator to back him during the rough-and-tumble GOP primaries , and made him his Attorney General . He put Rex Tillerson in charge of State because Tillerson had carved a phenomenal career in dealing effectively with the Russians including Putin on energy issues . He put Mad Dog in charge of defense because the name sounded good , and Gen. Mattis seemed the guy . In all these , Mr. Trump failed to appreciate that , no , you can not be maximally effective as President without help you can count on — help that is the best of the best , and that is the most loyal of the loyal , and people who share precisely your vision , not aiming to advance their own . His great mistake was that — quite the opposite of his public persona — he was too nice a guy , too willing to make others happy and play to others ’ expectations . So he put faith in Paul Ryan to be an improvement over John Boehner , and that was a mistake . He brought in Reince Priebus , a wonderful guy , and Sean Spicer — but those jobs were above their pay grades ; he should have begun with Gen. John Kelly . Omarosa should have been made his Secretary of TV Shows and stationed in Bosnia . Mike Pompeo should have been his Secretary of State from Day One . John Bolton belonged on the inside from the outset . Nikki Haley proved a shockingly great United Nations ambassador , but he blew it with the A-G . It should have been Chris Christie , or the ever-tongue-slipping Rudy Giuliani , Joe diGenova , or even the best we have had in years , Michael Mukasey . That one last botch — picking the wrong Attorney-General — will be recorded in history as his worst mistake . It doomed so much of his first term . Look how great Eric Holder was for Obama , followed equally by Loretta Lynch . Each knew how an A-G with guts and fortitude , bold and brash , fast and furious , on the tarmac and off the tarmac , can make or break so much of a President ’ s agenda . Indeed , that is why John Kennedy decided that “ Gee , nepotism may look bad , but I want my brother in that role . ” Donald Trump came in with no prior legislative experience . If he had known then what he finally has learned now , he would have shoved that border wall down Ryan ’ s throat , and he would have gotten it . If he had had the right A-G , he would have crafted his entry ban a bit more cleverly , and each of his subsequent Ninth Circuit debacles would have been more elegantly situated for Supreme Court review . Indeed , if he had me— and I am utterly not qualified , nor would I want it because I like being a rabbi and law professor , and I hate participatory politics — but if he had had even me , I would have advised him that , every single time he issues a new Executive Order , he should counter-intuitively have the pro-Trump Texas or Louisiana Attorney General race immediately to the Fifth Circuit to attack him and his Executive Order… so that the first court that rules with a national injunction would be the pro-Trump , pro-conservative Fifth Circuit . Race to the Fifth before the Left gets to the Ninth . That would have changed the whole dynamic on everything from the Keystone XL Pipeline to the various issues on the southern border . We now enter the era of the Democrat House investigations . They want his taxes ? Well , America wants Adam Schiff ’ s taxes . And Nancy Pelosi ’ s taxes . And the taxes not only of Dianne Feinstein and Maxine Waters but also of their husbands who have become very , very rich . Schiff and the other Democrat House committees are going to demand for the next two years . That is not “ oversight. ” We all have been employed or have employed others — or both . Oversight is when an overseer assures that the underling is coming to work on time , not stealing from the petty cash , doing an honest day ’ s work for an honest day ’ s dollar , not dawdling all day playing solitaire on the computer or scaring off the customers or disconnecting phone callers . That is oversight . By contrast , oversight is not persecuting someone — demanding his taxes , his kids ’ taxes , trying to drive him crazy and tie him up with sabotage all day every day to prevent him from getting his work done . As these next two years unfold , I hope that gutless GOP Senate committees , if only to save their own hides , start subpoenaing every Clinton thing they can think of : Clinton Foundation , Clinton speaking fees and secret speeches , back to Benghazi , back to the 33,000 yoga and wedding-dress emails . Investigate who lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Kavanaugh hearings and make them roommates with Manafort and Cohen . Get Lois Lerner back ; we miss her . Investigate Comey and all his crew : Macabre McCabe , Strzok , Page . Investigate that Obama CIA director , John Brennan , who voted for Gus Hall , the Communist candidate for President . ( Did we actually just have a CIA director who had voted for a pro-Soviet Communist President of America ? And that guy is accusing others of treason and collusion with the Russians ? ) And , taking a cue from Mueller , just name a Special Investigator to investigate “ the Clintons ” — with the proviso that he or she is authorized to follow the trail wherever it leads . It will lead everywhere .

Even President Trump’s supporters do not fully realize the job he has done. As I have written in the past, during the course of a wonderful rabbinic career that has given me so much personal satisfaction and fulfillment and that hopefully has touched the lives of my flocks, I once endured the Twilight Zone interlude of being rabbi of one of the worst Nightmare Congregations in America. (Two of my dearest friends, both Christian pastors, have enlightened me that the experience was not unique, and both pointed me to an extraordinary book, Clergy Killers, that lays out the despicable phenomenon of Houses of G-d of all faiths where outlier ego-driven laity can destroy spiritual harmony as they superimpose their personal social pathologies on everyone in their church, temple, or synagogue.) During that brief thirty-month journey in the Twilight Zone, there was a coterie of only a dozen jerks out to sabotage my every effort despite the warm support and even deep love I enjoyed among the vast majority of that congregation of 250 or so people. But the jerks comprised the inner circle, the “Board of Directors,” comprised of some wonderful people out-shouted by determined ego-driven laity who knew so very little about conducting a religious community but a great deal about internal political manipulations and striving for crumbs of vainglory. I recount this brief nightmare — and thank G-d Almig-ty it was only a passing phase, a blip in a pulpit career of more than a quarter century — because I therefore appreciate more deeply from that personal experience what President Trump has accomplished against all odds. As a rabbi, I constantly was being harassed by the Gang of Miscreants who were determined to stop my every religious and spiritual initiative. I tried to bring in a marvelous young married couple as Youth Directors, and the Board produced a false budget that showed we could not afford it. Inasmuch as I had spent more than a decade as a trained high-stakes civil litigation attorney, I had more experience than do most rabbis in analyzing a complex budget. It took me days to pierce through the errors and to educate enough sympathetic Board members so that we indeed hired that couple — with plenty of money to spare — but there was grief to endure. There was the case of the person who had harassed two women, but who was very well inter-connected with the powers in charge, and I had to decide whether I make the issue of his removal a central crusade of my rabbinate. I did make it so, and I won, but it came at a severe personal cost that I still never have regretted. If a rabbi will not stand for zero tolerance, who will? There was the case of the Board officer who entered my office and, in my presence, viciously swiped his arm across my desk and sent everything flying: my stacks of papers, my business cards, my holy books. Indeed, each and every sabotage, each and every effort to provoke me, disrupted my longer-term programs. I still accomplished many of my goals, and sixty of the 150 congregational households followed me when I departed from that place and started a new shul, but I often had to delay programs, reduce projects, reorient my schedule, even reschedule important pastoral-care sessions to deal with the daily attacks, investigations, and other harassments. During those years, I uncharacteristically did very little outside writing because something had to give time-wise. I am going to assume, dollars to donuts, that several of this column’s readers have encountered something similar. Not necessarily at a church or temple, but maybe at a law firm or an accounting firm, a medical department at a hospital, a standard office setting. The internecine petty sabotage of office politics where mediocrities who never achieve anything great choose to live to sabotage those who surpass them. These are the themes of so many of Ayn Rand’s greatest novels:The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, We the Living — where mediocrities who themselves never could build, design, or even conceptualize a great edifice devote their efforts to tearing down a great architect, where incompetents who cannot run a railroad or a steel mill do all they can to sabotage the successes and achievements of those who can. This is what President Trump has been dealing with from the day he walked into the Presidency. The Mediacracy’s mediocrities set out to destroy him from Day One. The lies began immediately: He is an anti-Semite. Lie. He took a bust of Rev. Dr. King out of the oval office. Lie. He is a White supremacist. Lie. No sooner was he at work than the hordes descended on his spokesman, Sean Spicer. Later they would throw the next spokesperson and her family out of a restaurant. And that evil Mueller Inquisition. One of these days, between tomorrow and the end of Mr. Trump’s second term in six years, we will see that Mr. Trump did not collude with Putin, but that Inquisition has taken so much air out of his every day. The President does not lay it out for us, but he surely needs to meet with his lawyers, deal with strategy over whether to give a deposition (Don’t You Dare, Mr. President!), review a gazillion documents. He has to watch friends and supporters get harassed with midnight SWAT raids, thrown into prison over nonsense because every single human being can accidentally have an innocent memory lapse or misstate a fact when subjected to hours of trick questions. Frankly, I don’t know how he has achieved so much so fast. ISIS was spreading into a caliphate, and he finished them. North Korea was launching ballistic missiles, and he stopped it, even getting the Doughboy to return the remains of American heroes who had fallen there half a century earlier. He got back that pastor from Turkey. He has imposed brutal sanctions on Putin and started arming Ukraine after Obama kowtowed to Putin and ended our promised missile defenses that we were supposed to provide Poland and the Czech Republic. He ended our insane cash flow to terrorists of the Palestine Authority, which was using your and my millions to finance the families of convicted murderers, bombers, and other terrorists while producing schoolbooks that teach eternal hate to children. He turned America from an energy net-importing country to net-exporting country. He reversed the stagnancy of the Obama Wasted Decade’s dead economy and made it robust. The tax cuts. Manufacturing in the Rust Belt that was deemed hopelessly dead has revived. Our aluminum and steel industries are back. Veterans have new medical choices for care. The Obamacare tax penalty is dead. An unprecedented rush of new conservative federal judges have assumed their lifetime bench appointments in the federal district and appellate circuit courts, with another 54 now nominated and proceeding through The Resistance. He has wiped out scores of Obama regulations that stagnated the economy and our lives, even as he got us out of the Obama Iran Giveaway, the Paris Climate Accord that imposed on America but not on China, India, or anyone else. He got us out of the TPP and renegotiated the disastrous NAFTA. And oh how valiantly he has fought to prop up our southern border and to stop the flow of opioids, human trafficking, and gang thugs and terrorists. Through all this he has had to deal with The Resistance, false charges of Russian collusion from people who themselves colluded with Russians, an Obama-and-Clinton stacked Ninth Circuit court of appeals, a murder of crows at CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, the NYT, and WaPo that will not give him a chance. They attack everything he does, everything he says. One week they make an Omarosa their hero. The next week Avenatti — until he gets charged with battering a woman. The pole dancer whose main legal accomplishment so far has been to lose lawsuits against the President and get stuck with paying the President’s attorneys’ fees in the six figures. One week it is a Michael Cohen who, when not giving the media the anti-Trump quotes that make them salivate, is being imprisoned for one crime or another, with a rap sheet that goes to taxi medallions. Another week a lie that the President suborned perjury. Meanwhile, every time he gets a physical exam that results in a doctor innocently announcing that the President is in good health, the same Mediacracy mediocrities set about to destroy the doctor. Abort them! It is amazing that this President has achieved so much so soon. I know from my Twilight Zone congregation of thirty months what it was like trying to get a job done when mediocrities set up daily obstacles, investigations, and demanded endless reports. But that is “small potatoes” compared to turning around the United States and the course of our country’s history. It is amazing that he has achieved so much. They mock his wife. Go ahead and mock an African-American accent the way that Jimmy Kimmel has done in blackface. Go ahead and mock a Hispanic accent, as once was permitted in the days of Dick Tracy and Go-Go Gomez, or Bill Dana and Jose Jimenez, or The Frito Bandito. You can’t do that anymore — and, OK, fine. Let us indeed be copacetic with respecting cultures and accents. But Chelsea Handler may mock Melania Trump’s accent, even though Melania is twenty times smarter than a Chelsea Handler and speaks more languages than Handler even knows exist. Then they analyze Melania’s clothes, and they publish page-one stories about every outfit’s “hidden message” — invariably that she is about to ask for a divorce. Or where is she? Why is she hiding? They hound her; who can blame her for staying out of their glare for a few days or weeks? Let her recuperate from surgery. So then they go after his son. Then after his daughter, then after his son-in-law. They even go after the tall-but-still little kid when poor Barron falls asleep or closes his eyes. They write that he is autistic. Who goes after kids like that in a civil society? They are vicious. Let us be forthright: Here is the President’s one flaw, and Chris Christie has been spot-on, though self-serving, through his book tour. Donald Trump came to Washington. D.C. too cockamamie-sure that he knows everything about everything and therefore can navigate anything on his own. He took on a chief of staff and a press spokesman blithely because, oh, may as well. He picked cabinet members based on considerations — and I do get it — as to what would satisfy the Mediacracy wolves’ thirst for blood. So he owed Jeff Sessions eternal gratitude — he really did — for being the only United States Senator to back him during the rough-and-tumble GOP primaries, and made him his Attorney General. He put Rex Tillerson in charge of State because Tillerson had carved a phenomenal career in dealing effectively with the Russians including Putin on energy issues. He put Mad Dog in charge of defense because the name sounded good, and Gen. Mattis seemed the guy. In all these, Mr. Trump failed to appreciate that, no, you cannot be maximally effective as President without help you can count on — help that is the best of the best, and that is the most loyal of the loyal, and people who share precisely your vision, not aiming to advance their own. His great mistake was that — quite the opposite of his public persona — he was too nice a guy, too willing to make others happy and play to others’ expectations. So he put faith in Paul Ryan to be an improvement over John Boehner, and that was a mistake. He brought in Reince Priebus, a wonderful guy, and Sean Spicer — but those jobs were above their pay grades; he should have begun with Gen. John Kelly. Omarosa should have been made his Secretary of TV Shows and stationed in Bosnia. Mike Pompeo should have been his Secretary of State from Day One. John Bolton belonged on the inside from the outset. Nikki Haley proved a shockingly great United Nations ambassador, but he blew it with the A-G. It should have been Chris Christie, or the ever-tongue-slipping Rudy Giuliani, Joe diGenova, or even the best we have had in years, Michael Mukasey. That one last botch — picking the wrong Attorney-General — will be recorded in history as his worst mistake. It doomed so much of his first term. Look how great Eric Holder was for Obama, followed equally by Loretta Lynch. Each knew how an A-G with guts and fortitude, bold and brash, fast and furious, on the tarmac and off the tarmac, can make or break so much of a President’s agenda. Indeed, that is why John Kennedy decided that “Gee, nepotism may look bad, but I want my brother in that role.” Donald Trump came in with no prior legislative experience. If he had known then what he finally has learned now, he would have shoved that border wall down Ryan’s throat, and he would have gotten it. If he had had the right A-G, he would have crafted his entry ban a bit more cleverly, and each of his subsequent Ninth Circuit debacles would have been more elegantly situated for Supreme Court review. Indeed, if he had me— and I am utterly not qualified, nor would I want it because I like being a rabbi and law professor, and I hate participatory politics — but if he had had even me, I would have advised him that, every single time he issues a new Executive Order, he should counter-intuitively have the pro-Trump Texas or Louisiana Attorney General race immediately to the Fifth Circuit to attack him and his Executive Order… so that the first court that rules with a national injunction would be the pro-Trump, pro-conservative Fifth Circuit. Race to the Fifth before the Left gets to the Ninth. That would have changed the whole dynamic on everything from the Keystone XL Pipeline to the various issues on the southern border. We now enter the era of the Democrat House investigations. They want his taxes? Well, America wants Adam Schiff’s taxes. And Nancy Pelosi’s taxes. And the taxes not only of Dianne Feinstein and Maxine Waters but also of their husbands who have become very, very rich. Schiff and the other Democrat House committees are going to demand for the next two years. That is not “oversight.” We all have been employed or have employed others — or both. Oversight is when an overseer assures that the underling is coming to work on time, not stealing from the petty cash, doing an honest day’s work for an honest day’s dollar, not dawdling all day playing solitaire on the computer or scaring off the customers or disconnecting phone callers. That is oversight. By contrast, oversight is not persecuting someone — demanding his taxes, his kids’ taxes, trying to drive him crazy and tie him up with sabotage all day every day to prevent him from getting his work done. As these next two years unfold, I hope that gutless GOP Senate committees, if only to save their own hides, start subpoenaing every Clinton thing they can think of: Clinton Foundation, Clinton speaking fees and secret speeches, back to Benghazi, back to the 33,000 yoga and wedding-dress emails. Investigate who lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Kavanaugh hearings and make them roommates with Manafort and Cohen. Get Lois Lerner back; we miss her. Investigate Comey and all his crew: Macabre McCabe, Strzok, Page. Investigate that Obama CIA director, John Brennan, who voted for Gus Hall, the Communist candidate for President. (Did we actually just have a CIA director who had voted for a pro-Soviet Communist President of America? And that guy is accusing others of treason and collusion with the Russians?) And, taking a cue from Mueller, just name a Special Investigator to investigate “the Clintons” — with the proviso that he or she is authorized to follow the trail wherever it leads. It will lead everywhere.

www.spectator.org

right

LAetB1otAzM9lx1Y

test

DnriZgq6tGlQk25u

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/02/michael-cohen-trump-interview-good-morning-america

Michael Cohen hints at flipping and says 'first loyalty' is to family – not Trump

2018-07-02

Martin Pengelly

Fixer says ‘ I will not be a punching bag as part of anyone ’ s defense strategy ’ as his lawyer seeks gag order on Stormy Daniels attorney Michael Cohen , Donald Trump ’ s former personal attorney , will put “ family and country first ” as investigations continue into his work for the president , including a payment to an adult film star who claims to have had an affair with Trump . Will Michael Cohen flip on Trump ? The key questions answered Read more Cohen ’ s remarks , in an off-camera interview with ABC ’ s Good Morning America , will intensify speculation that he may be prepared to “ flip ” and cooperate with both prosecutors in New York and investigators looking into Russian election interference and alleged collusion between Trump aides and Moscow . Cohen separately demanded on Monday afternoon , via documents filed in court in New York , that Stormy Daniels ’ s lawyer , Michael Avenatti , be made the subject of a judicial gag order , accusing him of running a smear campaign against him . Cohen has frequently been aggressive towards reporters working on stories about Trump . He said last September he was “ the guy who would take a bullet for the president ” and would “ never walk away ” . But speaking to George Stephanopoulos in the ABC interview , conducted on Saturday at a hotel in New York City , he said : “ My wife , my daughter and my son have my first loyalty and always will . I put family and country first . ” In answer to the question of whether he expected Trump to turn on him , Cohen said : “ I will not be a punching bag as part of anyone ’ s defense strategy . I am not a villain of this story , and I will not allow others to try to depict me that way . ” Cohen ’ s home and offices were raided by FBI agents in April , and files seized , after a referral from Robert Mueller , the special counsel investigating matters related to Russia and the Trump campaign . On Monday , a court released to the government 1.3m documents not designated “ privileged , partially privileged or highly personal ” . According to a court document , the Trump Organization was reviewing 22,633 remaining items , with a deadline of Thursday . Good Morning America ( @ GMA ) In @ GStephanopoulos ' exclusive interview with Pres . Trump 's former personal attorney Michael Cohen , Cohen stays mum on commitment to his longtime client : “ To be crystal clear , my wife , my daughter and my son , and this country have my first loyalty. ” https : //t.co/V7gE1FomMf pic.twitter.com/TPu7kkiOpJ Cohen has not been charged with any crime . He told ABC : “ Once I understand what charges might be filed against me , if any at all , I will defer to my new counsel , Guy Petrillo , for guidance . ” Petrillo is a former federal prosecutor who was once head of the criminal division of the US attorney ’ s office in Manhattan . Michael Cohen : inside the strange world of Trump 's fixer Read more Cohen could face charges including bank fraud , wire fraud and campaign finance violations in connection with a limited liability corporation he set up before the election , Essential Consulting LLC , to facilitate a $ 130,000 payment in 2016 to the pornographic actor Stormy Daniels , who claims she had sex with Trump more than a decade ago , during the early period of his marriage to now first lady Melania Trump . After the election , Cohen used the LLC as a basket to catch hundreds of thousands of dollars of payments from corporations with business before the new administration and from an investment firm connected with a Russian oligarch . On Monday , Brent Blakely , an attorney for Cohen , argued that media-friendly Avenatti should be the subject of a restraining order to prevent him speaking to reporters and releasing any information about the criminal case , in order to ensure his client receives a fair trial . According to court documents filed on Monday , Cohen argues that because Avenatti frequently appears in television interviews and tweets about the case almost daily , his comments are “ aimed at tainting the jury pool ” . He called for the federal judge to step in and issue a gag order . Meanwhile , in April , Trump tweeted that though “ most people will flip if the government lets them out of trouble , even if it means lying or making up stories ” , he did not “ see Michael doing that ” . He also called Cohen a “ fine person with a wonderful family ” . Trump denies collusion with Russia . He has denied Daniels ’ s claims of an affair . But in May his current lawyer , Rudy Giuliani , admitted that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the $ 130,000 payment , which Daniels claims was made in order to keep her quiet . Filings by Trump showed payments of $ 250,000 to Cohen in 2017 . Cohen did not discuss the Daniels payment with ABC . “ I want to answer , ” he said . “ One day I will answer . But for now , I can ’ t comment further on advice of my counsel . ” Of his work for Trump , he said : “ As an attorney and as an employee , I tried to make good-faith judgments in the past . I also acknowledge that I am not perfect . I would prefer not to be in this situation at all , obviously . “ I want to regain my name and my reputation and my life back . ” I am not a villain of this story , and I will not allow others to try to depict me that way Michael Cohen Regarding Trump ’ s repeated claim that the Mueller investigation is a “ witch-hunt ” , Cohen said : “ I don ’ t like the term witch-hunt . As an American , I repudiate Russia ’ s or any other foreign government ’ s attempt to interfere or meddle in our democratic process , and I would call on all Americans to do the same . ” Trump last week tweeted that Russia “ continues to say they had nothing to do with Meddling in our Election ! ” He will meet Vladimir Putin in Helsinki later this month . Cohen said he respected the “ unanimous conclusions ” of “ our nation ’ s intelligence agencies ” that Russia did interfere and added : “ Simply accepting the denial of Mr Putin is unsustainable . ” Is Trump really winning ? The truth about the president 's popularity Read more Cohen told ABC he thought Mueller would not find evidence he colluded with Russians himself .

Fixer says ‘I will not be a punching bag as part of anyone’s defense strategy’ as his lawyer seeks gag order on Stormy Daniels attorney Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former personal attorney, will put “family and country first” as investigations continue into his work for the president, including a payment to an adult film star who claims to have had an affair with Trump. Will Michael Cohen flip on Trump? The key questions answered Read more Cohen’s remarks, in an off-camera interview with ABC’s Good Morning America, will intensify speculation that he may be prepared to “flip” and cooperate with both prosecutors in New York and investigators looking into Russian election interference and alleged collusion between Trump aides and Moscow. Cohen separately demanded on Monday afternoon, via documents filed in court in New York, that Stormy Daniels’s lawyer, Michael Avenatti, be made the subject of a judicial gag order, accusing him of running a smear campaign against him. Cohen has frequently been aggressive towards reporters working on stories about Trump. He said last September he was “the guy who would take a bullet for the president” and would “never walk away”. But speaking to George Stephanopoulos in the ABC interview, conducted on Saturday at a hotel in New York City, he said: “My wife, my daughter and my son have my first loyalty and always will. I put family and country first.” In answer to the question of whether he expected Trump to turn on him, Cohen said: “I will not be a punching bag as part of anyone’s defense strategy. I am not a villain of this story, and I will not allow others to try to depict me that way.” Cohen’s home and offices were raided by FBI agents in April, and files seized, after a referral from Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating matters related to Russia and the Trump campaign. On Monday, a court released to the government 1.3m documents not designated “privileged, partially privileged or highly personal”. According to a court document, the Trump Organization was reviewing 22,633 remaining items, with a deadline of Thursday. Good Morning America (@GMA) In @GStephanopoulos' exclusive interview with Pres. Trump's former personal attorney Michael Cohen, Cohen stays mum on commitment to his longtime client: “To be crystal clear, my wife, my daughter and my son, and this country have my first loyalty.” https://t.co/V7gE1FomMf pic.twitter.com/TPu7kkiOpJ Cohen has not been charged with any crime. He told ABC: “Once I understand what charges might be filed against me, if any at all, I will defer to my new counsel, Guy Petrillo, for guidance.” Petrillo is a former federal prosecutor who was once head of the criminal division of the US attorney’s office in Manhattan. Michael Cohen: inside the strange world of Trump's fixer Read more Cohen could face charges including bank fraud, wire fraud and campaign finance violations in connection with a limited liability corporation he set up before the election, Essential Consulting LLC, to facilitate a $130,000 payment in 2016 to the pornographic actor Stormy Daniels, who claims she had sex with Trump more than a decade ago, during the early period of his marriage to now first lady Melania Trump. After the election, Cohen used the LLC as a basket to catch hundreds of thousands of dollars of payments from corporations with business before the new administration and from an investment firm connected with a Russian oligarch. On Monday, Brent Blakely, an attorney for Cohen, argued that media-friendly Avenatti should be the subject of a restraining order to prevent him speaking to reporters and releasing any information about the criminal case, in order to ensure his client receives a fair trial. According to court documents filed on Monday, Cohen argues that because Avenatti frequently appears in television interviews and tweets about the case almost daily, his comments are “aimed at tainting the jury pool”. He called for the federal judge to step in and issue a gag order. Meanwhile, in April, Trump tweeted that though “most people will flip if the government lets them out of trouble, even if it means lying or making up stories”, he did not “see Michael doing that”. He also called Cohen a “fine person with a wonderful family”. Trump denies collusion with Russia. He has denied Daniels’s claims of an affair. But in May his current lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, admitted that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the $130,000 payment, which Daniels claims was made in order to keep her quiet. Filings by Trump showed payments of $250,000 to Cohen in 2017. Cohen did not discuss the Daniels payment with ABC. “I want to answer,” he said. “One day I will answer. But for now, I can’t comment further on advice of my counsel.” Of his work for Trump, he said: “As an attorney and as an employee, I tried to make good-faith judgments in the past. I also acknowledge that I am not perfect. I would prefer not to be in this situation at all, obviously. “I want to regain my name and my reputation and my life back.” I am not a villain of this story, and I will not allow others to try to depict me that way Michael Cohen Regarding Trump’s repeated claim that the Mueller investigation is a “witch-hunt”, Cohen said: “I don’t like the term witch-hunt. As an American, I repudiate Russia’s or any other foreign government’s attempt to interfere or meddle in our democratic process, and I would call on all Americans to do the same.” Trump last week tweeted that Russia “continues to say they had nothing to do with Meddling in our Election!” He will meet Vladimir Putin in Helsinki later this month. Cohen said he respected the “unanimous conclusions” of “our nation’s intelligence agencies” that Russia did interfere and added: “Simply accepting the denial of Mr Putin is unsustainable.” Is Trump really winning? The truth about the president's popularity Read more Cohen told ABC he thought Mueller would not find evidence he colluded with Russians himself.

www.theguardian.com

left

DnriZgq6tGlQk25u

test

sSi8TvB903vE88sp

race_and_racism

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/15/blood_money_killer_cops_how_privatization_is_funding_the_racist_logic_of_americas_police/

Blood money, killer cops: How privatization is funding the racist logic of America?s police

2015-04-15

Brittney Cooper

On April 2 in Tulsa , Oklahoma , a sheriff 's deputy named Robert Bates shot and killed Eric Harris , a man fleeing a crime scene where he was about to be captured for selling illegal weapons . Bates , a reserve deputy who is allowed to work on cases because he is a big donor to the sheriff 's office , was charged this week with second-degree manslaughter , after claiming that he meant to reach for a taser and not a gun . As Harris lay struggling and dying , he told the surrounding officers , “ I ’ m losing my breath. ” One officer yelled back at him , “ Fuck your breath ! ” Then he insisted that the dying man be handcuffed . “ Fuck your breath ! ” encapsulates in only three words the systemic disregard that police regularly show to Black people in America . Just last week , we watched Michael Slager execute Walter Scott in South Carolina for daring to run away . Now this week , we are also tuning into the trial of former Chicago Police Officer Dante Servin , who is charged with involuntary manslaughter in the killing of 22-year-old Rekia Boyd in March 2012 . In the cases of Eric Garner in Staten Island , Tamir Rice in Cleveland , Walter Scott in South Carolina , and Eric Harris in Tulsa , we have seen video of law enforcement officers not only critically injuring citizens but also refusing to administer medical care , with fatal consequences . Given the origins of policing in this country and their connections to slave patrols and other forms of racialized social control , I am under no illusions that the police have ever held Black life in high regard . Police complicity and participation in lynchings and in the KKK make that clear . But the explicit , tacit refusal of Black people ’ s right to breathe is still significant . The fact that the Tulsa County Sheriff 's Office is a pay-to-play force is significant . The fact that white men can sign up with government approval for the right to play cops and robbers on the weekends is appalling . That Black lives provide fodder for state-sanctioned sport should have us in the streets . There is something about the logics of self-governance under the terms of neoliberalism that make this moment feel more pessimistic than our trite narrative of linear progress on racial issues would have us conclude . In 2012 , the United Arab Emirates gave $ 1 million to the New York City Police Foundation . According to an NYPD spokesperson , the money was used to upgrade equipment and aid in criminal investigations . In both New York City and Tulsa , private funding of law enforcement significantly impacts the way local policing is done . In Tulsa , it results in the pay-to-play scheme . In New York City , it allows for large infusions of cash donations whose specific uses do not come under public scrutiny because they are private funds . These forms of neoliberal policing -- in which private citizens and private monies impact the culture of policing but escape governmental checks and balances -- endanger us all . In New York , such actions enable the purchase of unspecified forms of “ equipment ” that might , for instance , be used to exacerbate the culture of militarized policing in the NYPD . Part of this money allows the NYPD to travel to the UAE to learn counterterrorism measures . In the wake of 9/11 , some external training might be helpful , but essentially , this sounds like a case of the NYPD being allowed money to play global cops and robbers , and to then test out these tactics on the Black and Brown people who are policed heavily within the city . In the case of Tulsa , this privately underwritten form of law enforcement placed an underprepared “ pretend ” deputy into a serious confrontation . As a result , Eric Harris lost his life . But he did not just lose his breath . As he lay dying , he was refused the right to breathe . That refusal came in a chorus of other taunts about how he was getting what he deserved because he chose to run . His breath seeped out of his Black body as public service officers taunted him in a barrage of profanity . Why is the refusal of breath to Black people endemic to the American condition ? What about the Black body makes the life-breath that we all hold so dear — so sacred — such a profane and devalued thing in the hands of white people ? In 1977 , the famous writer and American prophet James Baldwin returned to America after living in France for more than three decades . In an interview at the New York Times , he said : `` I left America because I had to . It was a personal decision . I wanted to write , and it was the 1940 's , and it was no big picnic for blacks . I grew up on the streets of Harlem , and I remember President Roosevelt , the liberal , having a lot of trouble with an anti- lynching bill he wanted to get through the Congress -- never mind the vote , never mind restaurants , never mind schools , never mind a fair employment policy . I had to leave ; I needed to be in a place where I could breathe and not feel someone 's hand on my throat . ” Baldwin names a moment that sounds similar to our own . The vote is insecure from racial tampering . Indiana has just passed legislation that allows businesses ( including eateries ) to discriminate against customers based on “ religious ” assessments of their fitness to be served . Our public schools are in abysmal condition and throughout the country fast food workers are waging the Fight-for-Fifteen , a campaign for a $ 15 minimum wage . Baldwin illuminates for us the way that America exists as a place predicated on the refusal of Black breath and the denial of Black people ’ s right to move freely in the world without losing our lives for having a broken taillight or playing with a toy gun , or for standing on the street chatting with friends . This refusal of breath is not only anti-Black , but multigenerational , and harder to combat because of the way neoliberalism and acts of privatization have invaded police forces . As Eric Harris ’ breath left him , other officers reminded him that “ you ran ! ” Similar charges were levied against Walter Scott by pundits and commentators last week . “ Why did he run ? ” Neoliberal structures of self-governance demand that we all control ourselves and “ do the right thing , ” in order to avoid negative consequences . Meanwhile , the conditions that enable us to actually do the right thing continue to slip away . Walter Scott ran because as a poor Black man who was in arrears on his child support , he did not want to be subject to a long prison sentence and fines he could not pay . The sense of precariousness about not being able to enjoy simple pleasures , like going for a ride on the weekend because you might find yourself in prison interminably for bills you can ’ t pay , is surely not just . These are not justifications for Walter Scott ’ s wrongdoing . They are reminders that many of us manage to do the right thing because we live in conditions that allow us to pay bills , adequately support our children , and find sufficient employment . Many , many Americans , a disproportionate number of them Americans of color , do not live in such conditions . Yelling at them or executing them for making bad choices in a system that offers limited options shows us how often we miss the point . Under this kind of logic , the supposed lack of control of working-class Black and Brown people justifies the stultifying overpolicing of our communities , the stranglehold of our prison system saddling Black people with jail time , fines , probation , parole and a constant sense of threat , and finally , the ultimate refusal of one ’ s breath by a trigger-happy police officer if you fail to submit in any way to this unjust state of affairs . Something must change . For we are all losing our collective breath . We all watch as the police and the state communicate their clear disregard for the value of Black life . The weight of historical injustice and present injustice constricts , makes us writhe in agony , makes us go out to protest . That the officers in each of these three killings are being tried is nothing to celebrate . We do not celebrate our country for doing the right thing . Charging those who unjustly kill others with murder or manslaughter is basic . Figuring out how to let Black people live is apparently far more complicated .

On April 2 in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a sheriff's deputy named Robert Bates shot and killed Eric Harris, a man fleeing a crime scene where he was about to be captured for selling illegal weapons. Bates, a reserve deputy who is allowed to work on cases because he is a big donor to the sheriff's office, was charged this week with second-degree manslaughter, after claiming that he meant to reach for a taser and not a gun. As Harris lay struggling and dying, he told the surrounding officers, “I’m losing my breath.” One officer yelled back at him, “Fuck your breath!” Then he insisted that the dying man be handcuffed. Advertisement: “Fuck your breath!” encapsulates in only three words the systemic disregard that police regularly show to Black people in America. Just last week, we watched Michael Slager execute Walter Scott in South Carolina for daring to run away. Now this week, we are also tuning into the trial of former Chicago Police Officer Dante Servin, who is charged with involuntary manslaughter in the killing of 22-year-old Rekia Boyd in March 2012. In the cases of Eric Garner in Staten Island, Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Walter Scott in South Carolina, and Eric Harris in Tulsa, we have seen video of law enforcement officers not only critically injuring citizens but also refusing to administer medical care, with fatal consequences. Given the origins of policing in this country and their connections to slave patrols and other forms of racialized social control, I am under no illusions that the police have ever held Black life in high regard. Police complicity and participation in lynchings and in the KKK make that clear. But the explicit, tacit refusal of Black people’s right to breathe is still significant. The fact that the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office is a pay-to-play force is significant. The fact that white men can sign up with government approval for the right to play cops and robbers on the weekends is appalling. That Black lives provide fodder for state-sanctioned sport should have us in the streets. There is something about the logics of self-governance under the terms of neoliberalism that make this moment feel more pessimistic than our trite narrative of linear progress on racial issues would have us conclude. In 2012, the United Arab Emirates gave $1 million to the New York City Police Foundation. According to an NYPD spokesperson, the money was used to upgrade equipment and aid in criminal investigations. In both New York City and Tulsa, private funding of law enforcement significantly impacts the way local policing is done. In Tulsa, it results in the pay-to-play scheme. In New York City, it allows for large infusions of cash donations whose specific uses do not come under public scrutiny because they are private funds. Advertisement: These forms of neoliberal policing -- in which private citizens and private monies impact the culture of policing but escape governmental checks and balances -- endanger us all. In New York, such actions enable the purchase of unspecified forms of “equipment” that might, for instance, be used to exacerbate the culture of militarized policing in the NYPD. Part of this money allows the NYPD to travel to the UAE to learn counterterrorism measures. In the wake of 9/11, some external training might be helpful, but essentially, this sounds like a case of the NYPD being allowed money to play global cops and robbers, and to then test out these tactics on the Black and Brown people who are policed heavily within the city. In the case of Tulsa, this privately underwritten form of law enforcement placed an underprepared “pretend” deputy into a serious confrontation. As a result, Eric Harris lost his life. Advertisement: But he did not just lose his breath. As he lay dying, he was refused the right to breathe. That refusal came in a chorus of other taunts about how he was getting what he deserved because he chose to run. His breath seeped out of his Black body as public service officers taunted him in a barrage of profanity. Why is the refusal of breath to Black people endemic to the American condition? What about the Black body makes the life-breath that we all hold so dear — so sacred — such a profane and devalued thing in the hands of white people? Advertisement: In 1977, the famous writer and American prophet James Baldwin returned to America after living in France for more than three decades. In an interview at the New York Times, he said: "I left America because I had to. It was a personal decision. I wanted to write, and it was the 1940's, and it was no big picnic for blacks. I grew up on the streets of Harlem, and I remember President Roosevelt, the liberal, having a lot of trouble with an anti- lynching bill he wanted to get through the Congress--never mind the vote, never mind restaurants, never mind schools, never mind a fair employment policy. I had to leave; I needed to be in a place where I could breathe and not feel someone's hand on my throat.” Baldwin names a moment that sounds similar to our own. The vote is insecure from racial tampering. Indiana has just passed legislation that allows businesses (including eateries) to discriminate against customers based on “religious” assessments of their fitness to be served. Our public schools are in abysmal condition and throughout the country fast food workers are waging the Fight-for-Fifteen, a campaign for a $15 minimum wage. Baldwin illuminates for us the way that America exists as a place predicated on the refusal of Black breath and the denial of Black people’s right to move freely in the world without losing our lives for having a broken taillight or playing with a toy gun, or for standing on the street chatting with friends. Advertisement: This refusal of breath is not only anti-Black, but multigenerational, and harder to combat because of the way neoliberalism and acts of privatization have invaded police forces. As Eric Harris’ breath left him, other officers reminded him that “you ran!” Similar charges were levied against Walter Scott by pundits and commentators last week. “Why did he run?” Neoliberal structures of self-governance demand that we all control ourselves and “do the right thing,” in order to avoid negative consequences. Meanwhile, the conditions that enable us to actually do the right thing continue to slip away. Walter Scott ran because as a poor Black man who was in arrears on his child support, he did not want to be subject to a long prison sentence and fines he could not pay. The sense of precariousness about not being able to enjoy simple pleasures, like going for a ride on the weekend because you might find yourself in prison interminably for bills you can’t pay, is surely not just. These are not justifications for Walter Scott’s wrongdoing. They are reminders that many of us manage to do the right thing because we live in conditions that allow us to pay bills, adequately support our children, and find sufficient employment. Many, many Americans, a disproportionate number of them Americans of color, do not live in such conditions. Advertisement: Yelling at them or executing them for making bad choices in a system that offers limited options shows us how often we miss the point. Under this kind of logic, the supposed lack of control of working-class Black and Brown people justifies the stultifying overpolicing of our communities, the stranglehold of our prison system saddling Black people with jail time, fines, probation, parole and a constant sense of threat, and finally, the ultimate refusal of one’s breath by a trigger-happy police officer if you fail to submit in any way to this unjust state of affairs. Something must change. For we are all losing our collective breath. We all watch as the police and the state communicate their clear disregard for the value of Black life. The weight of historical injustice and present injustice constricts, makes us writhe in agony, makes us go out to protest. That the officers in each of these three killings are being tried is nothing to celebrate. We do not celebrate our country for doing the right thing. Charging those who unjustly kill others with murder or manslaughter is basic. Figuring out how to let Black people live is apparently far more complicated.

www.salon.com

left

sSi8TvB903vE88sp

test

LAWmgtGrp7nwAz6a

fbi

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44815494

Sparks fly in FBI agent's Trump testimony

Anthony Zurcher, North America Reporter

President Donald Trump may be out of the country , but Robert Mueller 's investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia grinds on . And Thursday was a fairly dramatic day on multiple fronts . At the US Capitol , one of the former top members of the special counsel team , FBI agent Peter Strzok , was grilled by members of Congress over allegations of bias revealed in a series of text messages he exchanged with Lisa Page , a fellow FBI employee with whom he was having an affair . Although the president had just concluded a long day of meetings at the Nato summit in Brussels , his mind was clearly on Washington , as he tweeted about the `` Rigged Witch Hunt '' and Mr Strzok 's `` hate filled and totally biased Emails '' just before 01:00 local time . Mr Strzok , a senior FBI counterintelligence agent who has spent much of his career hunting down Russian spies in the US , was dismissed by Mr Mueller last summer after he learned of the messages , which included disparaging comments about then-candidate Trump and his supporters ( as well as Obama Justice Department officials and other Democratic and Republican politicians ) . In addition to his involvement in the Trump-Russia investigation from its early stages , Mr Strzok was also a key figure in the FBI review of Hillary Clinton 's handling of classified material on her personal email server while she was secretary of state . In one particularly testy exchange , Trey Gowdy of South Carolina questioned Mr Strzok about messages in which he said `` we 'll stop '' Mr Trump 's election and that Democrat Hillary Clinton should win 100m votes to zero . After Mr Strzok said he 'd appreciate the chance to explain , the chair of the House Government Oversight Committee shot back : `` I do n't give a damn what you appreciate , agent Strzok . I do n't appreciate having an FBI agent with an unprecedented level of animus working on two major investigations in 2016 . '' That set up perhaps the most pivotal moment of the ongoing hearing , as Mr Strzok attempted to defend his , and the FBI 's , integrity and explained that the texts in questions came after Mr Trump insulted the Muslim parents of a slain US soldier . At the end of his monologue , Democrats in the committee chamber applauded . The rest of the proceedings were frequently bogged down in parliamentary manoeuvring , with a few nuggets of information mixed in . Mr Strzok would note at one point that information about a Russian offer to help the Trump campaign was of `` extraordinary significance '' and came from an `` extraordinarily sensitive and credible source '' . The hearings were burdened , however , by a queue of more than 70 members of Congress waiting to ask questions . If the Gowdy-Strzok exchange were the Fourth of July fireworks , the rest of the day was the traffic jam as the crowds stuck in their cars tried to get home . Meanwhile , across the Potomac River in Alexandria , Virginia , former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort arrived at his new jail facility , as he awaits the first of two trials on charges of money laundering , illegal foreign lobbying and obstruction of justice . Although the charges are unrelated to Mr Manafort 's work for candidate Trump , Mr Mueller 's team is vigorously pursuing the case - perhaps in the hope of eventually gaining the long-time Washington insider 's co-operation in his ongoing investigation . They had sought , and secured , Mr Manafort 's pre-trial incarceration in early June , after presenting evidence to one of the presiding judges that he had reached out to possible witnesses in his case in an attempt to influence their testimony . A mugshot from Thursday morning revealed a somewhat beleaguered Manafort - who used to sport well-coiffed hair and Italian suits - in need of a shave and a haircut after more than a month in jail . Mr Manafort 's lawyers had been asking to have his 25 July trail date pushed back to allow him more time to prepare - a request that the judge recently denied . Mr Mueller , who has been on the job for 14 months , has been Sphynx-like in his silence . The only public voice he has had so far is through its court filings . In fact , he 's been so scarce in the public 's view that most media outlets are running the same series of photographs taken as he walked the halls of the US Capitol back in June 2017 . In two weeks , the special counsel 's team will appear for the first time in a jury trial . The stakes will be high , and the spotlight 's glare will be the brightest it has been so far .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption FBI's Peter Strzok: Anti-Trump bias claims 'deeply destructive' President Donald Trump may be out of the country, but Robert Mueller's investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia grinds on. And Thursday was a fairly dramatic day on multiple fronts. At the US Capitol, one of the former top members of the special counsel team, FBI agent Peter Strzok, was grilled by members of Congress over allegations of bias revealed in a series of text messages he exchanged with Lisa Page, a fellow FBI employee with whom he was having an affair. Although the president had just concluded a long day of meetings at the Nato summit in Brussels, his mind was clearly on Washington, as he tweeted about the "Rigged Witch Hunt" and Mr Strzok's "hate filled and totally biased Emails" just before 01:00 local time. Mr Strzok, a senior FBI counterintelligence agent who has spent much of his career hunting down Russian spies in the US, was dismissed by Mr Mueller last summer after he learned of the messages, which included disparaging comments about then-candidate Trump and his supporters (as well as Obama Justice Department officials and other Democratic and Republican politicians). Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Republican Louie Gohmert asked Peter Strzok how many times he lied to his wife In addition to his involvement in the Trump-Russia investigation from its early stages, Mr Strzok was also a key figure in the FBI review of Hillary Clinton's handling of classified material on her personal email server while she was secretary of state. In one particularly testy exchange, Trey Gowdy of South Carolina questioned Mr Strzok about messages in which he said "we'll stop" Mr Trump's election and that Democrat Hillary Clinton should win 100m votes to zero. After Mr Strzok said he'd appreciate the chance to explain, the chair of the House Government Oversight Committee shot back: "I don't give a damn what you appreciate, agent Strzok. I don't appreciate having an FBI agent with an unprecedented level of animus working on two major investigations in 2016." That set up perhaps the most pivotal moment of the ongoing hearing, as Mr Strzok attempted to defend his, and the FBI's, integrity and explained that the texts in questions came after Mr Trump insulted the Muslim parents of a slain US soldier. At the end of his monologue, Democrats in the committee chamber applauded. The rest of the proceedings were frequently bogged down in parliamentary manoeuvring, with a few nuggets of information mixed in. Mr Strzok would note at one point that information about a Russian offer to help the Trump campaign was of "extraordinary significance" and came from an "extraordinarily sensitive and credible source". The hearings were burdened, however, by a queue of more than 70 members of Congress waiting to ask questions. If the Gowdy-Strzok exchange were the Fourth of July fireworks, the rest of the day was the traffic jam as the crowds stuck in their cars tried to get home. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Peter Strzok calls allegations of FBI bias and misdeeds "deeply destructive" A reversal of fortune Meanwhile, across the Potomac River in Alexandria, Virginia, former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort arrived at his new jail facility, as he awaits the first of two trials on charges of money laundering, illegal foreign lobbying and obstruction of justice. Although the charges are unrelated to Mr Manafort's work for candidate Trump, Mr Mueller's team is vigorously pursuing the case - perhaps in the hope of eventually gaining the long-time Washington insider's co-operation in his ongoing investigation. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort's time in jail appears to have taken a toll. They had sought, and secured, Mr Manafort's pre-trial incarceration in early June, after presenting evidence to one of the presiding judges that he had reached out to possible witnesses in his case in an attempt to influence their testimony. A mugshot from Thursday morning revealed a somewhat beleaguered Manafort - who used to sport well-coiffed hair and Italian suits - in need of a shave and a haircut after more than a month in jail. Mr Manafort's lawyers had been asking to have his 25 July trail date pushed back to allow him more time to prepare - a request that the judge recently denied. Mr Mueller, who has been on the job for 14 months, has been Sphynx-like in his silence. The only public voice he has had so far is through its court filings. In fact, he's been so scarce in the public's view that most media outlets are running the same series of photographs taken as he walked the halls of the US Capitol back in June 2017. In two weeks, the special counsel's team will appear for the first time in a jury trial. The stakes will be high, and the spotlight's glare will be the brightest it has been so far.

www.bbc.com

center

LAWmgtGrp7nwAz6a

test

hid5xJhJzYmkVeYb

race_and_racism

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/06/17/google-the-federalist-nbc-news-demonetize-ads/

NBC Said Google Is Demonetizing The Federalist for Spreading Fake News; Google Says the NBC Report Is Fake News

2020-06-17

Ilya Somin, Eugene Volokh, Josh Blackman, David Kopel, Jonathan H. Adler, Nick Gillespie

On Tuesday , NBC claimed that Google had made the decision to demonetize The Federalist after NBC 's own News Verification Unit presented the search engine with evidence the conservative website was spreading misinformation related to recent anti-police brutality protests . But it turned out that the news outlet spreading misinformation was actually NBC . In a statement , Google denied that it had stripped The Federalist of the ability to generate money from ads . `` The Federalist was never demonetized , '' wrote Google Communications . `` We worked with them to address issues on their site related to the comments section . '' This directly contradicted the NBC story , which initially suggested that Google had found fault with The Federalist 's articles . The actual problem , according to Google , was comments on the articles , not the articles themselves . The Federalist temporarily deleted its comments section , resolving the issue . ( Disclaimer : I am friends with Ben Domenech , publisher of The Federalist , and have appeared on his radio show . ) The NBC story—penned by Adele-Momoko Fraser , a producer with the ironically named News Verification Unit—is a perfect example of activist journalism getting the facts wrong and obscuring the truth in order to arrive at an agenda-driven conclusion . Fraser wrote that Google had punished The Federalist `` after the company was notified of research conducted by the Center for Countering Digital Hate , a British nonprofit that combats online hate and misinformation . '' Fraser further noted that `` Google blocked The Federalist from its advertising platform after the NBC News Verification Unit brought the project to its attention . '' The `` project '' was little more than a tweet thread by an activist group . The Center for Countering Digital Hate and its project , Stop Funding Fake News , are progressive workshops that engage in public advocacy campaigns to pressure companies to stop advertising on right-wing websites . THREAD : These brands all support # BlackLivesMatter . But their ads appear on – and therefore inadvertently fund – racist anti-BLM websites . We 're calling on all these brands to # DefundRacism . Join us . pic.twitter.com/xaFHJjYX1u — Stop Funding Fake News ( @ SFFakeNews ) June 16 , 2020 Their beef with The Federalist , according to the Stop Funding Fake News website , was that the conservative publication had falsely claimed `` CNN/New York Times reports were 'lying ' about white supremacist violence . '' The Federalist article in question was this one by John Daniel Davison , titled `` The Media Are Lying To You About Everything , Including the Riots . '' The tone is hyperbolic—no , the media are n't lying about absolutely everything—and one could disagree with some of Davison 's examples , but the article is n't a particularly compelling example of fake news , let alone racist fake news . That a lefty social media campaign would target The Federalist is n't surprising . The truly bizarre aspect of all this is NBC 's involvement . According to Fraser 's own characterization of events , it was NBC that informed Google of the social media campaign . That makes it sound like Fraser was working in concert with the Center for Countering Digital Hate . Since the chief complaint against The Federalist was that Davison 's article had criticized mainstream media groups , including NBC , it looks like a retaliatory strike . Fraser subsequently clarified that she `` obtained the research exclusively '' but did not `` collaborate '' with Stop Funding Fake News . Her first tweet , now deleted , implies something quite different : In any case , Fraser had to revise the article several times to add clarifications from Google that her central thesis was wrong . She also removed the section about NBC being the entity that informed Google about The Federalist 's alleged failings . Not all of these changes are acknowledged . ( Fraser did not respond to a request for comment . ) But the damage was already done : Conservatives exploded with outrage on social media , directing much of their ire at Google . It has become quite popular on the right to believe that Big Tech—Google , Facebook , Twitter , and YouTube in particular—is silencing conservatives and that the government should do something about this . Increasingly , the `` something '' is to revise Section 230 , the federal statute that gives tech platforms some liability protection . Getting rid of Section 230 would probably make social media companies more squeamish about publishing edgy or controversial content , thus undermining free speech protections for everyone—including and perhaps especially conservatives—but the right 's anti-tech crusaders frequently overlook this . Sure enough , Sen. Josh Hawley ( R–Mo . ) , one of the leaders of the conservative effort to regulate Big Tech , took this opportunity to propose legislation that would allow The Federalist to sue Google for unequal treatment . People have every right to complain about Google but , as a private company , Google is not obligated to treat all of its users equally . People on the right often grasp this intuitively when the issue is slightly different : Many conservative writers do not want a Christian bakery to be compelled to bake cakes for gay weddings , for instance . But if it 's wrong for the government to force a private company to do business with an LGBT couple , it should also be wrong to force a private company to do business with The Federalist . One can find hypocrisies in every direction . Anyone who wants to argue that an outlet like The Federalist should not be held responsible for its comment section is actually making a philosophical case for Section 230 , which extends precisely this protection to large platforms . In general , the internet works best when the government takes a hands-off approach , allowing all sorts of viewpoints to flourish . Still , if Google would like to avoid losing its own protection , the company might think twice about arguing that outlets like The Federalist should be held to a harsher standard . That said , this does not look like a fight that Google actually wanted . It 's not an example of anti-conservative bias : The same thing happened to the website Techdirt last year . The underlying issue was a trivial and routine one , and it was blown completely out of proportion by NBC 's sloppy hatchet job . A `` news verification unit '' not only failed to verify the news but took an active role in spreading disinformation—the very crime of which it had falsely accused others . At a time when newsrooms are deciding how to deal with their employees ' increasingly vocal sympathy for progressive causes—often giving in to their demands—the NBC story should serve as a powerful reminder of the perils of swapping journalism for activism .

On Tuesday, NBC claimed that Google had made the decision to demonetize The Federalist after NBC's own News Verification Unit presented the search engine with evidence the conservative website was spreading misinformation related to recent anti-police brutality protests. But it turned out that the news outlet spreading misinformation was actually NBC. In a statement, Google denied that it had stripped The Federalist of the ability to generate money from ads. "The Federalist was never demonetized," wrote Google Communications. "We worked with them to address issues on their site related to the comments section." This directly contradicted the NBC story, which initially suggested that Google had found fault with The Federalist's articles. The actual problem, according to Google, was comments on the articles, not the articles themselves. The Federalist temporarily deleted its comments section, resolving the issue. (Disclaimer: I am friends with Ben Domenech, publisher of The Federalist, and have appeared on his radio show.) The NBC story—penned by Adele-Momoko Fraser, a producer with the ironically named News Verification Unit—is a perfect example of activist journalism getting the facts wrong and obscuring the truth in order to arrive at an agenda-driven conclusion. Fraser wrote that Google had punished The Federalist "after the company was notified of research conducted by the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a British nonprofit that combats online hate and misinformation." Fraser further noted that "Google blocked The Federalist from its advertising platform after the NBC News Verification Unit brought the project to its attention." The "project" was little more than a tweet thread by an activist group. The Center for Countering Digital Hate and its project, Stop Funding Fake News, are progressive workshops that engage in public advocacy campaigns to pressure companies to stop advertising on right-wing websites. THREAD: These brands all support #BlackLivesMatter. But their ads appear on – and therefore inadvertently fund – racist anti-BLM websites. We're calling on all these brands to #DefundRacism. Join us. pic.twitter.com/xaFHJjYX1u — Stop Funding Fake News (@SFFakeNews) June 16, 2020 Their beef with The Federalist, according to the Stop Funding Fake News website, was that the conservative publication had falsely claimed "CNN/New York Times reports were 'lying' about white supremacist violence." The Federalist article in question was this one by John Daniel Davison, titled "The Media Are Lying To You About Everything, Including the Riots." The tone is hyperbolic—no, the media aren't lying about absolutely everything—and one could disagree with some of Davison's examples, but the article isn't a particularly compelling example of fake news, let alone racist fake news. That a lefty social media campaign would target The Federalist isn't surprising. The truly bizarre aspect of all this is NBC's involvement. According to Fraser's own characterization of events, it was NBC that informed Google of the social media campaign. That makes it sound like Fraser was working in concert with the Center for Countering Digital Hate. Since the chief complaint against The Federalist was that Davison's article had criticized mainstream media groups, including NBC, it looks like a retaliatory strike. Fraser subsequently clarified that she "obtained the research exclusively" but did not "collaborate" with Stop Funding Fake News. Her first tweet, now deleted, implies something quite different: In any case, Fraser had to revise the article several times to add clarifications from Google that her central thesis was wrong. She also removed the section about NBC being the entity that informed Google about The Federalist's alleged failings. Not all of these changes are acknowledged. (Fraser did not respond to a request for comment.) But the damage was already done: Conservatives exploded with outrage on social media, directing much of their ire at Google. It has become quite popular on the right to believe that Big Tech—Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube in particular—is silencing conservatives and that the government should do something about this. Increasingly, the "something" is to revise Section 230, the federal statute that gives tech platforms some liability protection. Getting rid of Section 230 would probably make social media companies more squeamish about publishing edgy or controversial content, thus undermining free speech protections for everyone—including and perhaps especially conservatives—but the right's anti-tech crusaders frequently overlook this. Sure enough, Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), one of the leaders of the conservative effort to regulate Big Tech, took this opportunity to propose legislation that would allow The Federalist to sue Google for unequal treatment. People have every right to complain about Google but, as a private company, Google is not obligated to treat all of its users equally. People on the right often grasp this intuitively when the issue is slightly different: Many conservative writers do not want a Christian bakery to be compelled to bake cakes for gay weddings, for instance. But if it's wrong for the government to force a private company to do business with an LGBT couple, it should also be wrong to force a private company to do business with The Federalist. One can find hypocrisies in every direction. Anyone who wants to argue that an outlet like The Federalist should not be held responsible for its comment section is actually making a philosophical case for Section 230, which extends precisely this protection to large platforms. In general, the internet works best when the government takes a hands-off approach, allowing all sorts of viewpoints to flourish. Still, if Google would like to avoid losing its own protection, the company might think twice about arguing that outlets like The Federalist should be held to a harsher standard. That said, this does not look like a fight that Google actually wanted. It's not an example of anti-conservative bias: The same thing happened to the website Techdirt last year. The underlying issue was a trivial and routine one, and it was blown completely out of proportion by NBC's sloppy hatchet job. A "news verification unit" not only failed to verify the news but took an active role in spreading disinformation—the very crime of which it had falsely accused others. At a time when newsrooms are deciding how to deal with their employees' increasingly vocal sympathy for progressive causes—often giving in to their demands—the NBC story should serve as a powerful reminder of the perils of swapping journalism for activism.

www.reason.com

right

hid5xJhJzYmkVeYb

test

qctuYHkzYOSaREe4

cybersecurity

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-cyber-mercenaries-usa/senator-warns-of-political-pressure-on-u-s-probe-into-hackers-of-green-groups-idUSKBN2441TU

Senator warns of political pressure on U.S. probe into hackers of green groups

2020-07-03

Christopher Bing

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - A Democratic U.S. senator says he has written to Attorney General William Barr outlining his concerns about potential “ political interference ” by the Trump administration in an investigation of a private espionage firm that targeted environmental groups in the United States . Last month ███ reported here that U.S. law enforcement was investigating aspects of a seven-year-long hack-for-hire operation carried out by a New Delhi-based firm called BellTroX InfoTech Services on behalf of unknown clients . Senator Sheldon Whitehouse , who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee , said in a letter here to Barr and in an interview with ███ on Thursday that the investigation was being carried out by prosecutors in New York and that unnamed sources had alerted his office that the Department of Justice has taken what he said was `` an interest in this matter which seems inconsistent with ordinary procedure . '' Whitehouse declined to provide details or identify his sources , saying only that they had “ first-hand knowledge of the matters under investigation . ” Whitehouse said he believed the interest was inconsistent with the independence of the U.S. attorney ’ s office in Manhattan and raised the possibility that the case “ will fall victim to political pressure from Washington . ” The Department of Justice , the White House , and the U.S. attorney ’ s office in New York did not respond to messages seeking comment . BellTroX owner Sumit Gupta did not respond to repeated messages seeking comment either . In previous conversations with ███ , he denied wrongdoing . In last month ’ s story , ███ reported that among the organizations BellTroX targeted were environmental groups that have campaigned against the oil and gas industry - including Greenpeace , the Climate Investigations Center , and the Union of Concerned Scientists . Whitehouse said that given both the influence he says the fossil fuel industry has wielded with Republican President Donald Trump ’ s administration and recent efforts to water down or reverse the prosecutions of Trump allies , he was right to be concerned that the targeting of green groups would not be properly looked into . “ The risk is obvious that the investigation will be slow-walked or curtailed to protect the President ’ s donors and allies in that industry , ” Whitehouse said in his letter . Whitehouse said he asked Barr to preserve any communications between his office and the U.S. attorney ’ s office in New York and provide a log of all contact regarding the BellTroX case .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Democratic U.S. senator says he has written to Attorney General William Barr outlining his concerns about potential “political interference” by the Trump administration in an investigation of a private espionage firm that targeted environmental groups in the United States. FILE PHOTO: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) speaks during a Senate Judiciary Committee business meeting to consider authorization for subpoenas relating to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and other matters on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., June 11, 2020. Erin Schaff/Pool via REUTERS Last month Reuters reported here that U.S. law enforcement was investigating aspects of a seven-year-long hack-for-hire operation carried out by a New Delhi-based firm called BellTroX InfoTech Services on behalf of unknown clients. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a letter here to Barr and in an interview with Reuters on Thursday that the investigation was being carried out by prosecutors in New York and that unnamed sources had alerted his office that the Department of Justice has taken what he said was "an interest in this matter which seems inconsistent with ordinary procedure." Whitehouse declined to provide details or identify his sources, saying only that they had “first-hand knowledge of the matters under investigation.” Whitehouse said he believed the interest was inconsistent with the independence of the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan and raised the possibility that the case “will fall victim to political pressure from Washington.” The Department of Justice, the White House, and the U.S. attorney’s office in New York did not respond to messages seeking comment. BellTroX owner Sumit Gupta did not respond to repeated messages seeking comment either. In previous conversations with Reuters, he denied wrongdoing. In last month’s story, Reuters reported that among the organizations BellTroX targeted were environmental groups that have campaigned against the oil and gas industry - including Greenpeace, the Climate Investigations Center, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Whitehouse said that given both the influence he says the fossil fuel industry has wielded with Republican President Donald Trump’s administration and recent efforts to water down or reverse the prosecutions of Trump allies, he was right to be concerned that the targeting of green groups would not be properly looked into. “The risk is obvious that the investigation will be slow-walked or curtailed to protect the President’s donors and allies in that industry,” Whitehouse said in his letter. Whitehouse said he asked Barr to preserve any communications between his office and the U.S. attorney’s office in New York and provide a log of all contact regarding the BellTroX case.

www.reuters.com

center

qctuYHkzYOSaREe4

test

BniYE08G4l6duEiy

gun_control_and_gun_rights

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/30/daughter-of-newtown-victim-confronts-senator/?hpt=po_c2

Daughter of Newtown victim confronts senator

2013-04-30

( CNN ) - When Sen. Kelly Ayotte was defending her vote on Tuesday on a recent gun control proposal , she was confronted by the daughter of a victim in the Newtown , Connecticut , elementary school massacre . Speaking at her first town hall event in New Hampshire since the gun vote earlier this month , the Republican senator sought to explain why she voted against a measure that would expand background checks on firearms sales . But the crowd of gun control advocates and opponents created a tense environment . At one point , Erica Lafferty , daughter of slain Sandy Hook principal Dawn Hochsprung , asked Ayotte why she voted against the background check amendment , which was created from a bipartisan compromise but failed to gain the 60 votes needed to move forward in the Senate . Lafferty told Ayotte that on the day the senator voted , she said the legislation would be a burden on gun store owners , according to CNN affiliate WMUR . `` I 'm just wondering why the burden of my mother being gunned down in the halls of her elementary school is n't as important . '' A lone gunman opened fire at Sandy Hook last December , killing 20 children and six educators . Lafferty was among the Newtown families who traveled to Washington this month to lobby senators to pass tougher gun laws . Only four Republicans voted against their party and in favor of the bipartisan compromise background check measure . One of them , Sen. Susan Collins of Maine , was among those who met with Newtown families before the vote . On the day of the Senate vote , Lafferty told CNN she was disappointed but felt confident that the bill will rebound . Until then , she added , lawmakers will be held accountable . “ The next time there 's a mass shooting and they 're asked what they did to prevent it , they 're going to have to say nothing , ” she said . Taking a soft tone on Tuesday , Ayotte expressed condolences for the loss of Lafferty 's mother . `` I think that ultimately when we look at what happened in Sandy Hook we should have a fuller discussion to make sure that does n't happen again , '' the senator said . Ayotte argued the current system needed better enforcement . `` Mental health is the one area that I hope we can agree on going forward to work on because that seems to be the overriding issue on the list and that is why I have been trying to work across the aisle on that issue . ''

6 years ago (CNN) - When Sen. Kelly Ayotte was defending her vote on Tuesday on a recent gun control proposal, she was confronted by the daughter of a victim in the Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school massacre. Speaking at her first town hall event in New Hampshire since the gun vote earlier this month, the Republican senator sought to explain why she voted against a measure that would expand background checks on firearms sales. Follow @politicalticker But the crowd of gun control advocates and opponents created a tense environment. At one point, Erica Lafferty, daughter of slain Sandy Hook principal Dawn Hochsprung, asked Ayotte why she voted against the background check amendment, which was created from a bipartisan compromise but failed to gain the 60 votes needed to move forward in the Senate. Lafferty told Ayotte that on the day the senator voted, she said the legislation would be a burden on gun store owners, according to CNN affiliate WMUR. "I'm just wondering why the burden of my mother being gunned down in the halls of her elementary school isn't as important." A lone gunman opened fire at Sandy Hook last December, killing 20 children and six educators. Lafferty was among the Newtown families who traveled to Washington this month to lobby senators to pass tougher gun laws. Only four Republicans voted against their party and in favor of the bipartisan compromise background check measure. One of them, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, was among those who met with Newtown families before the vote. On the day of the Senate vote, Lafferty told CNN she was disappointed but felt confident that the bill will rebound. Until then, she added, lawmakers will be held accountable. “The next time there's a mass shooting and they're asked what they did to prevent it, they're going to have to say nothing,” she said. Taking a soft tone on Tuesday, Ayotte expressed condolences for the loss of Lafferty's mother. "I think that ultimately when we look at what happened in Sandy Hook we should have a fuller discussion to make sure that doesn't happen again," the senator said. Ayotte argued the current system needed better enforcement. "Mental health is the one area that I hope we can agree on going forward to work on because that seems to be the overriding issue on the list and that is why I have been trying to work across the aisle on that issue." - CNN’s Lisa Desjardins contributed to this report.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

BniYE08G4l6duEiy

test

NmgulDXgFQLEWSfe

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44486250

New York sues Trump Foundation for 'illegal conduct'

New York 's attorney general is suing the Trump Foundation , as well as Donald Trump and his children , alleging `` extensive and persistent '' lawbreaking . Barbara Underwood said the charitable foundation had engaged in `` unlawful political co-ordination '' designed to influence the 2016 election . The lawsuit seeks to dissolve the foundation and $ 2.8m ( £2.1m ) in restitution . The president hit back at the lawsuit on Twitter , saying that `` sleazy New York Democrats '' were `` doing everything they can to sue me '' . He vowed he would not settle the case . The attorney general is also seeking to bar the president and three of his adult children , Donald Jr , Eric and Ivanka , from serving on the board of any New York-based charity , `` in light of misconduct and total lack of oversight '' . She has referred the case to the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Election Commission , she says . Ms Underwood filed a petition at the New York Supreme Court in Manhattan on Thursday , Mr Trump 's 72nd birthday . It accuses the foundation and its directors - Mr Trump and his three eldest children - of unlawfully co-ordinating with the Trump presidential campaign , repeated self-dealing transactions , and violating laws under which non-profit organisations must operate . In a statement , Ms Underwood said Mr Trump had illegally instructed the foundation to provide support to his presidential campaign by using the foundation 's name and funds it raised to promote the campaign . The petition also claims that Mr Trump used charitable assets to pay off legal obligations , to promote his own businesses and to purchase personal items , including a painting of himself . The Trump Foundation issued a statement denying the charges and accusing the attorney general of holding its $ 1.7 million in remaining funds `` hostage for political gain '' . The lawsuit announced on Thursday is the culmination of a two-year investigation , which began under the previous New York attorney general , Eric Schneiderman , Ms Underwood said . Mr Schneiderman resigned last month after several former girlfriends accused him of physical abuse . In October 2016 Mr Schneiderman ordered the Trump Foundation to stop fundraising in New York , after finding it had no proper registration . President-elect Trump vowed to shut the charitable foundation down in December 2016 , to avoid `` even the appearance '' of any conflict of interest . The Trump Foundation lawsuit adds to Mr Trump 's legal challenges , which include a wide-ranging special counsel investigation into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia . Special Counsel Robert Mueller has indicted several of Mr Trump 's associates and raided the home and office of the president 's long-time lawyer and fixer , Michael Cohen . New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood has opened a new front in the ongoing criminal investigations into Donald Trump and his empire . Allegations of misdeeds connected to the Trump Foundation had swirled during the 2016 presidential elections , but the topic had been overshadowed during the early days of the Trump presidency . That may be about to change . Administration officials , from the president on down , will certainly attempt to brand this as yet another politically motivated investigation of an ideological adversary - new witches but the same hunt . Nevertheless , as New York Attorney General , Ms Underwood has significant investigatory and prosecutorial power , and if she starts looking into some of Mr Trump 's more questionable charitable activities , there 's no telling what she might turn up . At the very least , it appears the Trump world 's celebrations of former Attorney General Eric Schneiderman 's disgrace were a bit premature . Ms Underwood may not be as outspokenly anti-Trump as her predecessor , but she appears to be equally - or more - aggressive where it counts , in the courtroom . Thursday 's 41-page document filed with the NY Supreme Court spells out a range of alleged violations of laws concerning non-profit organisations , dating back more than a decade . The investigation apparently found that the foundation was `` little more than an empty shell that functions with no oversight by its board of directors '' . The board had not met since 1999 , despite being legally required to meet annually , and did not oversee the foundation 's activities `` in any way '' , the document says . Mr Trump , who has not contributed any personal funds to the foundation since 2008 , was the sole signatory on the foundation 's bank accounts and approved all of its grants . Several pages of the document focus on a charity fundraiser for veterans in Iowa in January 2016 , which Mr Trump chose to hold instead of taking part in a TV debate with other Republican presidential hopefuls ahead of the influential state 's caucuses . More than $ 2.8m was donated to the Trump Foundation at that event . The petition alleges that those funds raised from the public were used to promote Mr Trump 's campaign for the presidency , in particular in the Iowa nominating caucuses . The lawsuit also claims that the foundation paid $ 100,000 ( £75,000 ) to settle legal claims against Mr Trump 's Mar-A-Lago resort , $ 158,000 to settle claims against one of his golf clubs , and $ 10,000 to purchase a painting of Mr Trump to hang at another of his golf clubs . The purchase of the painting was an example of one of `` at least five self-dealing transactions '' which violate tax regulations on non-profit charities , the statement said . `` As our investigation reveals , the Trump Foundation was little more than a cheque book for payments from Mr Trump or his businesses to nonprofits , regardless of their purpose of legality , '' Ms Underwood said .

Image copyright AFP Image caption Mr Trump's children, Ivanka, Eric, and Donald Jr were named in the lawsuit New York's attorney general is suing the Trump Foundation, as well as Donald Trump and his children, alleging "extensive and persistent" lawbreaking. Barbara Underwood said the charitable foundation had engaged in "unlawful political co-ordination" designed to influence the 2016 election. The lawsuit seeks to dissolve the foundation and $2.8m (£2.1m) in restitution. The foundation denied the charges, calling them politically motivated. The president hit back at the lawsuit on Twitter, saying that "sleazy New York Democrats" were "doing everything they can to sue me". He vowed he would not settle the case. The attorney general is also seeking to bar the president and three of his adult children, Donald Jr, Eric and Ivanka, from serving on the board of any New York-based charity, "in light of misconduct and total lack of oversight". She has referred the case to the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Election Commission, she says. What is the state attorney general alleging? Ms Underwood filed a petition at the New York Supreme Court in Manhattan on Thursday, Mr Trump's 72nd birthday. It accuses the foundation and its directors - Mr Trump and his three eldest children - of unlawfully co-ordinating with the Trump presidential campaign, repeated self-dealing transactions, and violating laws under which non-profit organisations must operate. In a statement, Ms Underwood said Mr Trump had illegally instructed the foundation to provide support to his presidential campaign by using the foundation's name and funds it raised to promote the campaign. The petition also claims that Mr Trump used charitable assets to pay off legal obligations, to promote his own businesses and to purchase personal items, including a painting of himself. What have the Trump Foundation and the Trumps said? The Trump Foundation issued a statement denying the charges and accusing the attorney general of holding its $1.7 million in remaining funds "hostage for political gain". Ms Underwood is a Democrat. The president described the suit as "ridiculous". The younger Trumps have yet to comment publicly. How did this come about? The lawsuit announced on Thursday is the culmination of a two-year investigation, which began under the previous New York attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, Ms Underwood said. Mr Schneiderman resigned last month after several former girlfriends accused him of physical abuse. In October 2016 Mr Schneiderman ordered the Trump Foundation to stop fundraising in New York, after finding it had no proper registration. President-elect Trump vowed to shut the charitable foundation down in December 2016, to avoid "even the appearance" of any conflict of interest. The Trump Foundation lawsuit adds to Mr Trump's legal challenges, which include a wide-ranging special counsel investigation into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. Special Counsel Robert Mueller has indicted several of Mr Trump's associates and raided the home and office of the president's long-time lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen. Read more 'A new front opened up' Anthony Zurcher, North America reporter New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood has opened a new front in the ongoing criminal investigations into Donald Trump and his empire. Allegations of misdeeds connected to the Trump Foundation had swirled during the 2016 presidential elections, but the topic had been overshadowed during the early days of the Trump presidency. That may be about to change. Administration officials, from the president on down, will certainly attempt to brand this as yet another politically motivated investigation of an ideological adversary - new witches but the same hunt. Nevertheless, as New York Attorney General, Ms Underwood has significant investigatory and prosecutorial power, and if she starts looking into some of Mr Trump's more questionable charitable activities, there's no telling what she might turn up. At the very least, it appears the Trump world's celebrations of former Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's disgrace were a bit premature. Ms Underwood may not be as outspokenly anti-Trump as her predecessor, but she appears to be equally - or more - aggressive where it counts, in the courtroom. What details emerged in the court filing? Thursday's 41-page document filed with the NY Supreme Court spells out a range of alleged violations of laws concerning non-profit organisations, dating back more than a decade. The investigation apparently found that the foundation was "little more than an empty shell that functions with no oversight by its board of directors". The board had not met since 1999, despite being legally required to meet annually, and did not oversee the foundation's activities "in any way", the document says. Mr Trump, who has not contributed any personal funds to the foundation since 2008, was the sole signatory on the foundation's bank accounts and approved all of its grants. Several pages of the document focus on a charity fundraiser for veterans in Iowa in January 2016, which Mr Trump chose to hold instead of taking part in a TV debate with other Republican presidential hopefuls ahead of the influential state's caucuses. More than $2.8m was donated to the Trump Foundation at that event. The petition alleges that those funds raised from the public were used to promote Mr Trump's campaign for the presidency, in particular in the Iowa nominating caucuses. The lawsuit also claims that the foundation paid $100,000 (£75,000) to settle legal claims against Mr Trump's Mar-A-Lago resort, $158,000 to settle claims against one of his golf clubs, and $10,000 to purchase a painting of Mr Trump to hang at another of his golf clubs. The purchase of the painting was an example of one of "at least five self-dealing transactions" which violate tax regulations on non-profit charities, the statement said. "As our investigation reveals, the Trump Foundation was little more than a cheque book for payments from Mr Trump or his businesses to nonprofits, regardless of their purpose of legality," Ms Underwood said. "This is not how private foundations should function."

www.bbc.com

center

NmgulDXgFQLEWSfe

test

2xNXskhF64oIeYJ4

media_bias

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/05/16/glenn-beck-to-meet-with-zuckerberg/

Glenn Beck, Anti-Trump Conservatives to Meet with Facebook’s Zuckerberg

2016-05-16

Adelle Nazarian

On Wednesday , billionaire Mark Zuckerberg will hold a meeting with “ leading conservatives , ” embattled The Blaze head Glenn Beck , and former George W. Bush Administration official and co-host of Fox News Channel ’ s The Five Dana Perino , at the website ’ s Menlo Park headquarters to discuss Facebook ’ s conservative media suppression and censorship scandal . Last week it was reported that “ anonymous sources at Facebook ’ s news team have confirmed to Gizmodo that , in addition to suppressing conservative news sources , the company suppresses stories about itself while artificially promoting stories about the Black Lives Matter movement . ” In spite of this , Zuckerberg denies any wrongdoing , stating “ we have found no evidence that this report is true. ” He is instead planning to hold a session Wednesday where he will essentially “ pat conservatives on the head ” with a photo-op that is a direct testament to the fact that nothing has changed . It is also quite telling that he has reached out to Beck , who is struggling to remain relevant in the conservative media sphere . Beck announced the meeting in a Facebook post on his page early Sunday morning . Beck and Perino will be joined by Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute , CNN ’ s S.E . Cupp , and Mitt Romney ’ s former digital director , Zac Moffatt . It is also important to point out that nearly every “ leading conservative ” listed above who has accepted and confirmed their attendance on Wednesday is part of the anti-Trump or “ Never Trump ” movement . The move to invite from this school of “ conservatives ” flies in the face of Zuckerberg ’ s claim of creating a diverse group for the discussion . One exception is Moffatt , who has stated his willingness to work with Trump . “ Of course we would work for the RNC under Trump , ” Moffatt said . Additionally , Facebook ’ s Trending News chief , Tom Stocky , is a maximum political donor to Hillary Clinton . ███ has also pointed out that of all the donations from Facebook employees , Clinton has received the most . Beck has vehemently opposed Trump , going so far as calling him Hitler , but announced last week that “ Donald Trump is going to be the next president . ” Beck , as many may recall , took the liberty of mocking Republican presidential frontrunner and billionaire Donald Trump last month in a video where he smeared a bowl of crushed-up Cheetos crumbs all over his face . He did this after delivering a “ farewell address ” to his 40 laid-off employees from his replica Oval Office . On Sunday , Beck reacted vehemently to the Drudge Report ’ s observation that Zuckerberg invited anti-Trump “ conservatives ” to his photo-op and that Beck is to “ grovel at Zuckerberg ’ s feet ” on Wednesday . With Beck ’ s The Blaze website imploding , the photo-op meeting with Zuckerberg could not have come at a more opportune time . It could easily be seen as a gift to Beck who is desperate to garner viewership and to increase his relevancy at a time when his stature is decreasing . In January , ███ leapt to the # 12 spot in the world on Facebook , eclipsing other major news outlets such as CNN , the Washington Post , Yahoo ! , and ABC News . This is despite Facebook ’ s attempts to game the system against Breitbart . On Friday , ███ Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Marlow penned an op-ed outing Zuckerberg ’ s “ condescension , ” stating that the media company would not be participating in a “ pat on the head ” photo-op , but that Breitbart ’ s tens-of-millions of readers have expressed their interest in the following : An interview between Breitbart Tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos and Mark Zuckerberg on the topic of free speech and Facebook ’ s suppression of conservative media . Milo will interview Zuckerberg anytime , anywhere—and we ’ ll agree to have it broadcast on your live video platform . Facebook to immediately cease its active suppression of conservative media , as extensively reported by Gizmodo , The Guardian , and myriad other news outlets . Indeed , Facebook ’ s Trending News chief , Tom Stocky , is a maximum political donor to Hillary Clinton . So there ’ s no need to “ discuss ” anything . Facebook did it , Facebook got caught , and it must end .

On Wednesday, billionaire Mark Zuckerberg will hold a meeting with “leading conservatives,” embattled The Blaze head Glenn Beck, and former George W. Bush Administration official and co-host of Fox News Channel’s The Five Dana Perino, at the website’s Menlo Park headquarters to discuss Facebook’s conservative media suppression and censorship scandal. Last week it was reported that “anonymous sources at Facebook’s news team have confirmed to Gizmodo that, in addition to suppressing conservative news sources, the company suppresses stories about itself while artificially promoting stories about the Black Lives Matter movement.” In spite of this, Zuckerberg denies any wrongdoing, stating “we have found no evidence that this report is true.” He is instead planning to hold a session Wednesday where he will essentially “pat conservatives on the head” with a photo-op that is a direct testament to the fact that nothing has changed. It is also quite telling that he has reached out to Beck, who is struggling to remain relevant in the conservative media sphere. Beck announced the meeting in a Facebook post on his page early Sunday morning. Beck and Perino will be joined by Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute, CNN’s S.E. Cupp, and Mitt Romney’s former digital director, Zac Moffatt. It is also important to point out that nearly every “leading conservative” listed above who has accepted and confirmed their attendance on Wednesday is part of the anti-Trump or “Never Trump” movement. The move to invite from this school of “conservatives” flies in the face of Zuckerberg’s claim of creating a diverse group for the discussion. One exception is Moffatt, who has stated his willingness to work with Trump. “Of course we would work for the RNC under Trump,” Moffatt said. Additionally, Facebook’s Trending News chief, Tom Stocky, is a maximum political donor to Hillary Clinton. Breitbart News has also pointed out that of all the donations from Facebook employees, Clinton has received the most. Beck has vehemently opposed Trump, going so far as calling him Hitler, but announced last week that “Donald Trump is going to be the next president.” Beck, as many may recall, took the liberty of mocking Republican presidential frontrunner and billionaire Donald Trump last month in a video where he smeared a bowl of crushed-up Cheetos crumbs all over his face. He did this after delivering a “farewell address” to his 40 laid-off employees from his replica Oval Office. On Sunday, Beck reacted vehemently to the Drudge Report’s observation that Zuckerberg invited anti-Trump “conservatives” to his photo-op and that Beck is to “grovel at Zuckerberg’s feet” on Wednesday. With Beck’s The Blaze website imploding, the photo-op meeting with Zuckerberg could not have come at a more opportune time. It could easily be seen as a gift to Beck who is desperate to garner viewership and to increase his relevancy at a time when his stature is decreasing. In January, Breitbart News leapt to the #12 spot in the world on Facebook, eclipsing other major news outlets such as CNN, the Washington Post, Yahoo!, and ABC News. This is despite Facebook’s attempts to game the system against Breitbart. On Friday, Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Marlow penned an op-ed outing Zuckerberg’s “condescension,” stating that the media company would not be participating in a “pat on the head” photo-op, but that Breitbart’s tens-of-millions of readers have expressed their interest in the following: An interview between Breitbart Tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos and Mark Zuckerberg on the topic of free speech and Facebook’s suppression of conservative media. Milo will interview Zuckerberg anytime, anywhere—and we’ll agree to have it broadcast on your live video platform. Facebook to immediately cease its active suppression of conservative media, as extensively reported by Gizmodo, The Guardian, and myriad other news outlets. Indeed, Facebook’s Trending News chief, Tom Stocky, is a maximum political donor to Hillary Clinton. So there’s no need to “discuss” anything. Facebook did it, Facebook got caught, and it must end. Follow Adelle Nazarian on Twitter @AdelleNaz

www.breitbart.com

right

2xNXskhF64oIeYJ4

test

v2JaMIJwsc3ROTRN

national_defense

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51003159

Trump threatens Iraq with sanctions if US troops are expelled

President Trump has threatened severe sanctions against Iraq after its parliament called on US troops to leave the country . `` We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that 's there . It cost billions of dollars to build . We 're not leaving unless they pay us back for it , '' he told reporters . Tensions are high after the US assassinated Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad last week . Soleimani , 62 , spearheaded Iranian military operations in the Middle East , and was regarded as a terrorist by the US . The general 's remains have now returned to his home country , where mourners packed the streets of Tehran early on Monday . The new head of Iran 's Quds force - which Soleimani led - has vowed to expel the US from the Middle East . `` We promise to continue martyr Soleimani 's path with the same force ... and the only compensation for us would be to remove America from the region , '' state radio quoted Esmail Qaani as saying . The strike that killed Soleimani also claimed the life of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis , a top Iraqi military figure who commanded the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah group . Speaking from the presidential plane , Mr Trump said that if Iraq asked US forces to depart on an unfriendly basis , `` we will charge them sanctions like they 've never seen before , ever . It 'll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame . '' Some 5,000 US soldiers are in Iraq as part of the international coalition against the Islamic State ( IS ) group . On Sunday , the coalition paused its operations against IS in Iraq , and Iraqi MPs passed a non-binding resolution calling for foreign troops to leave . The resolution was pushed through by the parliament 's Shia Muslim bloc - which is close to Iran . Iran has announced it will no longer abide by restrictions imposed by the 2015 nuclear deal , under which it agreed to limit its sensitive nuclear activities and allow in international inspectors in return for the lifting of economic sanctions . US President Donald Trump abandoned the deal in 2018 , saying he wanted to force Iran to negotiate a new deal that would place indefinite curbs on its nuclear programme and also halt its development of ballistic missiles . Iran refused and had since been gradually rolling back its commitments under the deal . In a statement , it said it would no longer observe limitations on its capacity for enrichment , the level of enrichment , the stock of enriched material , or research and development . The leaders of Germany , France and the UK - which were all signatories to the 2015 deal , alongside China and Russia - responded with a joint statement urging Iran to refrain from `` further violent action or proliferation '' . `` It is crucial now to de-escalate . We call on all the players involved to show utmost restraint and responsibility , '' they said . Mr Trump has vowed to strike back at Iran in the event of retaliation for Soleimani 's death , `` perhaps in a disproportionate manner '' . He also repeated a controversial threat to target Iranian cultural sites on Sunday , despite criticism from within the US and overseas . `` They 're allowed to kill our people . They 're allowed to torture and maim our people . They 're allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people . And we 're not allowed to touch their cultural site ? It does n't work that way , '' the president said . In a series of tweets on Saturday , Mr Trump said the US had identified 52 Iranian sites , some `` at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture '' , and warned they would be `` HIT VERY FAST AND HARD '' if Tehran struck at the US . US Senator Elizabeth Warren , a senior member of the Democratic Party , responded by tweeting : `` You are threatening to commit war crimes . '' Iran 's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif drew parallels with IS destruction of the Middle East 's cultural riches . `` A reminder to those hallucinating about emulating ISIS war crimes by targeting our cultural heritage , '' he tweeted . `` Through MILLENNIA of history , barbarians have come and ravaged our cities , razed our monuments and burnt our libraries . Where are they now ? We 're still here , & standing tall . '' Targeting cultural sites is banned under the Geneva and Hague Conventions - and violating them would constitute a war crime in the US . Iran is home to two dozen Unesco World Heritage sites . These are landmarks the UN 's cultural organisation believes need preserving for their cultural , historic or scientific significance . They include : Persepolis , the capital of the ancient Persian Achaemenid empire and whose earliest remains date back to Sixth Century BC Naqsh-e Jahan Square in the city of Isfahan , which was built in the early 17th Century and is is one of the largest city squares in the world Golestan Palace in Tehran , the residence and seat of power for the Qajar dynasty which ruled Iran from 1785 to 1925 There are also a number of sites which - while not listed by Unesco - still retain huge cultural importance . For example , the Azadi ( Freedom ) Tower in Tehran has been the gathering point for celebrations , military parades and mass demonstrations for almost 50 years . Elsewhere in the city , the Mausoleum of Ruhollah Khomeini is dedicated to the Islamic Republic 's founder and also houses the tombs of some of the country 's leading political figures . The country has always insisted that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful - but suspicions that it was being used to develop a bomb covertly prompted the UN Security Council , US and EU to impose crippling sanctions in 2010 . The 2015 deal was designed to constrain the programme in a verifiable way in return for sanctions relief . It restricted Iran 's enrichment of uranium , which is used to make reactor fuel but also nuclear weapons , to 3.67 % . Iran was also required to redesign a heavy-water reactor being built , whose spent fuel would contain plutonium suitable for a bomb , and allow international inspections . Before July 2015 , Iran had a large stockpile of enriched uranium and almost 20,000 centrifuges , enough to create eight to 10 bombs , according to the White House at the time . US experts estimated back then that if Iran had decided to rush to make a bomb , it would take two to three months until it had enough 90 % -enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon - the so-called `` breakout time '' . Iran 's current `` breakout time '' , should it attempt to build a nuclear bomb , is estimated to be around a year , but this could be reduced to half a year or even a matter of months if enrichment levels are increased to 20 % , for example .

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Donald Trump has threatened Iraq with "sanctions like they've never seen before" President Trump has threatened severe sanctions against Iraq after its parliament called on US troops to leave the country. "We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that's there. It cost billions of dollars to build. We're not leaving unless they pay us back for it," he told reporters. Tensions are high after the US assassinated Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad last week. Iran has vowed "severe revenge". Soleimani, 62, spearheaded Iranian military operations in the Middle East, and was regarded as a terrorist by the US. The general's remains have now returned to his home country, where mourners packed the streets of Tehran early on Monday. The new head of Iran's Quds force - which Soleimani led - has vowed to expel the US from the Middle East. "We promise to continue martyr Soleimani's path with the same force... and the only compensation for us would be to remove America from the region," state radio quoted Esmail Qaani as saying. Image copyright AFP/Getty Image caption Soleimani was seen as the second most powerful figure in Iran The strike that killed Soleimani also claimed the life of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a top Iraqi military figure who commanded the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah group. What did Trump threaten Iraq with? Speaking from the presidential plane, Mr Trump said that if Iraq asked US forces to depart on an unfriendly basis, "we will charge them sanctions like they've never seen before, ever. It'll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame." Some 5,000 US soldiers are in Iraq as part of the international coalition against the Islamic State (IS) group. On Sunday, the coalition paused its operations against IS in Iraq, and Iraqi MPs passed a non-binding resolution calling for foreign troops to leave. The resolution was pushed through by the parliament's Shia Muslim bloc - which is close to Iran. How has Iran responded to the US? Iran has announced it will no longer abide by restrictions imposed by the 2015 nuclear deal, under which it agreed to limit its sensitive nuclear activities and allow in international inspectors in return for the lifting of economic sanctions. US President Donald Trump abandoned the deal in 2018, saying he wanted to force Iran to negotiate a new deal that would place indefinite curbs on its nuclear programme and also halt its development of ballistic missiles. Image copyright AFP Image caption Iranian MPs stood up in parliament and chanted 'death to America' for several minutes Iran refused and had since been gradually rolling back its commitments under the deal. In a statement, it said it would no longer observe limitations on its capacity for enrichment, the level of enrichment, the stock of enriched material, or research and development. The leaders of Germany, France and the UK - which were all signatories to the 2015 deal, alongside China and Russia - responded with a joint statement urging Iran to refrain from "further violent action or proliferation". "It is crucial now to de-escalate. We call on all the players involved to show utmost restraint and responsibility," they said. What has Trump said about Iran? Mr Trump has vowed to strike back at Iran in the event of retaliation for Soleimani's death, "perhaps in a disproportionate manner". He also repeated a controversial threat to target Iranian cultural sites on Sunday, despite criticism from within the US and overseas. "They're allowed to kill our people. They're allowed to torture and maim our people. They're allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we're not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn't work that way," the president said. In a series of tweets on Saturday, Mr Trump said the US had identified 52 Iranian sites, some "at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture", and warned they would be "HIT VERY FAST AND HARD" if Tehran struck at the US. US Senator Elizabeth Warren, a senior member of the Democratic Party, responded by tweeting: "You are threatening to commit war crimes." Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif drew parallels with IS destruction of the Middle East's cultural riches. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Huge crowds poured into the city of Ahvaz in Iran to honour General Soleimani "A reminder to those hallucinating about emulating ISIS war crimes by targeting our cultural heritage," he tweeted. "Through MILLENNIA of history, barbarians have come and ravaged our cities, razed our monuments and burnt our libraries. Where are they now? We're still here, & standing tall." Targeting cultural sites is banned under the Geneva and Hague Conventions - and violating them would constitute a war crime in the US. Iran's top cultural sites Image copyright Getty Images Iran is home to two dozen Unesco World Heritage sites. These are landmarks the UN's cultural organisation believes need preserving for their cultural, historic or scientific significance. They include: Persepolis, the capital of the ancient Persian Achaemenid empire and whose earliest remains date back to Sixth Century BC Naqsh-e Jahan Square in the city of Isfahan, which was built in the early 17th Century and is is one of the largest city squares in the world Golestan Palace in Tehran, the residence and seat of power for the Qajar dynasty which ruled Iran from 1785 to 1925 There are also a number of sites which - while not listed by Unesco - still retain huge cultural importance. For example, the Azadi (Freedom) Tower in Tehran has been the gathering point for celebrations, military parades and mass demonstrations for almost 50 years. Elsewhere in the city, the Mausoleum of Ruhollah Khomeini is dedicated to the Islamic Republic's founder and also houses the tombs of some of the country's leading political figures. How soon could Iran develop a nuclear bomb? The country has always insisted that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful - but suspicions that it was being used to develop a bomb covertly prompted the UN Security Council, US and EU to impose crippling sanctions in 2010. The 2015 deal was designed to constrain the programme in a verifiable way in return for sanctions relief. It restricted Iran's enrichment of uranium, which is used to make reactor fuel but also nuclear weapons, to 3.67%. Iran was also required to redesign a heavy-water reactor being built, whose spent fuel would contain plutonium suitable for a bomb, and allow international inspections. Before July 2015, Iran had a large stockpile of enriched uranium and almost 20,000 centrifuges, enough to create eight to 10 bombs, according to the White House at the time. Image copyright AFP Image caption President Hassan Rouhani pictured at a nuclear plant in Iran in 2015 US experts estimated back then that if Iran had decided to rush to make a bomb, it would take two to three months until it had enough 90%-enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon - the so-called "breakout time". Iran's current "breakout time", should it attempt to build a nuclear bomb, is estimated to be around a year, but this could be reduced to half a year or even a matter of months if enrichment levels are increased to 20%, for example.

www.bbc.com

center

v2JaMIJwsc3ROTRN

test

dcB4PVP5y8Us4ilq

fbi

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/07/trump-fbi-director-christopher-wray

Trump taps former justice department official Christopher Wray to lead FBI

2017-06-07

Lauren Gambino

After firing James Comey , president calls Wray a ‘ man of impeccable credentials ’ as Paul Ryan says : ‘ I don ’ t know the guy ’ Donald Trump plans to nominate Christopher Wray to be the next director of the FBI , he announced on Twitter on Wednesday . Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) I will be nominating Christopher A. Wray , a man of impeccable credentials , to be the new Director of the FBI . Details to follow . The announcement comes nearly one month after Trump fired FBI director James Comey – one of the most controversial decisions of his young presidency – and just one day before Comey is scheduled to testify before the Senate intelligence committee . During the hearing , Comey is expected to be asked about Trump ’ s attempts to soft-pedal the investigation into his former national security adviser Michael Flynn ’ s contacts with Russia . Trump has indicated that the FBI ’ s investigation into Russia ’ s meddling in the 2016 elections and links to his campaign made up part of his thinking when he dismissed the director . Who is Christopher Wray , Trump 's pick to replace Comey as FBI director ? Read more In the tweet , Trump called Wray – whose name emerged as one of those in the frame on 31 May – “ a man of impeccable credentials ” . An FBI director must be confirmed by the Senate and typically serves a single , 10-year term . Hours after Trump ’ s morning tweet , the White House issued a formal statement on the president ’ s selection . “ I am proud to announce Christopher as my choice as the director of the FBI , ” Trump said in the statement . “ He is an impeccably qualified individual , and I know that he will again serve his country as a fierce guardian of the law and model of integrity once the Senate confirms him to lead the FBI . ” During a visit to Cincinnati , Ohio , on Wednesday , Trump remarked briefly on his decision , telling the traveling press : “ He ’ s gon na be great . ” Wray called his selection a “ great honor ” and said : “ I look forward to serving the American people with integrity as the leader of what I know firsthand to be an extraordinary group of men and women who have dedicated their careers to protecting this country . ” Wray , 50 , was the assistant attorney general overseeing the criminal division under George W Bush , in charge of investigations into corporate fraud . James Comey Senate testimony : America braces for a historic political moment Read more Wray more recently represented the New Jersey governor , Chris Christie , during the investigation into the George Washington Bridge lane-closing case , in which two of Christie ’ s former aides were convicted of plotting to close lanes of the bridge to punish a Democratic mayor who would not endorse the governor . Christie , who has informally advised the president , was not charged in the case . “ I have the utmost confidence in Chris , ” Christie told the Bergen Record last week . “ He ’ s an outstanding lawyer . He has absolute integrity and honesty , and I think that the president certainly would not be making a mistake if he asked Chris Wray to be FBI director , ” Christie said Thursday . Christie , who remains a loyal supporter of Trump and served briefly as head of the transition team before being edged out , would not tell the paper whether he had any involvement in the president ’ s decision to consider Wray . Wray works as a litigation partner at King and Spalding , an Atlanta-based law firm , where he oversees the company ’ s government investigations practice , representing a number of Fortune 100 financial institutions . The unit represents companies and clients in a variety of white-collar criminal and regulatory enforcement matters . An archived search of his company biography revealed that as early as November 2016 Wray ’ s profile listed as one of his clients “ an energy company president in a criminal investigation by Russian authorities ” . Prior to joining the firm , Wray served from 2003 to 2005 as assistant attorney general in charge of the US Department of Justice ’ s criminal division under Comey , then the US deputy attorney general . The Senate confirmed Wray to that post by unanimous consent – a feat that may be difficult to achieve again amid the current polarization in the chamber . Wray began his legal career in private practice . In 1997 , he joined the US attorney ’ s office for the northern district of Georgia as a federal prosecutor before joining the leadership ranks at the justice department in 2001 , months before the September 11 attacks would reshape law enforcement response to terrorism . According to his biography , Wray played an pivotal role in the department ’ s response to the 9/11 attacks , overseeing legal and operational actions in the continuing war on terrorism . He also served as a member of the Bush administration ’ s corporate fraud taskforce and led the fraud investigation of Enron Corp . Wray graduated from Yale University in 1989 and Yale Law School in 1992 , where he served as executive director of the Yale Law Journal . Trump ’ s announcement took lawmakers in Washington by surprise . Trump did not consult the two highest ranking members of the Senate judiciary committee before announcing his decision to pick Wray . A spokesman for the Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley , the committee ’ s chairman , said he had learned about the decision as everyone else had : on Twitter . Diane Feinstein , the top Democrat on the committee , told reporters she too learned about Wray from Trump ’ s tweet and needed more time to review his background before commenting . The House speaker , Paul Ryan , also said the president hadn ’ t consulted him before making the announcement . Wray - right ? I don ’ t know the guy ... but he seems like the perfect kind of person House Speaker Paul Ryan “ Wray – right ? ” Ryan asked in reply to a reporter ’ s question . “ I don ’ t know the guy . But I ’ ve looked at his résumé [ and ] he seems like the perfect kind of person . I thought we should have a career person take over the FBI , someone with a deep bench of experience . He certainly seems to fit that bill . ” Senator Patrick Leahy , a Democrat from Vermont and a member of the judiciary committee , said in a statement that he was “ particularly interested ” in Wray ’ s ability to maintain the independence of his agency in light of reports that Trump attempted to pressure his FBI director into curtailing an investigation into his national security adviser . “ For obvious reasons that could not be clearer right now , ” Leahy said in a statement , “ Mr Wray ’ s ability , willingness and commitment to be independent of the White House and presidential pressure is the threshold hurdle , and a cardinal test . ” But US attorney general Jeff Sessions congratulated the president on his nomination of Wray , who he called a “ leader of proven skill , independence , and integrity , a man in whom all Americans can have confidence ” . Sessions said the former justice department official “ combines a brilliant legal mind , outstanding accomplishments , and a proven record of public service ” , adding that he Wray had “ tremendous ” respect for the FBI and in turn , the agents he worked with at the agency “ enthusiastically affirm his leadership and integrity ” . Sessions recused himself from the FBI investigation into Trump associates ’ contacts with Russia after it was revealed that he had failed to disclose meetings with the Russian ambassador . It was reported on Tuesday that Sessions offered to resign amid escalating tensions with the president , who apparently believes his attorney general should not have recused himself from the investigation . In an early signal of possible conflicts of interest senators are likely to pursue during Wray ’ s confirmation hearing , the ACLU flagged parts of his professional background that the group said raised questions about his ability to lead the FBI with the “ independence , even-handed judgment and commitment to the rule of law that the agency deserves ” . “ Given that Wray touts his deep involvement in the Bush administration ’ s response to the 9/11 attacks , which includes his connections to some of the most unlawful legal memos on Bush-era torture programs , the Senate should press Wray to come clean about his role in the programs , ” said Faiz Shakir , the national political director for the ACLU . The group also raised potential conflicts of interest over the fact that Wray ’ s law firm has advised Trump ’ s family trust and his history of donating to Republican candidates and causes . “ In this important moment for our country , the American people deserve a commitment from any nominee for FBI director to the foundational principles of our constitution , and that that commitment outweighs any loyalty to a political party or a single politician . We will be watching closely in the coming days to ensure Wray makes these commitments and earns the trust of the public . ”

After firing James Comey, president calls Wray a ‘man of impeccable credentials’ as Paul Ryan says: ‘I don’t know the guy’ Donald Trump plans to nominate Christopher Wray to be the next director of the FBI, he announced on Twitter on Wednesday. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) I will be nominating Christopher A. Wray, a man of impeccable credentials, to be the new Director of the FBI. Details to follow. The announcement comes nearly one month after Trump fired FBI director James Comey – one of the most controversial decisions of his young presidency – and just one day before Comey is scheduled to testify before the Senate intelligence committee. During the hearing, Comey is expected to be asked about Trump’s attempts to soft-pedal the investigation into his former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s contacts with Russia. Trump has indicated that the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 elections and links to his campaign made up part of his thinking when he dismissed the director. Who is Christopher Wray, Trump's pick to replace Comey as FBI director? Read more In the tweet, Trump called Wray – whose name emerged as one of those in the frame on 31 May – “a man of impeccable credentials”. An FBI director must be confirmed by the Senate and typically serves a single, 10-year term. Hours after Trump’s morning tweet, the White House issued a formal statement on the president’s selection. “I am proud to announce Christopher as my choice as the director of the FBI,” Trump said in the statement. “He is an impeccably qualified individual, and I know that he will again serve his country as a fierce guardian of the law and model of integrity once the Senate confirms him to lead the FBI.” During a visit to Cincinnati, Ohio, on Wednesday, Trump remarked briefly on his decision, telling the traveling press: “He’s gonna be great.” Wray called his selection a “great honor” and said: “I look forward to serving the American people with integrity as the leader of what I know firsthand to be an extraordinary group of men and women who have dedicated their careers to protecting this country.” Wray, 50, was the assistant attorney general overseeing the criminal division under George W Bush, in charge of investigations into corporate fraud. James Comey Senate testimony: America braces for a historic political moment Read more Wray more recently represented the New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, during the investigation into the George Washington Bridge lane-closing case, in which two of Christie’s former aides were convicted of plotting to close lanes of the bridge to punish a Democratic mayor who would not endorse the governor. Christie, who has informally advised the president, was not charged in the case. “I have the utmost confidence in Chris,” Christie told the Bergen Record last week. “He’s an outstanding lawyer. He has absolute integrity and honesty, and I think that the president certainly would not be making a mistake if he asked Chris Wray to be FBI director,” Christie said Thursday. Christie, who remains a loyal supporter of Trump and served briefly as head of the transition team before being edged out, would not tell the paper whether he had any involvement in the president’s decision to consider Wray. Wray works as a litigation partner at King and Spalding, an Atlanta-based law firm, where he oversees the company’s government investigations practice, representing a number of Fortune 100 financial institutions. The unit represents companies and clients in a variety of white-collar criminal and regulatory enforcement matters. An archived search of his company biography revealed that as early as November 2016 Wray’s profile listed as one of his clients “an energy company president in a criminal investigation by Russian authorities”. Prior to joining the firm, Wray served from 2003 to 2005 as assistant attorney general in charge of the US Department of Justice’s criminal division under Comey, then the US deputy attorney general. The Senate confirmed Wray to that post by unanimous consent – a feat that may be difficult to achieve again amid the current polarization in the chamber. Wray began his legal career in private practice. In 1997, he joined the US attorney’s office for the northern district of Georgia as a federal prosecutor before joining the leadership ranks at the justice department in 2001, months before the September 11 attacks would reshape law enforcement response to terrorism. According to his biography, Wray played an pivotal role in the department’s response to the 9/11 attacks, overseeing legal and operational actions in the continuing war on terrorism. He also served as a member of the Bush administration’s corporate fraud taskforce and led the fraud investigation of Enron Corp. Wray graduated from Yale University in 1989 and Yale Law School in 1992, where he served as executive director of the Yale Law Journal. Trump’s announcement took lawmakers in Washington by surprise. Trump did not consult the two highest ranking members of the Senate judiciary committee before announcing his decision to pick Wray. A spokesman for the Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, the committee’s chairman, said he had learned about the decision as everyone else had: on Twitter. Diane Feinstein, the top Democrat on the committee, told reporters she too learned about Wray from Trump’s tweet and needed more time to review his background before commenting. The House speaker, Paul Ryan, also said the president hadn’t consulted him before making the announcement. Wray - right? I don’t know the guy ... but he seems like the perfect kind of person House Speaker Paul Ryan “Wray – right?” Ryan asked in reply to a reporter’s question. “I don’t know the guy. But I’ve looked at his résumé [and] he seems like the perfect kind of person. I thought we should have a career person take over the FBI, someone with a deep bench of experience. He certainly seems to fit that bill.” Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont and a member of the judiciary committee, said in a statement that he was “particularly interested” in Wray’s ability to maintain the independence of his agency in light of reports that Trump attempted to pressure his FBI director into curtailing an investigation into his national security adviser. “For obvious reasons that could not be clearer right now,” Leahy said in a statement, “Mr Wray’s ability, willingness and commitment to be independent of the White House and presidential pressure is the threshold hurdle, and a cardinal test.” But US attorney general Jeff Sessions congratulated the president on his nomination of Wray, who he called a “leader of proven skill, independence, and integrity, a man in whom all Americans can have confidence”. Sessions said the former justice department official “combines a brilliant legal mind, outstanding accomplishments, and a proven record of public service”, adding that he Wray had “tremendous” respect for the FBI and in turn, the agents he worked with at the agency “enthusiastically affirm his leadership and integrity”. Sessions recused himself from the FBI investigation into Trump associates’ contacts with Russia after it was revealed that he had failed to disclose meetings with the Russian ambassador. It was reported on Tuesday that Sessions offered to resign amid escalating tensions with the president, who apparently believes his attorney general should not have recused himself from the investigation. In an early signal of possible conflicts of interest senators are likely to pursue during Wray’s confirmation hearing, the ACLU flagged parts of his professional background that the group said raised questions about his ability to lead the FBI with the “independence, even-handed judgment and commitment to the rule of law that the agency deserves”. “Given that Wray touts his deep involvement in the Bush administration’s response to the 9/11 attacks, which includes his connections to some of the most unlawful legal memos on Bush-era torture programs, the Senate should press Wray to come clean about his role in the programs,” said Faiz Shakir, the national political director for the ACLU. The group also raised potential conflicts of interest over the fact that Wray’s law firm has advised Trump’s family trust and his history of donating to Republican candidates and causes. “In this important moment for our country, the American people deserve a commitment from any nominee for FBI director to the foundational principles of our constitution, and that that commitment outweighs any loyalty to a political party or a single politician. We will be watching closely in the coming days to ensure Wray makes these commitments and earns the trust of the public.” Sabrina Siddiqui contributed to this report

www.theguardian.com

left

dcB4PVP5y8Us4ilq

test

Wy1WmoNy628ThFM7

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/reagan-country-turns-blue/

Reagan Country Turns Blue

Steven Greenhut, Patricia Mahon, Matthew Vadum, Debra J. Saunders

When I moved to Orange County in the mid-1990s , it was still the most Republican county , in raw numbers , in the United States . Virtually anyone with serious political ambition there ran as a Republican , although changes were starting to appear . Democrat Loretta Sanchez eked out a victory over GOP firebrand “ B-1 Bob ” Dornan in the 1996 congressional election — something Dornan blamed on invalid votes , but others knew was a sign of things to come . I met Rep. Dornan at a conservative organizing event in Des Moines as he tried to drum up support for his presidential bid . The GOP congressman spent time in Iowa when he could have been campaigning in and around Garden Grove . Sanchez ’ s victory was a shock at the time , but the county GOP remained strong outside the highly urbanized , ethnically diverse areas of the central county . It was business as usual . I used to laugh about the GOP ’ s big election night parties , usually at a posh hotel near John Wayne Airport . Not only would one find virtually every Republican elected official at the festivities , but you ’ d often find Democratic officials there , too . If you wanted to be near the center of power , you had to attend an event sponsored by the party . The biggest tussles were between conservatives and the RINOs ( Republican in Name Only ) . Democrats were an afterthought . Orange County wasn ’ t just Republican , but it was the Republican Mecca . Ronald Reagan was propelled into politics by OC activists and donors . Richard Nixon , originally from Yorba Linda , had his Western White House in San Clemente . But as the county ’ s defense-based economy and demographics changed , so did its politics . I recall when Republicans dismissed the chances of an upstart Democratic Assembly candidate , Lou Correa , who not only won the 1998 election but now is a member of Congress . Republicans struggled for years to overthrow a prominent liberal Democratic mayor in Irvine , and they finally accomplished that task a few years ago . But it ’ s just a footnote now . The county government released its latest voter-registration figures , and Reagan Country is a memory . Democrats have grabbed a slight registration advantage over Republicans . The small lead is mostly about bragging rights , but it ’ s the final psychological blow to a county party that ’ s long been collapsing . Orange County Republicans had been operating as if nothing had changed , but in 2016 Hillary Clinton received more votes than Donald Trump . The biggest setback came in the midterms . Democrats took every OC congressional race and made serious gains in state legislative seats , too . These days , the county GOP would be more than happy to have lawmakers who were Republican at all , whether in name only or not . This has enormous ramifications for the state as a whole . California Republicans counted on Orange County ’ s overwhelmingly GOP vote totals to overcome its disadvantage elsewhere in statewide races . Now that its most Republican large county is pretty evenly split , where will Republican votes come from to help balance Democratic strongholds elsewhere ? Placer County , in the foothills east of Sacramento , remains strongly Republican , but it has fewer than 400,000 residents . No wonder Republicans are no longer competitive in any statewide races . We just need to look statewide to see what ’ s happening . Without political competition , issues such as statewide rent control , single-payer health care , wacky environmental and nanny state issues , and an endless push for tax increases will always remain front and center . The recriminations are pointless . Some Republicans blame the president for pushing wealthy and diverse suburban counties into the blue column , while others blame immigration for the ultimate changes in voting patterns . Republican-minded voters have been fleeing the state for years , which hasn ’ t helped , either . Others blame the party ’ s leadership . Whatever the case , the GOP needs to face up to reality and come up with new strategies to stay relevant , or the death spiral will continue . In Orange County , 27 percent of voters are No Party Preference . Statewide , No Party Preference registrants have surpassed GOP voters . “ The number of registered Democrats has fallen by about 110,000 since the 2016 election , ” the Sacramento Bee reported . “ The number of Republicans has dropped by about 340,000 . ” There ’ s opportunity in those numbers . It ’ s not as if California voters are in love with the Democrats , either . There are plenty of issues that Republicans can tap — road congestion , a housing crisis , service cutbacks , crime hikes , poverty rates , growing pension liabilities — but the party ’ s poor leadership and outdated thinking have gotten it nowhere . At the state level , Republicans always get obliterated now . The two non-liberals who came closest to winning in the last election cycle both lacked the GOP label . Former Republican Steve Poizner ran for insurance commissioner as No Party Preference and lost by nearly 6 percentage points to Democrat Ricardo Lara . Pro-charter-school candidate Marshall Tuck came within 2 percentage points of teachers ’ union ally Tony Thurmond in the nonpartisan race for superintendent of public instruction . Compare that to the governor ’ s race , in which Democrat Gavin Newsom beat Republican John Cox by 24 percentage points . There ’ s probably no realistic hope for Republicans or any sense of political competition , and we just have to live with the political consequences . These trends have been in the works for two decades , but OC ’ s final flip from red to blue adds a punctuation point to California Republican decline . Perhaps the GOP can be heartened by an old Reagan quotation : “ The future doesn ’ t belong to the fainthearted ; it belongs to the brave . ”

Sacramento When I moved to Orange County in the mid-1990s, it was still the most Republican county, in raw numbers, in the United States. Virtually anyone with serious political ambition there ran as a Republican, although changes were starting to appear. Democrat Loretta Sanchez eked out a victory over GOP firebrand “B-1 Bob” Dornan in the 1996 congressional election — something Dornan blamed on invalid votes, but others knew was a sign of things to come. I met Rep. Dornan at a conservative organizing event in Des Moines as he tried to drum up support for his presidential bid. The GOP congressman spent time in Iowa when he could have been campaigning in and around Garden Grove. Sanchez’s victory was a shock at the time, but the county GOP remained strong outside the highly urbanized, ethnically diverse areas of the central county. It was business as usual. I used to laugh about the GOP’s big election night parties, usually at a posh hotel near John Wayne Airport. Not only would one find virtually every Republican elected official at the festivities, but you’d often find Democratic officials there, too. If you wanted to be near the center of power, you had to attend an event sponsored by the party. The biggest tussles were between conservatives and the RINOs (Republican in Name Only). Democrats were an afterthought. Orange County wasn’t just Republican, but it was the Republican Mecca. Ronald Reagan was propelled into politics by OC activists and donors. Richard Nixon, originally from Yorba Linda, had his Western White House in San Clemente. But as the county’s defense-based economy and demographics changed, so did its politics. I recall when Republicans dismissed the chances of an upstart Democratic Assembly candidate, Lou Correa, who not only won the 1998 election but now is a member of Congress. Republicans struggled for years to overthrow a prominent liberal Democratic mayor in Irvine, and they finally accomplished that task a few years ago. But it’s just a footnote now. The county government released its latest voter-registration figures, and Reagan Country is a memory. Democrats have grabbed a slight registration advantage over Republicans. The small lead is mostly about bragging rights, but it’s the final psychological blow to a county party that’s long been collapsing. Orange County Republicans had been operating as if nothing had changed, but in 2016 Hillary Clinton received more votes than Donald Trump. The biggest setback came in the midterms. Democrats took every OC congressional race and made serious gains in state legislative seats, too. These days, the county GOP would be more than happy to have lawmakers who were Republican at all, whether in name only or not. This has enormous ramifications for the state as a whole. California Republicans counted on Orange County’s overwhelmingly GOP vote totals to overcome its disadvantage elsewhere in statewide races. Now that its most Republican large county is pretty evenly split, where will Republican votes come from to help balance Democratic strongholds elsewhere? Placer County, in the foothills east of Sacramento, remains strongly Republican, but it has fewer than 400,000 residents. No wonder Republicans are no longer competitive in any statewide races. We just need to look statewide to see what’s happening. Without political competition, issues such as statewide rent control, single-payer health care, wacky environmental and nanny state issues, and an endless push for tax increases will always remain front and center. The recriminations are pointless. Some Republicans blame the president for pushing wealthy and diverse suburban counties into the blue column, while others blame immigration for the ultimate changes in voting patterns. Republican-minded voters have been fleeing the state for years, which hasn’t helped, either. Others blame the party’s leadership. Whatever the case, the GOP needs to face up to reality and come up with new strategies to stay relevant, or the death spiral will continue. In Orange County, 27 percent of voters are No Party Preference. Statewide, No Party Preference registrants have surpassed GOP voters. “The number of registered Democrats has fallen by about 110,000 since the 2016 election,” the Sacramento Bee reported. “The number of Republicans has dropped by about 340,000.” There’s opportunity in those numbers. It’s not as if California voters are in love with the Democrats, either. There are plenty of issues that Republicans can tap — road congestion, a housing crisis, service cutbacks, crime hikes, poverty rates, growing pension liabilities — but the party’s poor leadership and outdated thinking have gotten it nowhere. At the state level, Republicans always get obliterated now. The two non-liberals who came closest to winning in the last election cycle both lacked the GOP label. Former Republican Steve Poizner ran for insurance commissioner as No Party Preference and lost by nearly 6 percentage points to Democrat Ricardo Lara. Pro-charter-school candidate Marshall Tuck came within 2 percentage points of teachers’ union ally Tony Thurmond in the nonpartisan race for superintendent of public instruction. Compare that to the governor’s race, in which Democrat Gavin Newsom beat Republican John Cox by 24 percentage points. There’s probably no realistic hope for Republicans or any sense of political competition, and we just have to live with the political consequences. These trends have been in the works for two decades, but OC’s final flip from red to blue adds a punctuation point to California Republican decline. Perhaps the GOP can be heartened by an old Reagan quotation: “The future doesn’t belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave.” Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

www.spectator.org

right

Wy1WmoNy628ThFM7

test

HnzCaOajLgtcErsM

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/12/clinton-campaign-supports-call-electors-briefed-foreign-intervention-reports-cast-votes/

Clinton Campaign Supports Call for Electors To Be Briefed On ‘Foreign Intervention’ Claims

2016-12-12

Aaron Klein

NEW YORK — John Podesta , Hillary Clinton ’ s top political adviser who served as chairman of her presidential campaign , expressed his support for a request by ten Electoral College voters to receive an intelligence briefing on claims of foreign intervention in the presidential election . Podesta ’ s statements seem to call into question the legitimacy of President-elect Donald Trump ’ s victory . “ The bipartisan electors ’ letter raises very grave issues involving our national security , ” Podesta said in a statement Monday , Politico reported . “ Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed . ” “ Each day that month , our campaign decried the interference of Russia in our campaign and its evident goal of hurting our campaign to aid Donald Trump , ” he said . “ Despite our protestations , this matter did not receive the attention it deserved by the media in the campaign . We now know that the CIA has determined Russia ’ s interference in our elections was for the purpose of electing Donald Trump . This should distress every American. ” Podesta was responding to an open letter from ten electors – including Nancy Pelosi ’ s daughter , Christine Pelosi , requesting the intelligence briefing . The electors wrote The Electors require to know from the intelligence community whether there are ongoing investigations into ties between Donald Trump , his campaign or associates , and Russian government interference in the election , the scope of those investigations , how far those investigations may have reached , and who was involved in those investigations . We further require a briefing on all investigative findings , as these matters directly impact the core factors in our deliberations of whether Mr. Trump is fit to serve as President of the United States . Podesta ’ s statements are already strengthening attempts by Democratic lawmakers to impact the Electoral College vote on Dec.19 . Politico reported : Shortly after Podesta ’ s statement , the Democratic National Committee disseminated a POLITICO story that revealed the electors ’ call for a briefing . Two Democratic members of Congress have also suggested the Electoral College should take an active role in reassessing — or stopping — a Trump presidency . Over the weekend , a Democratic congressman asserted that members of the Electoral College should have the right to consider the alleged impact of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election when they cast their votes . “ To the extent that foreign interference in the United States presidential elections may have influenced the final result , I believe the electors have the right to consider that , ” Rep. David Cicilline ( D-R.I. ) told POLITICO in a statement on Saturday . Cicilline appears to be the first member of Congress and the highest-ranking elected official in the country to endorse the notion that electors aren ’ t simply rubber stamps for their states ’ popular vote . Earlier Saturday , he retweeted a Rhode Island-based national security expert who argued that the intelligence community “ must brief electoral college about Russia before vote . ” Cicilline was referring to reports in the Washington Post and New York Times claiming Moscow interfered in the presidential election to help Donald Trump win — a contention the President-elect called “ ridiculous ” in an interview on Sunday . Cicilline ’ s comments come after a Democratic presidential elector from California filed a lawsuit aiming to overturn a California statute that requires him and the states ’ other electors to support the winner of the popular vote in the state with the aim of voting for someone else . The lawsuit , the second of its kind nationwide , is clearly part of an effort to set a legal precedent to free any rogue Republican electors in other states to cast their ballots for someone other than Trump . The lawsuits join a larger effort to try to turn electors against voting for Trump . Last week , ███ reported Harvard law professor and progressive activist Larry Lessig announced that he is teaming up with a California-based law firm to offer “ free and confidential ” legal services to any members of the Electoral College who will vote against President-elect Donald Trump in violation of state law . Lessig , a one-time presidential candidate , has served on the boards of numerous groups financed by billionaire George Soros . Lessig ’ s Electoral College scheme , which is being called the Electors Trust , is a last-ditch effort to stop Trump from becoming president . It comes after a petition drive by the Soros-funded MoveOn.org activist organization sought to abolish the Electoral College altogether . Lessig ’ s project also follows the largely failed recount efforts of Green Party candidate Jill Stein , who was aided by Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign . ███ reported that the lawyer representing Clinton ’ s recount efforts , Marc Elias , recently led legal battles against state voting laws with an infusion of funding from Soros . Lessig ’ s effort to help electors vote against Trump was first reported on Monday by Politico : Lessig says his new effort , which he calls “ The Electors Trust , ” will provide free counsel to electors , provided by the midsize firm , Durie Tangri , whose partner Mark Lemley is a longtime associate of Lessig ’ s . More significantly , Lessig said , the Trust will offer a platform – with guaranteed anonymity – for electors to strategize about stopping Trump from taking the White House . It ’ s a platform , he said , that could help electors coordinate to determine whether they ’ ve gathered enough support to stop Trump from winning the presidency . “ It makes no sense to be elector number five who comes out against Trump . But it might make sense to be elector 38 , ” Lessig said in a phone interview . With their permission , the electors can allow others to know that they are considering a vote of conscience . But that information will not include either their identity or their state . Our primary objective is to provide a safe and confidential legal context in which electors can seek advice and support , and depending on the facts , an opportunity to litigate to defend their freedom . Reached for comment , Lessig last week refused to provide ███ with the specific numbers of electors who are allegedly considering switching their votes from Trump . “ ” I ’ m not in the information flow for that . We ’ re being very careful to assure anonymity , ” Lessig said . Politico reported advocates of the bid to turn the votes of electors against Trump have briefed allies close to Hillary Clinton . Clinton ’ s team and the Democratic National Committee have steadfastly refused to endorse the efforts spearheaded by a group of electors in Colorado and Washington state . But , as with the ongoing recounts initiated by Green Party nominee Jill Stein , the Clinton team has not categorically rejected them , leaving the collection of mainly Democratic electors to push forward with no explicit public support from the failed Democratic nominee or any other prominent party leaders . Lessig launched his project after one Republican elector , Chris Suprun of Texas , published a news-making op-ed in the New York Times announcing his intentions not to vote for Trump when the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19 to formally elect the president . Lessig ’ s movement seems to be gaining some momentum , even if it is a long shot . On Tuesday , the New York Times published an opinion piece by Elizabeth Williamson citing Republican insiders saying there are other quiet “ faithless electors ” like Suprun plotting to vote against Trump . Still , Williamson , a Times editorial writer who specializes in national politics , admitted the chances of the effort succeeding amount to a “ moon shot . ” Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker also advocated for the scheme in a piece titled , “ The electoral college should be unfaithful . ” Parker claimed renegade electors would write a new history of “ heroism ” : Electors are scheduled to meet Dec. 19 in their respective states to cast their final ballots . If there are 37 Republicans among them with the courage to perform their moral duty and protect the nation from a talented but dangerous president-elect , a new history of heroism will have to be written . Lessig has been a national leader in the movement for so-called net neutrality , a concept highlighted in its infancy in his 1999 book , Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace . A study by the Media Research Center found that Soros ’ s foundations and the Ford Foundation donated a combined total of $ 196 million to groups supporting “ net neutrality . ” Lessig served on the boards of numerous nonprofits advocating so-called net neutrality , including Public Knowledge , Free Press and the Sunlight Foundation . Lessig is still on Sunlight ’ s board . All three are funded by Soros , as documented here , here , here , and here . Asked about his associations with those groups , Lessig told ███ , “ I ’ ve served on the board of Public Knowledge , the advisory board of Sunlight , and I ’ ve been a fan of Free Fress . I ’ ve received no compensation from any of them , ever . ” Asked whether he served on the board of Free Press , where he was listed on the board , he subsequently replied that he did , from 2007-2009 . Despite its namesake , Free Press is a well-known advocate for government intervention in the Internet and news media . Lessig has been a close associate of Free Press founder Robert W. McChesney , a communications professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who has called for the U.S. capitalist system to be dismantled and replaced with a socialist-style system . “ In the end , there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself , rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles , ” McChesney wrote in a 2009 essay . Lessig and McChesney have worked on projects together and have co-authored academic papers and opinion pieces in major newspapers . This reporter previously documented Free Press has advocated for the development of a “ world class ” government-run media system in the U.S . “ The need has never been greater for a world-class public media system in America , ” begins a 48-page Free Press policy paper titled , “ New Public Media : A Plan for Action . ” “ Commercial media ’ s economic tailspin has pushed public media to the center of the debate over the future of journalism and the media , presenting the greatest opportunity yet to reinvigorate and re-envision the modern U.S. public media system , ” argued the Free Press document . The Free Press study urges the creation of a trust fund – largely supported by new fees and taxes on advertising and the private media – to jump start the founding of a massive government-run public media system that will ultimately become self-sufficient . “ We believe local news reporting should become one of public media ’ s top priorities , ” said Free Press Managing Director Craig Aaron , one of the paper ’ s co-authors . “ We should redeploy and redouble our resources to keep a watchful eye on the powerful and to reliably examine the vital issues that most Americans can ’ t follow closely on their own , ” Aaron stated . Aaron Klein is Breitbart ’ s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter . He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program , “ Aaron Klein Investigative Radio. ” Follow him on Twitter @ AaronKleinShow . Follow him on Facebook .

NEW YORK — John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s top political adviser who served as chairman of her presidential campaign, expressed his support for a request by ten Electoral College voters to receive an intelligence briefing on claims of foreign intervention in the presidential election. Podesta’s statements seem to call into question the legitimacy of President-elect Donald Trump’s victory. “The bipartisan electors’ letter raises very grave issues involving our national security,” Podesta said in a statement Monday, Politico reported . “Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed.” “Each day that month, our campaign decried the interference of Russia in our campaign and its evident goal of hurting our campaign to aid Donald Trump,” he said. “Despite our protestations, this matter did not receive the attention it deserved by the media in the campaign. We now know that the CIA has determined Russia’s interference in our elections was for the purpose of electing Donald Trump. This should distress every American.” Podesta was responding to an open letter from ten electors – including Nancy Pelosi’s daughter, Christine Pelosi, requesting the intelligence briefing. The electors wrote The Electors require to know from the intelligence community whether there are ongoing investigations into ties between Donald Trump, his campaign or associates, and Russian government interference in the election, the scope of those investigations, how far those investigations may have reached, and who was involved in those investigations. We further require a briefing on all investigative findings, as these matters directly impact the core factors in our deliberations of whether Mr. Trump is fit to serve as President of the United States. Podesta’s statements are already strengthening attempts by Democratic lawmakers to impact the Electoral College vote on Dec.19. Politico reported: Shortly after Podesta’s statement, the Democratic National Committee disseminated a POLITICO story that revealed the electors’ call for a briefing. Two Democratic members of Congress have also suggested the Electoral College should take an active role in reassessing — or stopping — a Trump presidency. Over the weekend, a Democratic congressman asserted that members of the Electoral College should have the right to consider the alleged impact of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election when they cast their votes. “To the extent that foreign interference in the United States presidential elections may have influenced the final result, I believe the electors have the right to consider that,” Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) told POLITICO in a statement on Saturday. Politico further reported: Cicilline appears to be the first member of Congress and the highest-ranking elected official in the country to endorse the notion that electors aren’t simply rubber stamps for their states’ popular vote. Earlier Saturday, he retweeted a Rhode Island-based national security expert who argued that the intelligence community “must brief electoral college about Russia before vote.” Cicilline was referring to reports in the Washington Post and New York Times claiming Moscow interfered in the presidential election to help Donald Trump win — a contention the President-elect called “ridiculous” in an interview on Sunday. Cicilline’s comments come after a Democratic presidential elector from California filed a lawsuit aiming to overturn a California statute that requires him and the states’ other electors to support the winner of the popular vote in the state with the aim of voting for someone else. The lawsuit, the second of its kind nationwide, is clearly part of an effort to set a legal precedent to free any rogue Republican electors in other states to cast their ballots for someone other than Trump. The lawsuits join a larger effort to try to turn electors against voting for Trump. Last week, Breitbart News reported Harvard law professor and progressive activist Larry Lessig announced that he is teaming up with a California-based law firm to offer “free and confidential” legal services to any members of the Electoral College who will vote against President-elect Donald Trump in violation of state law. Lessig, a one-time presidential candidate, has served on the boards of numerous groups financed by billionaire George Soros. Lessig’s Electoral College scheme, which is being called the Electors Trust, is a last-ditch effort to stop Trump from becoming president. It comes after a petition drive by the Soros-funded MoveOn.org activist organization sought to abolish the Electoral College altogether. Lessig’s project also follows the largely failed recount efforts of Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who was aided by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Breitbart News reported that the lawyer representing Clinton’s recount efforts, Marc Elias, recently led legal battles against state voting laws with an infusion of funding from Soros. Lessig’s effort to help electors vote against Trump was first reported on Monday by Politico: Lessig says his new effort, which he calls “The Electors Trust,” will provide free counsel to electors, provided by the midsize firm, Durie Tangri, whose partner Mark Lemley is a longtime associate of Lessig’s. More significantly, Lessig said, the Trust will offer a platform – with guaranteed anonymity – for electors to strategize about stopping Trump from taking the White House. It’s a platform, he said, that could help electors coordinate to determine whether they’ve gathered enough support to stop Trump from winning the presidency. “It makes no sense to be elector number five who comes out against Trump. But it might make sense to be elector 38,” Lessig said in a phone interview. Writing at Medium.com, Lessig elaborated on his electors plot: With their permission, the electors can allow others to know that they are considering a vote of conscience. But that information will not include either their identity or their state. Our primary objective is to provide a safe and confidential legal context in which electors can seek advice and support, and depending on the facts, an opportunity to litigate to defend their freedom. Reached for comment, Lessig last week refused to provide Breitbart News with the specific numbers of electors who are allegedly considering switching their votes from Trump. “”I’m not in the information flow for that. We’re being very careful to assure anonymity,” Lessig said. Politico reported advocates of the bid to turn the votes of electors against Trump have briefed allies close to Hillary Clinton. Reported Politico: Clinton’s team and the Democratic National Committee have steadfastly refused to endorse the efforts spearheaded by a group of electors in Colorado and Washington state. But, as with the ongoing recounts initiated by Green Party nominee Jill Stein, the Clinton team has not categorically rejected them, leaving the collection of mainly Democratic electors to push forward with no explicit public support from the failed Democratic nominee or any other prominent party leaders. Lessig launched his project after one Republican elector, Chris Suprun of Texas, published a news-making op-ed in the New York Times announcing his intentions not to vote for Trump when the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19 to formally elect the president. Lessig’s movement seems to be gaining some momentum, even if it is a long shot. On Tuesday, the New York Times published an opinion piece by Elizabeth Williamson citing Republican insiders saying there are other quiet “faithless electors” like Suprun plotting to vote against Trump. Still, Williamson, a Times editorial writer who specializes in national politics, admitted the chances of the effort succeeding amount to a “moon shot.” Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker also advocated for the scheme in a piece titled, “The electoral college should be unfaithful.” Parker claimed renegade electors would write a new history of “heroism”: Electors are scheduled to meet Dec. 19 in their respective states to cast their final ballots. If there are 37 Republicans among them with the courage to perform their moral duty and protect the nation from a talented but dangerous president-elect, a new history of heroism will have to be written. Lessig has been a national leader in the movement for so-called net neutrality, a concept highlighted in its infancy in his 1999 book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. A study by the Media Research Center found that Soros’s foundations and the Ford Foundation donated a combined total of $196 million to groups supporting “net neutrality.” Lessig served on the boards of numerous nonprofits advocating so-called net neutrality, including Public Knowledge, Free Press and the Sunlight Foundation. Lessig is still on Sunlight’s board. All three are funded by Soros, as documented here, here, here, and here. Asked about his associations with those groups, Lessig told Breitbart News, “I’ve served on the board of Public Knowledge, the advisory board of Sunlight, and I’ve been a fan of Free Fress. I’ve received no compensation from any of them, ever.” Asked whether he served on the board of Free Press, where he was listed on the board, he subsequently replied that he did, from 2007-2009. Despite its namesake, Free Press is a well-known advocate for government intervention in the Internet and news media. Lessig has been a close associate of Free Press founder Robert W. McChesney, a communications professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who has called for the U.S. capitalist system to be dismantled and replaced with a socialist-style system. “In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles,” McChesney wrote in a 2009 essay. Lessig and McChesney have worked on projects together and have co-authored academic papers and opinion pieces in major newspapers. This reporter previously documented Free Press has advocated for the development of a “world class” government-run media system in the U.S. “The need has never been greater for a world-class public media system in America,” begins a 48-page Free Press policy paper titled, “New Public Media: A Plan for Action.” “Commercial media’s economic tailspin has pushed public media to the center of the debate over the future of journalism and the media, presenting the greatest opportunity yet to reinvigorate and re-envision the modern U.S. public media system,” argued the Free Press document. I further reported at the time: The Free Press study urges the creation of a trust fund – largely supported by new fees and taxes on advertising and the private media – to jump start the founding of a massive government-run public media system that will ultimately become self-sufficient. “We believe local news reporting should become one of public media’s top priorities,” said Free Press Managing Director Craig Aaron, one of the paper’s co-authors. “We should redeploy and redouble our resources to keep a watchful eye on the powerful and to reliably examine the vital issues that most Americans can’t follow closely on their own,” Aaron stated. Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook. With research by Joshua Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.

www.breitbart.com

right

HnzCaOajLgtcErsM

test

uXsdlSPQRrTtC1xJ

fbi

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence/trump-drops-his-choice-for-spy-chief-after-scrutiny-over-resume-idUSKCN1US298

Trump drops his choice for spy chief after scrutiny over resume

2019-08-03

Phil Stewart

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - President Donald Trump on Friday dropped his choice of John Ratcliffe to be U.S. spy chief after questions arose about the congressman ’ s lack of experience and possible exaggerations in his resume , marking the latest upheaval over a top national security post . Trump announced the move five days after he surprised many in Washington by making the conservative Republican lawmaker from Texas his selection to replace Daniel Coats as director of national intelligence , a post that oversees the 17 U.S. civilian and military intelligence agencies including the CIA . According to a source familiar with the situation , Trump is considering Republican Representatives Michael McCaul and Devin Nunes for the job . McCaul is a former chairman of the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee and Nunes is a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee . Trump told reporters at the White House he has “ a list of three people ” he will consider for the job this weekend . The Republican president blamed unflattering news coverage for Ratcliffe ’ s decision to bow out and instead remain in the House . Ratcliffe , 53 , faced a potentially difficult Senate confirmation process . The vacancy comes as the U.S. intelligence community grapples with an array of challenges , including the threat of foreign interference in next year ’ s U.S. elections , the impact of a rising China , escalating tensions with Iran , North Korea ’ s nuclear program and the desire to end years of conflict in Afghanistan , Iraq and Syria . Trump announced last Sunday that Coats , who had clashed with him over assessments involving Russia , Iran and North Korea , will step down on Aug. 15 . Ratcliffe , a Trump loyalist and the most junior member of the House Intelligence Committee , had been tapped , but not formally nominated , to replace Coats . “ Rather than going through months of slander and libel , I explained to John how miserable it would be for him and his family to deal with these people , ” Trump said on Twitter . The change in leadership at the top of the U.S. intelligence community comes after a half-year of turmoil atop the Pentagon . The Senate on July 23 confirmed Army Secretary Mark Esper as defense secretary , ending the longest period that the Pentagon had been without a permanent top official , a stint that began after James Mattis resigned in December over policy differences with Trump . Trump ’ s previous pick for defense secretary , Patrick Shanahan , withdrew in June after reports of domestic violence in his family . The post of director of national intelligence was created after the Sept. 11 , 2001 , attacks on the United States . Ratcliffe , confirming he had withdrawn from consideration , said he thought the confirmation process would become a partisan battle between Republicans and Democrats . “ I do not wish for a national security and intelligence debate surrounding my confirmation , however untrue , to become a purely political and partisan issue , ” Ratcliffe said . Ratcliffe gained attention by defending Trump and criticizing former Special Counsel Robert Mueller during a July hearing on Mueller ’ s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election . Although Ratcliffe had touted his counter-terrorism experience as a federal prosecutor in Texas , media outlets including ███ reported on concerns that he may have exaggerated his achievements in the post . Democratic lawmakers and some former senior U.S. intelligence officers had said Ratcliffe lacked the expertise and experience to replace Coats . Some voiced concern that he would warp U.S. intelligence to support Trump ’ s views . Ratcliffe served for six months on the intelligence panel . Trump said he might name the No . 2 intelligence official , Sue Gordon , as acting director of national intelligence . That is required when there is a vacancy in the top job . Such a move would likely be reassuring to many U.S. intelligence experts because of her deep experience . However , some Trump allies , according to the source familiar with the matter , were floating the possibility of instead naming CIA Director Gina Haspel as acting director until a permanent director is confirmed by the Senate . Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr said while he was “ heartened ” that the office of the director of national intelligence has an experienced team in place during the transition , “ there is no substitute for having a Senate-confirmed director in place ” leading it . Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer , a critic of Ratcliffe for the job , said in a statement , “ The next Director of National Intelligence must be someone who is nonpartisan , sees the world objectively and speaks truth to power . ” U.S. President Donald Trump talks to reporters as he departs for travel to Bedminster , New Jersey from the South Lawn of the White House in Washington , U.S. , August 2 , 2019 . ███/Leah Millis Ratcliffe joined a growing list of Trump ’ s choices for senior jobs who have had to withdraw , leading to questions about the rigorousness of White House background checks . Asked whether Ratcliffe ’ s history was inadequately reviewed before he was picked , Trump defended the White House process . While Trump regularly attacks the media , he told reporters , “ You ’ re part of the vetting process . ... We save a lot of money that way . ”

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Friday dropped his choice of John Ratcliffe to be U.S. spy chief after questions arose about the congressman’s lack of experience and possible exaggerations in his resume, marking the latest upheaval over a top national security post. Trump announced the move five days after he surprised many in Washington by making the conservative Republican lawmaker from Texas his selection to replace Daniel Coats as director of national intelligence, a post that oversees the 17 U.S. civilian and military intelligence agencies including the CIA. According to a source familiar with the situation, Trump is considering Republican Representatives Michael McCaul and Devin Nunes for the job. McCaul is a former chairman of the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee and Nunes is a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Trump told reporters at the White House he has “a list of three people” he will consider for the job this weekend. The Republican president blamed unflattering news coverage for Ratcliffe’s decision to bow out and instead remain in the House. Ratcliffe, 53, faced a potentially difficult Senate confirmation process. The vacancy comes as the U.S. intelligence community grapples with an array of challenges, including the threat of foreign interference in next year’s U.S. elections, the impact of a rising China, escalating tensions with Iran, North Korea’s nuclear program and the desire to end years of conflict in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Trump announced last Sunday that Coats, who had clashed with him over assessments involving Russia, Iran and North Korea, will step down on Aug. 15. Ratcliffe, a Trump loyalist and the most junior member of the House Intelligence Committee, had been tapped, but not formally nominated, to replace Coats. “Rather than going through months of slander and libel, I explained to John how miserable it would be for him and his family to deal with these people,” Trump said on Twitter. “John has therefore decided to stay in Congress.” PENTAGON TURMOIL The change in leadership at the top of the U.S. intelligence community comes after a half-year of turmoil atop the Pentagon. The Senate on July 23 confirmed Army Secretary Mark Esper as defense secretary, ending the longest period that the Pentagon had been without a permanent top official, a stint that began after James Mattis resigned in December over policy differences with Trump. FILE PHOTO: Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) addresses the Heritage Action's second annual Conservative Policy Summit in Washington January 12, 2015. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas/File Photo Trump’s previous pick for defense secretary, Patrick Shanahan, withdrew in June after reports of domestic violence in his family. The post of director of national intelligence was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Ratcliffe, confirming he had withdrawn from consideration, said he thought the confirmation process would become a partisan battle between Republicans and Democrats. “I do not wish for a national security and intelligence debate surrounding my confirmation, however untrue, to become a purely political and partisan issue,” Ratcliffe said. Ratcliffe gained attention by defending Trump and criticizing former Special Counsel Robert Mueller during a July hearing on Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. Although Ratcliffe had touted his counter-terrorism experience as a federal prosecutor in Texas, media outlets including Reuters reported on concerns that he may have exaggerated his achievements in the post. Democratic lawmakers and some former senior U.S. intelligence officers had said Ratcliffe lacked the expertise and experience to replace Coats. Some voiced concern that he would warp U.S. intelligence to support Trump’s views. Ratcliffe served for six months on the intelligence panel. Trump said he might name the No. 2 intelligence official, Sue Gordon, as acting director of national intelligence. That is required when there is a vacancy in the top job. Such a move would likely be reassuring to many U.S. intelligence experts because of her deep experience. However, some Trump allies, according to the source familiar with the matter, were floating the possibility of instead naming CIA Director Gina Haspel as acting director until a permanent director is confirmed by the Senate. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr said while he was “heartened” that the office of the director of national intelligence has an experienced team in place during the transition, “there is no substitute for having a Senate-confirmed director in place” leading it. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, a critic of Ratcliffe for the job, said in a statement, “The next Director of National Intelligence must be someone who is nonpartisan, sees the world objectively and speaks truth to power.” U.S. President Donald Trump talks to reporters as he departs for travel to Bedminster, New Jersey from the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, U.S., August 2, 2019. REUTERS/Leah Millis Ratcliffe joined a growing list of Trump’s choices for senior jobs who have had to withdraw, leading to questions about the rigorousness of White House background checks. Asked whether Ratcliffe’s history was inadequately reviewed before he was picked, Trump defended the White House process. While Trump regularly attacks the media, he told reporters, “You’re part of the vetting process. ... We save a lot of money that way.”

www.reuters.com

center

uXsdlSPQRrTtC1xJ

test

hfL1TLKcAmdsq41H

culture

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/ea4c17f541c7c63fac52941a6f43b885

Pro-Trump protesters push back on stay-at-home orders

2020-04-17

Sara Burnett, Brian Slodysko

FILE - In this April 13 , 2020 , file photo Ohio state senate candidate Melissa Ackison , left , and other protesters stand outside the Statehouse Atrium where reporters listen during the State of Ohio 's Coronavirus response update at the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus , Ohio . The unprecedented national effort to shut down much of daily life to slow the spread of COVID-19 is prompting a growing number of protests . ( Joshua A. Bickel/The Columbus Dispatch via AP , File ) FILE - In this April 13 , 2020 , file photo Ohio state senate candidate Melissa Ackison , left , and other protesters stand outside the Statehouse Atrium where reporters listen during the State of Ohio 's Coronavirus response update at the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus , Ohio . The unprecedented national effort to shut down much of daily life to slow the spread of COVID-19 is prompting a growing number of protests . ( Joshua A. Bickel/The Columbus Dispatch via AP , File ) While many Americans are filled with fear , Melissa Ackison says the coronavirus pandemic has filled her with anger . The stay-at-home orders are government overreach , the conservative Ohio state Senate candidate says , and the labeling of some workers as “ essential ” arbitrary . “ It enrages something inside of you , ” said Ackison , who was among those who protested Republican Gov . Mike DeWine ’ s orders at the statehouse in Columbus with her 10-year-old son . She has “ no fear whatsoever ” of contracting the virus , she said Thursday , dismissing it as hype . The Ohio protest was among a growing number staged outside governors ’ mansions and state Capitols across the country . In places like Oklahoma , Texas and Virginia , small-government groups , supporters of President Donald Trump , anti-vaccine advocates , gun rights backers and supporters of right-wing causes have united behind a deep suspicion of efforts to shut down daily life to slow the spread of the coronavirus . As their frustration with life under lockdown grows , they ’ ve started to openly defy the social distancing rules in an effort to put pressure on governors to ease them . Some of the protests have been small events , promoted via Facebook groups that have popped up in recent days and whose organizers are sometimes difficult to identify . Others are backed by groups funded by prominent Republican donors , some with ties to Trump . The largest so far , a rally of thousands that jammed the streets of Lansing , Michigan , on Wednesday , looked much like one of the president ’ s rallies — complete with MAGA hats or Trump flags — or one of the tea party rallies from a decade ago . The signs of frustration come as Trump has pushed for easing stay-at-home orders and tried to look ahead to restarting the economy . He unveiled a framework for governors to follow on Thursday , but acknowledged the governors will have the final say on when their state is ready . Health experts have warned that lifting restrictions too quickly could result in a surge of new cases of the virus . But the president and some of his supporters are impatient . Thousands of people in their cars packed the streets of Lansing to protest Democratic Gov . Gretchen Whitmer ’ s stay-at-home order and other restrictions . Outside the Capitol , some chanted “ Lock her up , ” a throwback to Trump ’ s calls during the 2016 election about his rival Hillary Clinton . One woman held a sign reading “ Heil Witmer . ” Asked about the protesters , Trump on Thursday expressed sympathy with their frustration — “ They ’ re suffering ... they want to get back ” — and dismissed concerns about the health risks of ignoring state orders and potentially exposing themselves to the virus . “ I think they ’ re listening . I think they listen to me , ” he said . “ They seem to be protesters that like me and respect this opinion , and my opinion ’ s the same as just about all of the governors . Nobody wants to stay shut . ” On Friday , he egged the protesters on , tweeting for supporters to “ LIBERATE ” three states with Democratic governors : Michigan , Virginia and Minnesota , where a an afternoon protest was being held outside the governor ’ s residence . Polls show the protesters ’ views are not widely held . An AP-NORC survey earlier this month found large majorities of Americans support a long list of government restrictions , including closing schools , limiting gatherings and shuttering bars and restaurants . Three-quarters of Americans backed requiring people to stay in their homes . And majorities of both Democrats and Republicans gave high marks for the state and city governments . But the protests expose resilient partisan divisions , particularly in battleground Michigan . The protest there was organized by the Michigan Conservative Coalition , a group founded by a pro-Trump state representative and his wife , Meshawn Maddock , who is on the advisory board for an official Trump campaign group called “ Women for Trump ” and is also the co-founder of Michigan Trump Republicans . Another group that promoted the event , the Michigan Freedom Fund , is run by Greg McNeilly , a longtime political adviser to the DeVos family , who are prolific Republican donors and have funded conservative causes across the state for decades . McNeilly was campaign manager for Dick DeVos , the husband of current U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos , during his failed bid for governor in 2006 . Whitmer was among the governors who expressed concern about the gatherings , saying it put people at risk and could have prolonged the shutdown . Michigan had recorded over 2,000 deaths from COVID-19 as of Thursday , and close to 30,000 confirmed cases of people infected with the virus . Roughly one-quarter of the state ’ s workforce has filed for unemployment . But it ’ s not just Democratic governors feeling the heat . A procession of cars swarmed around the Republican-dominated statehouse in Oklahoma City on Wednesday , with messages written on windows or signs that said “ stop killing our economy , ” “ we need our church ” and “ time 2 work . ” Carol Hefner , who previously served as an Oklahoma co-chair of Trump ’ s 2016 campaign , was a major organizer of the event . She differentiated it from many of the others , characterizing it as a “ rally ” rather than a protest . “ We ’ re not New York . Their problems are not our problems , ” Hefner said . “ We are rallying around our governor and our state to encourage the opening up of our businesses and the restoration of our state in a timely fashion . ” Other gatherings have links to fringe groups . A protest Thursday in the Texas capital of Austin , where protesters chanted “ Free Texas ” and “ Make America Free Again , ” was broadcast live by InfoWars TV , part of a company owned by conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones . The Ohio event earlier this week brought together a collection of anti-vaccine advocates , Second Amendment supporters , tea party activists and other anti-government activists . A Columbus Dispatch photo of Ackison and other protesters yelling through glass doors of the statehouse rocketed around the internet . Ackison said that while she views DeWine ’ s efforts as constitutional overreach , she would be fine if Trump were to act with similar authority to force governors to bring the states back on line . “ As patriots , we put President Trump in office for a reason , ” she said . “ If he ’ s not able to give a convincing enough argument to these governors that they need to open up , then he needs to do something to take action . ” The protests were advertised on Facebook by groups such as Reopen Virginia and End the Lockdown PA. A protest in Richmond , Virginia , on Thursday grew out of a conversation in the Facebook group Virginians for Medical Freedom , organizer Gary Golden said . The group often turns out at the Capitol in Richmond to oppose vaccine-related measures . Golden said Friday that he ’ s concerned about a loss of civil liberties , and isn ’ t swayed by what Trump says or tweets , adding , “ Politics has nothing to do with it . ” Kelly Mullin said she brought her sons to the event to teach them a lesson about liberty . Mullin said that she thought the risk posed by the coronavirus depends on an individual ’ s health and that people can take basic steps to protect themselves , including getting enough sleep , eating organic produce and getting outside . “ I mean , that ’ s where our tax dollars should be going . Eat broccoli , ” she said . Infectious-disease specialists say there is no evidence that eating specific foods can prevent or kill the virus . Most people with the coronavirus experience mild or moderate symptoms , and people with health issues such as asthma and older people are at greater risk of death from COVID-19 .

FILE - In this April 13, 2020, file photo Ohio state senate candidate Melissa Ackison, left, and other protesters stand outside the Statehouse Atrium where reporters listen during the State of Ohio's Coronavirus response update at the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus, Ohio. The unprecedented national effort to shut down much of daily life to slow the spread of COVID-19 is prompting a growing number of protests. (Joshua A. Bickel/The Columbus Dispatch via AP, File) FILE - In this April 13, 2020, file photo Ohio state senate candidate Melissa Ackison, left, and other protesters stand outside the Statehouse Atrium where reporters listen during the State of Ohio's Coronavirus response update at the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus, Ohio. The unprecedented national effort to shut down much of daily life to slow the spread of COVID-19 is prompting a growing number of protests. (Joshua A. Bickel/The Columbus Dispatch via AP, File) While many Americans are filled with fear, Melissa Ackison says the coronavirus pandemic has filled her with anger. The stay-at-home orders are government overreach, the conservative Ohio state Senate candidate says, and the labeling of some workers as “essential” arbitrary. “It enrages something inside of you,” said Ackison, who was among those who protested Republican Gov. Mike DeWine’s orders at the statehouse in Columbus with her 10-year-old son. She has “no fear whatsoever” of contracting the virus , she said Thursday, dismissing it as hype. The Ohio protest was among a growing number staged outside governors’ mansions and state Capitols across the country. In places like Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia, small-government groups, supporters of President Donald Trump, anti-vaccine advocates, gun rights backers and supporters of right-wing causes have united behind a deep suspicion of efforts to shut down daily life to slow the spread of the coronavirus. As their frustration with life under lockdown grows, they’ve started to openly defy the social distancing rules in an effort to put pressure on governors to ease them. Some of the protests have been small events, promoted via Facebook groups that have popped up in recent days and whose organizers are sometimes difficult to identify. Others are backed by groups funded by prominent Republican donors, some with ties to Trump. The largest so far, a rally of thousands that jammed the streets of Lansing, Michigan, on Wednesday, looked much like one of the president’s rallies — complete with MAGA hats or Trump flags — or one of the tea party rallies from a decade ago. The signs of frustration come as Trump has pushed for easing stay-at-home orders and tried to look ahead to restarting the economy. He unveiled a framework for governors to follow on Thursday, but acknowledged the governors will have the final say on when their state is ready. Health experts have warned that lifting restrictions too quickly could result in a surge of new cases of the virus. But the president and some of his supporters are impatient. Thousands of people in their cars packed the streets of Lansing to protest Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s stay-at-home order and other restrictions. Outside the Capitol, some chanted “Lock her up,” a throwback to Trump’s calls during the 2016 election about his rival Hillary Clinton. One woman held a sign reading “Heil Witmer.” Asked about the protesters, Trump on Thursday expressed sympathy with their frustration — “They’re suffering ... they want to get back” — and dismissed concerns about the health risks of ignoring state orders and potentially exposing themselves to the virus. “I think they’re listening. I think they listen to me,” he said. “They seem to be protesters that like me and respect this opinion, and my opinion’s the same as just about all of the governors. Nobody wants to stay shut.” On Friday, he egged the protesters on, tweeting for supporters to “LIBERATE” three states with Democratic governors: Michigan, Virginia and Minnesota, where a an afternoon protest was being held outside the governor’s residence. Polls show the protesters’ views are not widely held. An AP-NORC survey earlier this month found large majorities of Americans support a long list of government restrictions, including closing schools, limiting gatherings and shuttering bars and restaurants. Three-quarters of Americans backed requiring people to stay in their homes. And majorities of both Democrats and Republicans gave high marks for the state and city governments. Full Coverage: Virus Outbreak But the protests expose resilient partisan divisions, particularly in battleground Michigan. The protest there was organized by the Michigan Conservative Coalition, a group founded by a pro-Trump state representative and his wife, Meshawn Maddock, who is on the advisory board for an official Trump campaign group called “Women for Trump” and is also the co-founder of Michigan Trump Republicans. Another group that promoted the event, the Michigan Freedom Fund, is run by Greg McNeilly, a longtime political adviser to the DeVos family, who are prolific Republican donors and have funded conservative causes across the state for decades. McNeilly was campaign manager for Dick DeVos, the husband of current U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, during his failed bid for governor in 2006. Whitmer was among the governors who expressed concern about the gatherings, saying it put people at risk and could have prolonged the shutdown. Michigan had recorded over 2,000 deaths from COVID-19 as of Thursday, and close to 30,000 confirmed cases of people infected with the virus. Roughly one-quarter of the state’s workforce has filed for unemployment. But it’s not just Democratic governors feeling the heat. A procession of cars swarmed around the Republican-dominated statehouse in Oklahoma City on Wednesday, with messages written on windows or signs that said “stop killing our economy,” “we need our church” and “time 2 work.” Carol Hefner, who previously served as an Oklahoma co-chair of Trump’s 2016 campaign, was a major organizer of the event. She differentiated it from many of the others, characterizing it as a “rally” rather than a protest. “We’re not New York. Their problems are not our problems,” Hefner said. “We are rallying around our governor and our state to encourage the opening up of our businesses and the restoration of our state in a timely fashion.” Other gatherings have links to fringe groups. A protest Thursday in the Texas capital of Austin, where protesters chanted “Free Texas” and “Make America Free Again,” was broadcast live by InfoWars TV, part of a company owned by conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones. The Ohio event earlier this week brought together a collection of anti-vaccine advocates, Second Amendment supporters, tea party activists and other anti-government activists. A Columbus Dispatch photo of Ackison and other protesters yelling through glass doors of the statehouse rocketed around the internet. Ackison said that while she views DeWine’s efforts as constitutional overreach, she would be fine if Trump were to act with similar authority to force governors to bring the states back on line. “As patriots, we put President Trump in office for a reason,” she said. “If he’s not able to give a convincing enough argument to these governors that they need to open up, then he needs to do something to take action.” The protests were advertised on Facebook by groups such as Reopen Virginia and End the Lockdown PA. A protest in Richmond, Virginia, on Thursday grew out of a conversation in the Facebook group Virginians for Medical Freedom, organizer Gary Golden said. The group often turns out at the Capitol in Richmond to oppose vaccine-related measures. Golden said Friday that he’s concerned about a loss of civil liberties, and isn’t swayed by what Trump says or tweets, adding, “Politics has nothing to do with it.” Kelly Mullin said she brought her sons to the event to teach them a lesson about liberty. Mullin said that she thought the risk posed by the coronavirus depends on an individual’s health and that people can take basic steps to protect themselves, including getting enough sleep, eating organic produce and getting outside. “I mean, that’s where our tax dollars should be going. Eat broccoli,” she said. Infectious-disease specialists say there is no evidence that eating specific foods can prevent or kill the virus. Most people with the coronavirus experience mild or moderate symptoms, and people with health issues such as asthma and older people are at greater risk of death from COVID-19. ___ Associated Press writers Sarah Rankin in Richmond, Va., Sean Murphy in Oklahoma City, Okla., David Eggert in Lansing, Mich., and Scott Bauer in Madison, Wis., contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

hfL1TLKcAmdsq41H

test

3TSyYicHatjFhtRR

federal_budget

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/news/trump-delivers-budget-boosting-military-cutting-epa-state-dept/

Trump delivers budget boosting military, cutting EPA, State Dept.

March 16 ( UPI ) — President Donald Trump on Thursday released a proposed budget that could cut funding to the Environmental Protection Agency by 31 percent and the State Department by 29 percent while boosting military funds . Stacks of the blueprint — titled “ America First ” — were delivered to the Government Printing Office bookstore and a 62-page document was posted on the White House website early Thursday . Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney on Wednesday told reporters the White House proposal will cut the EPA ’ s budget down from $ 8.1 billion to $ 5.7 billion . About 3,200 positions — or more than 20 percent — in the EPA ’ s workforce of 15,000 would be cut . The proposed budget would end funding to former President Barack Obama ’ s Clean Power Plan — his signature effort to combat climate change by regulating power plants ’ carbon dioxide emissions . EPA programs such as the $ 73 million-a-year Chesapeake Bay cleanup project and the Energy Star program , designed to improve energy efficiency and save consumers money , would lose all funding . “ You can ’ t drain the swamp and leave all the people in it . So , I guess the first place that comes to mind will be the Environmental Protection Agency , ” Mulvaney told reporters . “ The president wants a smaller EPA . He thinks they overreach , and the budget reflects that . ” In a Gallup poll released Wednesday , 59 percent of Americans said protecting the environment is more important than continuing use of traditional energy , such as fossil fuels . In the poll , 71 percent of people said the United States should focus on alternative energy to solve U.S. energy problems , while 23 percent said the country should emphasize the production of oil , gas and coal . The State Department ’ s core programs face a $ 10 billion cut . The budget proposal would eliminate climate-change initiatives and slash foreign aid funding , United Nations contributions and cultural exchanges . The proposal also calls for cuts to State Department operations in war-torn areas such as Syria , Iraq and Afghanistan . Overall , the State Department ’ s budget would shrink from $ 52.8 billion to $ 37.6 billion . Trump ’ s proposal would eliminate funding to 19 agencies including the African Development Foundation , the Chemical Safety Board , the National Endowment for the Arts , the U.S. Institute on Peace and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness . The winners in Trump ’ s proposed budget are the Defense Department which would see a $ 52.3 billion increase , the Department of Veteran ’ s Affairs which would see a $ 4.4 billion increase and the Department of HomelandSsecurity which will see a $ 2.8 billion increase . “ There ’ s no question this is a hard-power budget , ” Mulvaney said . “ It is not a soft-power budget . This is a hard-power budget . And that was done intentionally . The president very clearly wants to send a message to our allies and our potential adversaries that this is a strong-power administration . ” “ The administration ’ s budget isn ’ t going to be the budget , ” said Sen. Marco Rubio , R-Fla. “ We do the budget here . The administration makes recommendations , but Congress does budgets . ”

March 16 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Thursday released a proposed budget that could cut funding to the Environmental Protection Agency by 31 percent and the State Department by 29 percent while boosting military funds. Stacks of the blueprint — titled “America First” — were delivered to the Government Printing Office bookstore and a 62-page document was posted on the White House website early Thursday. Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney on Wednesday told reporters the White House proposal will cut the EPA’s budget down from $8.1 billion to $5.7 billion. About 3,200 positions — or more than 20 percent — in the EPA’s workforce of 15,000 would be cut. The proposed budget would end funding to former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan — his signature effort to combat climate change by regulating power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions. EPA programs such as the $73 million-a-year Chesapeake Bay cleanup project and the Energy Star program, designed to improve energy efficiency and save consumers money, would lose all funding. “You can’t drain the swamp and leave all the people in it. So, I guess the first place that comes to mind will be the Environmental Protection Agency,” Mulvaney told reporters. “The president wants a smaller EPA. He thinks they overreach, and the budget reflects that.” In a Gallup poll released Wednesday, 59 percent of Americans said protecting the environment is more important than continuing use of traditional energy, such as fossil fuels. In the poll, 71 percent of people said the United States should focus on alternative energy to solve U.S. energy problems, while 23 percent said the country should emphasize the production of oil, gas and coal. The State Department’s core programs face a $10 billion cut. The budget proposal would eliminate climate-change initiatives and slash foreign aid funding, United Nations contributions and cultural exchanges. The proposal also calls for cuts to State Department operations in war-torn areas such as Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Overall, the State Department’s budget would shrink from $52.8 billion to $37.6 billion. Trump’s proposal would eliminate funding to 19 agencies including the African Development Foundation, the Chemical Safety Board, the National Endowment for the Arts, the U.S. Institute on Peace and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness. The winners in Trump’s proposed budget are the Defense Department which would see a $52.3 billion increase, the Department of Veteran’s Affairs which would see a $4.4 billion increase and the Department of HomelandSsecurity which will see a $2.8 billion increase. “There’s no question this is a hard-power budget,” Mulvaney said. “It is not a soft-power budget. This is a hard-power budget. And that was done intentionally. The president very clearly wants to send a message to our allies and our potential adversaries that this is a strong-power administration.” Trump’s budget requires approval from Congress. “The administration’s budget isn’t going to be the budget,” said Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. “We do the budget here. The administration makes recommendations, but Congress does budgets.”

www.breitbart.com

right

3TSyYicHatjFhtRR

test

4BIZZ1hiDqltF1ZI

media_bias

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/did-the-media-force-a-false-narrative-on-the-trayvon-martin-case/

Did the Media Force a False Narrative on the Trayvon Martin Case?

Rael Jean Isaac, David Catron, Bradford H. B., Dominick Sansone, H. Sterling Burnett, Larry Thornberry

There has been widespread reporting of the civil lawsuit for $ 100 million being brought by attorney Larry Klayman on behalf of George Zimmerman , the man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin almost eight years ago . At the core of the lawsuit is the claim that the key witness against Zimmerman at his trial , Rachel Jeantel , was a fake witness pretending to be Diamond Eugene , the 16-year-old girl who was on the phone with Trayvon in the last minutes before his death . The lawsuit , based on investigative reporting by documentary producer Joel Gilbert , targets Trayvon ’ s parents , their lawyer Benjamin Crump , both Jeantel and the real Diamond Eugene , prosecution lawyers and the state of Florida , all of whom , according to the lawsuit , knew or should have known of the witness substitution . The Martin case had far-reaching implications , poisoning race relations and resulting in the creation ( by its own account ) of Black Lives Matter . For Klayman , setting the record straight in this case and imposing high damages “ has the potential to break the back of the race-baiting industry , to set a precedent that you can ’ t get away with this stuff anymore . ” Not on the list , but , as Gilbert points out , “ a main culprit in this story , ” are the mainstream media . Zimmerman was taken into custody by the Sanford , Florida police following the shooting and released without charges . This was because their investigation found his claim that he had acted in self-defense convincing . According to Zimmerman ’ s story , he was a member of Neighborhood Watch in his housing complex , which had experienced a wave of robberies . He had called the non-emergency number of the police when he saw a suspicious person hanging around in the rain . He left his car briefly when he was asked in which direction the person had gone , but returned to it and did not see Trayvon Martin until the latter jumped him , broke his nose , and pummeled his head on the concrete path while he cried for help . His story was supported both by his injuries and eyewitness testimony . But the media fastened on the alternative narrative promoted by the Martin family and their attorney , Crump , of a white racist vigilante who willfully gunned down an unarmed black child buying snacks for his younger brother . In fact , Zimmerman was Hispanic ( the media would come up with the term “ white Hispanic ” to deal with this uncomfortable fact ) , an Obama voter and a mentor for black troubled youth . On the other hand , Trayvon was not the 10- or 12-year-old whose picture was distributed to and by the media but 17 and over six feet tall , with a penchant for using his fists that had contributed to his being suspended from high school three times that school year . That the state of Florida put Zimmerman on trial despite the findings of the Sanford police was due to the huge nationwide campaign , based on the alternative narrative , demanding Zimmerman be prosecuted . The pressure became irresistible when Crump suddenly emerged with a new witness . On March 19 , 2012 , three weeks after the shooting , Crump produced excerpts from a recorded phone interview he had conducted with someone he identified as Diamond Eugene , who had been on the phone with Trayvon when he died . The girl said that Trayvon told her Zimmerman followed and challenged him , initiating the altercation . CNN ’ s legal analyst immediately claimed that testimony “ dispels the notion of self-defense . ” Bolstered by the new witness , the state set out to prosecute Zimmerman , and on April 2 , prosecutors went out to interview Diamond Eugene , whose address they obtained from Trayvon ’ s mother , Sybrina Fulton . On arrival , they were told Diamond was at a different address , and when they arrived there , Rachel Jeantel came forward and identified herself as Diamond Eugene . In Gilbert ’ s reconstruction of events , Diamond Eugene , who only reluctantly and belatedly came forward under what Crump in a TV interview admitted was pressure from the Trayvon camp , had now balked , whether because she did not want to commit perjury under oath or because she did not want her boyfriend to know she had also been romancing Trayvon — or both . The “ solution ” was to substitute Rachel Jeantel , whom Gilbert believes ( on the basis of DNA evidence ) is Diamond Eugene ’ s half-sister , although she is poles apart in appearance and intelligence and proved a terrible witness on the stand . The media , for all its obsession with the story , showed no interest in exploring even surface aspects that should have aroused suspicion . Crump had repeatedly emphasized that Diamond Eugene was a minor , only 16 years old . Rachel Jeantel was 18 . Nor did anyone puzzle over the oddity that someone named Rachel Jeantel should be nicknamed “ Diamond Eugene. ” The media are equally lazy and irresponsible this time around . Their reaction to having their narrative upended has been to bury the story , and when that has proved no longer possible , to heap scorn on it — they ’ ve done everything but look into it . When Gilbert introduced his documentary and accompanying book , both entitled The Trayvon Hoax : Unmasking the Witness Fraud that Divided America , at a press conference in Washington on September 16 , 2019 , the mainstream media ignored the story . The only coverage was by a handful of conservative websites , including American Thinker , World Net Daily , and Townhall . This was despite dogged efforts by Gilbert to enlist the interest of Florida papers that had breathlessly , day by day covered the original story . The answer by each reporter , when there was a response at all , was a variation on the reply he received from the managing editor of the Miami Herald , Rick Hirsch : “ Thanks for reaching out . We are going to pass. ” Gilbert is nothing if not dogged , and when he followed up to ask why , he says that several reporters were frank that they were afraid to be first with the story , anticipating they would set off a social media storm that would include demands that they be fired . Simply ignoring the story ceased to be possible when Klayman ( founder of the invaluable gadfly Judicial Watch ) filed his lawsuit demanding an attention-grabbing $ 100 million , the content of the suit closely following Gilbert ’ s documentary . Gilbert ’ s reporting was a painstakingly thorough and imaginative piece of investigative journalism . He obtained Trayvon ’ s telephone records ( which of course the prosecution also had ) and went through 750 pages , including thousands of tweets and photos . It was immediately apparent Rachel Jeantel could not be Diamond Eugene . Trayvon , Gilbert realized , was a social star with many female friends , whom their photos and messaging showed to be slim , trim , and smart , nothing like the slow-witted , overweight Rachel Jeantel . Finding a photo of Diamond , however , proved frustrating until Gilbert came upon tweets in which Diamond says she is at that moment sending photos of herself , and Gilbert realized that all the photos are time-stamped , so he could match the photos to the tweets . But even once he had her picture ( a pretty girl , as he had expected ) Gilbert did not have her identity , and tracking her down was a challenging task , which Gilbert describes in both his documentary and book . While the size of the lawsuit made the story news , other methods to undercut the story ’ s impact came into play . Gilbert and Klayman had scheduled a press conference and showing of the film at the Coral Gables Art Cinema on December 5 . The theater abruptly canceled when , according to its co-executive director Brenda Moe , it was blasted in emails , phone calls , and a social media firestorm . ( What Moe did not say publicly , but that Gilbert says she told him , was that the mayor of Coral Gables had phoned , and city council members and their attorney were in her lobby as she spoke to him , demanding that she cancel the showing . ) No other forum willing to risk the fallout has thus far been found . Most of the media coverage of the Klayman lawsuit has consisted of a brief statement that Zimmerman alleges witness substitution followed by Crump ’ s characterization of the claims as “ baseless imaginings. ” Crump is almost always given the last word : “ I have every confidence that this unfounded and reckless lawsuit will be revealed for what it is — another failed attempt to defend the indefensible and a shameless attempt to profit off the lives and grief of others . ” When the mainstream media has gone beyond this , they have clung to the old narrative . Zimmerman remains the villain — this time for cruelly re-victimizing the grieving family . The Miami Herald concludes its editorial on the lawsuit : “ We have one request of Zimmerman : Please , go away and leave Trayvon ’ s parents alone. ” An opinion piece in the same paper by Fabiola Santiago is even more scathing : “ How much more injustice can one family take ? … His family is the aggrieved party in this tragedy . But George Zimmerman isn ’ t done being a scumbag. ” In an op-ed , CNN ’ s legal analyst , Joey Jackson , ignores the legal issues ( a legal analyst should find a hoax witness no small matter ) . Instead , he excoriates Zimmerman : “ How disgusting , distasteful and unfortunate that even nearly eight years later a young black life could mean so little to the person who took it away… . It ’ s as if he ’ s saying : ‘ How dare prosecutors seek to hold me accountable for taking this young man ’ s life — does it really matter ? ’ ” Columnist for the Tribune chain Mary Sanchez attributes the lawsuit to Zimmerman ’ s bad character , “ the aspect of personality that grounds intent and guides action. ” ABC Nightly News , after dismissing the lawsuit out of hand as based on “ the unsubstantiated claim ” that there had been a fake witness , talks of “ growing outrage ” that it had been filed , leaving the family feeling that Zimmerman “ is victimizing them again . ” What was lacking in all the mainstream media coverage was any attempt to examine the evidence Gilbert laid out — or even to look at Gilbert ’ s documentary or read his book . Two black professors , Glenn Loury from Brown University and John McWhorter from Columbia University , did both , and on Loury ’ s “ Bloggingheads ” TV program provided the most thoughtful coverage of the story to date . Both admit to being very uncomfortable that the source is Joel Gilbert , in Loury ’ s words “ a right-wing journalist who makes birther-like accusations about Barack Obama , a guy who comes on the Alex Jones show , a conspiracy theorist. ” And yet both agree that Gilbert ’ s “ very meticulous case , ” his “ almost astonishingly diligent ” investigation had totally transformed their view of the Trayvon Martin case . And both see the case ( and several other prominent racially charged cases since ) as “ a terrible indictment of journalism , ” which had abandoned objectivity to indulge in “ a kind of cheerleading frenzy to pile on to a narrative that is evidence of either virtue signaling … or just a kind of crass partisan our side versus their side and we ’ re gon na win . ” But what of the media argument that George Zimmerman walked free while the Martin family lost their son and should not suffer more at the hands of the man who shot him , even if in self-defense ? Klayman ’ s response is , “ They say hasn ’ t this family suffered enough but they wanted to put my client in prison for life. ” Moreover , despite being exonerated by the jury , in the court of public opinion Zimmerman remained guilty , pursued by the media narrative . He was “ withdrawn ” from the courses he was taking in criminal justice when the New Black Panthers called in a bomb threat , no one would give him a job for fear of becoming the target of an angry mob , and he was fearful of being seen in public ( a reasonable fear given that he escaped an assassination attempt by inches — the shooter was sentenced to 20 years ) . Zimmerman reacted to his pariah status by acting out , further damaging his prospects and making portraying him as a bad apple even more convincing . Benjamin Crump , in contrast , rode to fame as a civil rights lawyer and spokesman on the Trayvon case . He obtained his cut of the large settlement for the Martin parents from the housing complex where Trayvon died . He is author of the recently published Open Season : Legalized Genocide of Colored People , in which Trayvon Martin ’ s death serves as a prime example of supposed “ legalized genocide. ” ( Along with the state of Florida , HarperCollins , Crump ’ s publisher , is the other deep pocket named in the Zimmerman suit , in this case for publishing what the lawsuit claims are inaccurate statements about the Martin case . ) Martin ’ s mother , Sybrina Fulton , became a political figure in the wake of her son ’ s tragic death , speaking at the Democratic convention in 2016 . She is now running for Dade County Commissioner , with Hillary Clinton drumming up campaign contributions for her . ( Gilbert points out she clearly knew Rachel Jeantel was not Diamond Eugene because she had met with Diamond and driven her home weeks before the prosecution looked for her . ) Even Rachel Jeantel profited ; her disabilities led a group of black professional women to mentor and support her . Ironically , while the media is , as Gilbert has said , “ a main culprit in this story , ” it is also a victim . Its very success in creating “ narratives ” has led to a climate in which the media fears to depart from them . Even professors Loury and McWhorter , securely tenured and far from the typical run of media group-thinkers , were fearful . Shortly after Gilbert released the documentary , Loury says he told his viewers he and McWhorter “ were going to set the world on fire about a topic that you just couldn ’ t believe , it was so hot . And then we weaseled out . Under the excuse it was just unspeakable , it was like something even to talk about what we couldn ’ t talk about would be talking too much about it. ” They stepped up to the plate when the lawsuit produced a wave of coverage , even if so much of it was hostile . But Loury was quite right about the backlash . In its wake , a chastened Loury said he “ listened to his viewers ” and submitted to being lectured on the case on air by journalist Robert Wright , the co-founder and editor-in-chief of Bloggingheads TV . Zimmerman ’ s lawsuit may not bring the answers it promises . The case could be thrown out on the basis of issues unrelated to the merits . The first test will be early in 2020 ; the lawsuit is currently being served with a request for discovery , and the opposition has 45 days to respond , doubtless with a request for dismissal . Or the case could eventually be settled out of court . This makes the role of the media all the more important . Will fear continue to triumph over willingness to scrutinize the core facts ? Will any mainline news source , any “ investigative ” television program , reexamine the evidence Gilbert lays out ? Will they search out new evidence ? Will any of them follow up with probing interviews of the protagonists in this drama ? The Trayvon Martin case became a match that ignited race relations , making it important to know if those involved deceived the court and the public . And because Gilbert brings baggage that allows the media , however unfairly , automatically to discredit his work , it is all the more vital that mainstream media do the necessary due diligence to ascertain the truth . As Loury said in his original broadcast on Gilbert ’ s documentary , “ If you want to make a real moral argument that has political effect in this country , you can ’ t base it upon hoaxes , lies , and ruses . ”

There has been widespread reporting of the civil lawsuit for $100 million being brought by attorney Larry Klayman on behalf of George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin almost eight years ago. At the core of the lawsuit is the claim that the key witness against Zimmerman at his trial, Rachel Jeantel, was a fake witness pretending to be Diamond Eugene, the 16-year-old girl who was on the phone with Trayvon in the last minutes before his death. The lawsuit, based on investigative reporting by documentary producer Joel Gilbert, targets Trayvon’s parents, their lawyer Benjamin Crump, both Jeantel and the real Diamond Eugene, prosecution lawyers and the state of Florida, all of whom, according to the lawsuit, knew or should have known of the witness substitution. The Martin case had far-reaching implications, poisoning race relations and resulting in the creation (by its own account) of Black Lives Matter. For Klayman, setting the record straight in this case and imposing high damages “has the potential to break the back of the race-baiting industry, to set a precedent that you can’t get away with this stuff anymore.” Not on the list, but, as Gilbert points out, “a main culprit in this story,” are the mainstream media. Zimmerman was taken into custody by the Sanford, Florida police following the shooting and released without charges. This was because their investigation found his claim that he had acted in self-defense convincing. According to Zimmerman’s story, he was a member of Neighborhood Watch in his housing complex, which had experienced a wave of robberies. He had called the non-emergency number of the police when he saw a suspicious person hanging around in the rain. He left his car briefly when he was asked in which direction the person had gone, but returned to it and did not see Trayvon Martin until the latter jumped him, broke his nose, and pummeled his head on the concrete path while he cried for help. His story was supported both by his injuries and eyewitness testimony. But the media fastened on the alternative narrative promoted by the Martin family and their attorney, Crump, of a white racist vigilante who willfully gunned down an unarmed black child buying snacks for his younger brother. In fact, Zimmerman was Hispanic (the media would come up with the term “white Hispanic” to deal with this uncomfortable fact), an Obama voter and a mentor for black troubled youth. On the other hand, Trayvon was not the 10- or 12-year-old whose picture was distributed to and by the media but 17 and over six feet tall, with a penchant for using his fists that had contributed to his being suspended from high school three times that school year. That the state of Florida put Zimmerman on trial despite the findings of the Sanford police was due to the huge nationwide campaign, based on the alternative narrative, demanding Zimmerman be prosecuted. The pressure became irresistible when Crump suddenly emerged with a new witness. On March 19, 2012, three weeks after the shooting, Crump produced excerpts from a recorded phone interview he had conducted with someone he identified as Diamond Eugene, who had been on the phone with Trayvon when he died. The girl said that Trayvon told her Zimmerman followed and challenged him, initiating the altercation. CNN’s legal analyst immediately claimed that testimony “dispels the notion of self-defense.” Bolstered by the new witness, the state set out to prosecute Zimmerman, and on April 2, prosecutors went out to interview Diamond Eugene, whose address they obtained from Trayvon’s mother, Sybrina Fulton. On arrival, they were told Diamond was at a different address, and when they arrived there, Rachel Jeantel came forward and identified herself as Diamond Eugene. In Gilbert’s reconstruction of events, Diamond Eugene, who only reluctantly and belatedly came forward under what Crump in a TV interview admitted was pressure from the Trayvon camp, had now balked, whether because she did not want to commit perjury under oath or because she did not want her boyfriend to know she had also been romancing Trayvon — or both. The “solution” was to substitute Rachel Jeantel, whom Gilbert believes (on the basis of DNA evidence) is Diamond Eugene’s half-sister, although she is poles apart in appearance and intelligence and proved a terrible witness on the stand. The media, for all its obsession with the story, showed no interest in exploring even surface aspects that should have aroused suspicion. Crump had repeatedly emphasized that Diamond Eugene was a minor, only 16 years old. Rachel Jeantel was 18. Nor did anyone puzzle over the oddity that someone named Rachel Jeantel should be nicknamed “Diamond Eugene.” The media are equally lazy and irresponsible this time around. Their reaction to having their narrative upended has been to bury the story, and when that has proved no longer possible, to heap scorn on it — they’ve done everything but look into it. When Gilbert introduced his documentary and accompanying book, both entitled The Trayvon Hoax: Unmasking the Witness Fraud that Divided America, at a press conference in Washington on September 16, 2019, the mainstream media ignored the story. The only coverage was by a handful of conservative websites, including American Thinker, World Net Daily, and Townhall. This was despite dogged efforts by Gilbert to enlist the interest of Florida papers that had breathlessly, day by day covered the original story. The answer by each reporter, when there was a response at all, was a variation on the reply he received from the managing editor of the Miami Herald, Rick Hirsch: “Thanks for reaching out. We are going to pass.” Gilbert is nothing if not dogged, and when he followed up to ask why, he says that several reporters were frank that they were afraid to be first with the story, anticipating they would set off a social media storm that would include demands that they be fired. Simply ignoring the story ceased to be possible when Klayman (founder of the invaluable gadfly Judicial Watch) filed his lawsuit demanding an attention-grabbing $100 million, the content of the suit closely following Gilbert’s documentary. Gilbert’s reporting was a painstakingly thorough and imaginative piece of investigative journalism. He obtained Trayvon’s telephone records (which of course the prosecution also had) and went through 750 pages, including thousands of tweets and photos. It was immediately apparent Rachel Jeantel could not be Diamond Eugene. Trayvon, Gilbert realized, was a social star with many female friends, whom their photos and messaging showed to be slim, trim, and smart, nothing like the slow-witted, overweight Rachel Jeantel. Finding a photo of Diamond, however, proved frustrating until Gilbert came upon tweets in which Diamond says she is at that moment sending photos of herself, and Gilbert realized that all the photos are time-stamped, so he could match the photos to the tweets. But even once he had her picture (a pretty girl, as he had expected) Gilbert did not have her identity, and tracking her down was a challenging task, which Gilbert describes in both his documentary and book. While the size of the lawsuit made the story news, other methods to undercut the story’s impact came into play. Gilbert and Klayman had scheduled a press conference and showing of the film at the Coral Gables Art Cinema on December 5. The theater abruptly canceled when, according to its co-executive director Brenda Moe, it was blasted in emails, phone calls, and a social media firestorm. (What Moe did not say publicly, but that Gilbert says she told him, was that the mayor of Coral Gables had phoned, and city council members and their attorney were in her lobby as she spoke to him, demanding that she cancel the showing.) No other forum willing to risk the fallout has thus far been found. Most of the media coverage of the Klayman lawsuit has consisted of a brief statement that Zimmerman alleges witness substitution followed by Crump’s characterization of the claims as “baseless imaginings.” Crump is almost always given the last word: “I have every confidence that this unfounded and reckless lawsuit will be revealed for what it is — another failed attempt to defend the indefensible and a shameless attempt to profit off the lives and grief of others.” When the mainstream media has gone beyond this, they have clung to the old narrative. Zimmerman remains the villain — this time for cruelly re-victimizing the grieving family. The Miami Herald concludes its editorial on the lawsuit: “We have one request of Zimmerman: Please, go away and leave Trayvon’s parents alone.” An opinion piece in the same paper by Fabiola Santiago is even more scathing: “How much more injustice can one family take?… His family is the aggrieved party in this tragedy. But George Zimmerman isn’t done being a scumbag.” In an op-ed, CNN’s legal analyst, Joey Jackson, ignores the legal issues (a legal analyst should find a hoax witness no small matter). Instead, he excoriates Zimmerman: “How disgusting, distasteful and unfortunate that even nearly eight years later a young black life could mean so little to the person who took it away…. It’s as if he’s saying: ‘How dare prosecutors seek to hold me accountable for taking this young man’s life — does it really matter?’ ” Columnist for the Tribune chain Mary Sanchez attributes the lawsuit to Zimmerman’s bad character, “the aspect of personality that grounds intent and guides action.” ABC Nightly News, after dismissing the lawsuit out of hand as based on “the unsubstantiated claim” that there had been a fake witness, talks of “growing outrage” that it had been filed, leaving the family feeling that Zimmerman “is victimizing them again.” What was lacking in all the mainstream media coverage was any attempt to examine the evidence Gilbert laid out — or even to look at Gilbert’s documentary or read his book. Two black professors, Glenn Loury from Brown University and John McWhorter from Columbia University, did both, and on Loury’s “Bloggingheads” TV program provided the most thoughtful coverage of the story to date. Both admit to being very uncomfortable that the source is Joel Gilbert, in Loury’s words “a right-wing journalist who makes birther-like accusations about Barack Obama, a guy who comes on the Alex Jones show, a conspiracy theorist.” And yet both agree that Gilbert’s “very meticulous case,” his “almost astonishingly diligent” investigation had totally transformed their view of the Trayvon Martin case. And both see the case (and several other prominent racially charged cases since) as “a terrible indictment of journalism,” which had abandoned objectivity to indulge in “a kind of cheerleading frenzy to pile on to a narrative that is evidence of either virtue signaling … or just a kind of crass partisan our side versus their side and we’re gonna win.” But what of the media argument that George Zimmerman walked free while the Martin family lost their son and should not suffer more at the hands of the man who shot him, even if in self-defense? Klayman’s response is, “They say hasn’t this family suffered enough but they wanted to put my client in prison for life.” Moreover, despite being exonerated by the jury, in the court of public opinion Zimmerman remained guilty, pursued by the media narrative. He was “withdrawn” from the courses he was taking in criminal justice when the New Black Panthers called in a bomb threat, no one would give him a job for fear of becoming the target of an angry mob, and he was fearful of being seen in public (a reasonable fear given that he escaped an assassination attempt by inches — the shooter was sentenced to 20 years). Zimmerman reacted to his pariah status by acting out, further damaging his prospects and making portraying him as a bad apple even more convincing. Benjamin Crump, in contrast, rode to fame as a civil rights lawyer and spokesman on the Trayvon case. He obtained his cut of the large settlement for the Martin parents from the housing complex where Trayvon died. He is author of the recently published Open Season: Legalized Genocide of Colored People, in which Trayvon Martin’s death serves as a prime example of supposed “legalized genocide.” (Along with the state of Florida, HarperCollins, Crump’s publisher, is the other deep pocket named in the Zimmerman suit, in this case for publishing what the lawsuit claims are inaccurate statements about the Martin case.) Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, became a political figure in the wake of her son’s tragic death, speaking at the Democratic convention in 2016. She is now running for Dade County Commissioner, with Hillary Clinton drumming up campaign contributions for her. (Gilbert points out she clearly knew Rachel Jeantel was not Diamond Eugene because she had met with Diamond and driven her home weeks before the prosecution looked for her.) Even Rachel Jeantel profited; her disabilities led a group of black professional women to mentor and support her. Ironically, while the media is, as Gilbert has said, “a main culprit in this story,” it is also a victim. Its very success in creating “narratives” has led to a climate in which the media fears to depart from them. Even professors Loury and McWhorter, securely tenured and far from the typical run of media group-thinkers, were fearful. Shortly after Gilbert released the documentary, Loury says he told his viewers he and McWhorter “were going to set the world on fire about a topic that you just couldn’t believe, it was so hot. And then we weaseled out. Under the excuse it was just unspeakable, it was like something even to talk about what we couldn’t talk about would be talking too much about it.” They stepped up to the plate when the lawsuit produced a wave of coverage, even if so much of it was hostile. But Loury was quite right about the backlash. In its wake, a chastened Loury said he “listened to his viewers” and submitted to being lectured on the case on air by journalist Robert Wright, the co-founder and editor-in-chief of Bloggingheads TV. Zimmerman’s lawsuit may not bring the answers it promises. The case could be thrown out on the basis of issues unrelated to the merits. The first test will be early in 2020; the lawsuit is currently being served with a request for discovery, and the opposition has 45 days to respond, doubtless with a request for dismissal. Or the case could eventually be settled out of court. This makes the role of the media all the more important. Will fear continue to triumph over willingness to scrutinize the core facts? Will any mainline news source, any “investigative” television program, reexamine the evidence Gilbert lays out? Will they search out new evidence? Will any of them follow up with probing interviews of the protagonists in this drama? The Trayvon Martin case became a match that ignited race relations, making it important to know if those involved deceived the court and the public. And because Gilbert brings baggage that allows the media, however unfairly, automatically to discredit his work, it is all the more vital that mainstream media do the necessary due diligence to ascertain the truth. As Loury said in his original broadcast on Gilbert’s documentary, “If you want to make a real moral argument that has political effect in this country, you can’t base it upon hoaxes, lies, and ruses.”

www.spectator.org

right

4BIZZ1hiDqltF1ZI

test

2CNzQFXZdQgRqxZm

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47102614

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam refuses to quit over racism row

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has denied he was in a racist photo that appeared in his 1984 student yearbook page after initially apologising for it . Mr Northam , a Democrat , said he recognised that people would find this `` hard to believe '' . He also admitted blackening his face to impersonate singer Michael Jackson at an event in the same year . Top US Democrats have called on him to resign . But he says he will stay on . The picture showed a man in blackface and another man in Ku Klux Klan robes . Former Vice-President Joe Biden said Mr Northam had lost all moral authority . Black politicians in Virginia called it `` disgusting '' and Republicans also urged him to resign . He said he had initially taken responsibility for the photo , which he described as `` clearly racist and offensive '' . But he said that on reflection with his family and friends he had concluded that he was neither of the people in the photo . `` It has taken time to make sure that it 's not me but I 'm convinced I 'm not on that photo , '' he said . He said that he had however blackened his face at a dance contest in San Antonio . `` It is because my memory of that is so vivid that I do not believe I am in the photo in the yearbook , '' he said . Mr Northam said he was not asking for forgiveness for his past actions but for `` the opportunity to demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that the person I was then is not the person I am today '' . The statement on Saturday came after he said on Friday that he was `` deeply sorry for the decision I made to appear as I did in this photo and for the hurt that decision caused then and now '' . Mr Northam 's yearbook page , which came from the paediatric neurologist 's time at Eastern Virginia Medical School , was first published by conservative website Big League Politics . The Virginian-Pilot newspaper tweeted a picture of the page which it said it obtained from the medical school library . An official from the medical school verified the photo and told the Huffington Post that it had come from a `` student-produced publication '' . The Virginia Legislative Black Caucus , which comprises African Americans elected to the state legislature , described the images as `` disgusting , reprehensible and offensive '' . `` These pictures rip off the scabs of an excruciatingly painful history and are a piercing reminder of this nation 's sins . Those who would excuse the pictures are just as culpable , '' it said in a statement . In a tweet , Mr Biden said Mr Northam should resign immediately . Calls for his resignation also came from four Democratic candidates for president - Senators Kirsten Gillibrand , Kamala Harris and Cory Booker , and Texan mayor Julian Castro . The photo also prompted a swift backlash from conservatives , including Jack Wilson , the chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia , who called on Mr Northam to step down . `` Racism has no place in Virginia , '' he said in a statement . `` These pictures are wholly inappropriate . If Governor Northam appeared in blackface or dressed in a KKK robe , he should resign immediately . '' Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren , who is considering a presidential run in 2020 , also called for Mr Northam to resign . The Ku Klux Klan is one of the oldest and most infamous hate groups in the US , and has targeted African Americans , Jews , Catholics and immigrants , according to the Southern Poverty Law Center , which tracks hate groups . The group has a long history , with KKK membership peaking in the 1920s .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Governor Northam: I am not the person in that photo Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has denied he was in a racist photo that appeared in his 1984 student yearbook page after initially apologising for it. Mr Northam, a Democrat, said he recognised that people would find this "hard to believe". He also admitted blackening his face to impersonate singer Michael Jackson at an event in the same year. Top US Democrats have called on him to resign. But he says he will stay on. The picture showed a man in blackface and another man in Ku Klux Klan robes. Former Vice-President Joe Biden said Mr Northam had lost all moral authority. Black politicians in Virginia called it "disgusting" and Republicans also urged him to resign. What did Northam say? He said he had initially taken responsibility for the photo, which he described as "clearly racist and offensive". But he said that on reflection with his family and friends he had concluded that he was neither of the people in the photo. "It has taken time to make sure that it's not me but I'm convinced I'm not on that photo," he said. He said that he had however blackened his face at a dance contest in San Antonio. "It is because my memory of that is so vivid that I do not believe I am in the photo in the yearbook," he said. Mr Northam said he was not asking for forgiveness for his past actions but for "the opportunity to demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that the person I was then is not the person I am today". The statement on Saturday came after he said on Friday that he was "deeply sorry for the decision I made to appear as I did in this photo and for the hurt that decision caused then and now". How has this come about? Mr Northam's yearbook page, which came from the paediatric neurologist's time at Eastern Virginia Medical School, was first published by conservative website Big League Politics. The Virginian-Pilot newspaper tweeted a picture of the page which it said it obtained from the medical school library. An official from the medical school verified the photo and told the Huffington Post that it had come from a "student-produced publication". Image copyright AFP/Getty Images Image caption Former President Barack Obama campaigned for Mr Northam in 2017 What reaction has there been? The Virginia Legislative Black Caucus, which comprises African Americans elected to the state legislature, described the images as "disgusting, reprehensible and offensive". "These pictures rip off the scabs of an excruciatingly painful history and are a piercing reminder of this nation's sins. Those who would excuse the pictures are just as culpable," it said in a statement. In a tweet, Mr Biden said Mr Northam should resign immediately. Calls for his resignation also came from four Democratic candidates for president - Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, and Texan mayor Julian Castro. The photo also prompted a swift backlash from conservatives, including Jack Wilson, the chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia, who called on Mr Northam to step down. "Racism has no place in Virginia," he said in a statement. "These pictures are wholly inappropriate. If Governor Northam appeared in blackface or dressed in a KKK robe, he should resign immediately." Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is considering a presidential run in 2020, also called for Mr Northam to resign. The Ku Klux Klan is one of the oldest and most infamous hate groups in the US, and has targeted African Americans, Jews, Catholics and immigrants, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups. The group has a long history, with KKK membership peaking in the 1920s.

www.bbc.com

center

2CNzQFXZdQgRqxZm

test

SYSoQaLmPjINmnFn

media_bias

Ann Coulter

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/06/15/ann-coulter-anyone-talking-trumps-speech-actually-hear/

OPINION: Did Anyone Talking About Trump’s Speech Actually Hear It?

2016-06-15

The media have lost their minds after Trump ’ s magnificent speech on Monday . It ’ s all hands on deck , no attack is too extreme . Their main point is : DO NOT LOOK AT THAT SPEECH . It has “ words that wound. ” Much too dangerous even to read it . Instead of reporting what Trump said , the media give us the “ gist ” of it ( in the sense of an unrecognizable distortion ) . It was awful , Hitlerian , beneath our dignity as a nation . They lie about what he said and then attack their own lies as if they ’ re attacking Trump . The Washington Post ’ s headline , which got their reporters banned from Trump ’ s press briefings , was : “ Donald Trump Seems to Connect President Obama to the Orlando Shooting . ” I guess OK , You ’ re Right , didn ’ t sound professional , so the Post pretended not to understand Trump ’ s speech , at all . We can ’ t makes heads or tails of it , but he seems to be saying … Contrary to the Post ’ s headline suggesting that Trump had posited some crazy theory about Obama secretly meeting with Omar Mateen to plot the attack — No , this gun is much better for a mass shooting , Omar — Trump criticized the Obama administration policies that are not keeping us safe . ( It ’ s completely unprecedented to respond to a mass murder by criticizing the policies that allowed it to happen ! ) After San Bernardino and Orlando — also , the Boston Marathon , Fort Hood , Little Rock , Chattanooga and Times Square — quite obviously , Trump is right . How about : Washington Post seems to Connect President Bush to Abu Ghraib Washington Post , May 26 , 2006 : “ Bush has … addressed Abu Ghraib the same way he did last night : Expressing regret without responsibility . ” Or : Democrats Seem to Connect President Bush to Anti-Americanism in Muslim World Washington Post , May 20 , 2005 : “ It is certainly true that the Bush administration , at Guantanamo and at Abu Ghraib , is responsible for a good deal of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world . ” Or : Washington Post Seems to Connect President Bush to Missing WMDs and Katrina Deaths Washington Post , April 5 , 2006 : “ How much was President Bush personally responsible for taking the country to war under false pretenses , or for the botched response to Hurricane Katrina ? To hear the White House tell it , it wasn ’ t really his fault . ” “ The killer was an Afghan , of Afghan parents , who immigrated to the United States . His father published support for the Afghan Taliban , a regime which murders those who don ’ t share its radical views . The father even said he was running for president of that country . “ The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place was because we allowed his family to come here . “ That is a fact , and it ’ s a fact we need to talk about . “ We have a dysfunctional immigration system which does not permit us to know who we let into our country , and it does not permit us to protect our citizens . ” Immediately after Trump ’ s speech , MSNBC ’ s Katie Tur “ fact-checked ” Trump , announcing that he had incorrectly said Omar was “ born in Afghan . ” What did Tur think this meant ? “ Afghan ” isn ’ t a country . Didn ’ t she pause for a moment and realize that what she thought he said makes no sense ? Journalists with their outsized sense of importance say , No , no , that ’ s not what I heard . It says in my notes right here , you said , “ blue carrots for Eisenhower. ” I stand by my notes . Obviously , what Trump said was that Omar was “ born an Afghan. ” Which he was . The media began indignantly informing us that Trump was wrong because — as The Washington Post put it : “ The shooter was born in Queens to parents who emigrated from Afghanistan . ” With the media , you ’ re an “ American ” when you commit the worst mass shooting in U.S. history , an “ Afghan ” when you ’ re applying to college . You ’ re an “ American ” when you shoot up the San Bernardino community center , a “ Pakistani ” when you ’ re offended by Trump ’ s remarks . You ’ re an “ American ” when you slaughter troops at Fort Hood , a “ Muslim ” when the Army realizes it can ’ t fire you . This can lead to confusion . After the Post snippily corrected Trump on Omar not being an “ Afghan ” on Monday , on Tuesday , the Post admitted he was . Headline : “ Orlando gunman said he carried out attack to get ‘ Americans to stop bombing his country , ’ witness says . ” The Atlantic ’ s Ron Fournier , Dispenser of Conventional Liberal Opinion , wrote an article on Trump ’ s speech titled “ A Victory Lap in Blood ” that would make any social justice warrior proud . Like the rest of the media ’ s reviews of a speech they apparently didn ’ t read , there were no quotes from Trump ’ s speech . Instead , Fournier ran through a string of accusations , SJW-style : “ You didn ’ t call it , ” “ You are helping ISIS recruit terrorists , ” “ You are dividing Americans … ” Trump never claimed he “ called it , ” but , if he ever does , Fournier has a fantastic takedown : “ You didn ’ t warn that an American man named Omar Mateen , a well-educated security guard investigated by the FBI for suspected ties to terrorism , would legally purchase a weapon made for warfare and use it to slaughter 49 people at a popular gay nightclub . ” Hillary Clinton is presidential because she wants to dramatically increase the number of unvetted Syrian refugees we bring in . But Trump is an embarrassment because he doesn ’ t have superhuman powers to know that a “ man named Omar Mateen ” would attack an Orlando nightclub . Fournier repeated the fake fact currently sweeping the nation about Trump thinking he deserves congratulations , writing , “ Donald Trump wants a pat on the back . ” But then Fournier made the fatal mistake of quoting Trump ’ s tweet allegedly saying this : “ Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism , I don ’ t want congrats , I want toughness & vigilance . We must be smart ! ” Fournier ’ s “ Trump wants a pat on the back ” was 12 words away from Trump saying , “ I don ’ t want congrats. ” Even the most bored reader is probably going to make it that far . Now you see why reporters aren ’ t quoting Trump and have to hope you won ’ t read the speech for yourself .

The media have lost their minds after Trump’s magnificent speech on Monday. It’s all hands on deck, no attack is too extreme. Their main point is: DO NOT LOOK AT THAT SPEECH. It has “words that wound.” Much too dangerous even to read it. Instead of reporting what Trump said, the media give us the “gist” of it (in the sense of an unrecognizable distortion). It was awful, Hitlerian, beneath our dignity as a nation. They lie about what he said and then attack their own lies as if they’re attacking Trump. The Washington Post’s headline, which got their reporters banned from Trump’s press briefings, was: “Donald Trump Seems to Connect President Obama to the Orlando Shooting.” I guess OK, You’re Right, didn’t sound professional, so the Post pretended not to understand Trump’s speech, at all. We can’t makes heads or tails of it, but he seems to be saying … One thing Trump is not, is unclear. Contrary to the Post’s headline suggesting that Trump had posited some crazy theory about Obama secretly meeting with Omar Mateen to plot the attack — No, this gun is much better for a mass shooting, Omar — Trump criticized the Obama administration policies that are not keeping us safe. (It’s completely unprecedented to respond to a mass murder by criticizing the policies that allowed it to happen!) After San Bernardino and Orlando — also, the Boston Marathon, Fort Hood, Little Rock, Chattanooga and Times Square — quite obviously, Trump is right. Washington Post: We’re confused. What do you mean? How about: Washington Post seems to Connect President Bush to Abu Ghraib Washington Post, May 26, 2006: “Bush has … addressed Abu Ghraib the same way he did last night: Expressing regret without responsibility.” Or: Democrats Seem to Connect President Bush to Anti-Americanism in Muslim World Washington Post, May 20, 2005: “It is certainly true that the Bush administration, at Guantanamo and at Abu Ghraib, is responsible for a good deal of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.” Or: Washington Post Seems to Connect President Bush to Missing WMDs and Katrina Deaths Washington Post, April 5, 2006: “How much was President Bush personally responsible for taking the country to war under false pretenses, or for the botched response to Hurricane Katrina? To hear the White House tell it, it wasn’t really his fault.” In his speech, Trump said: “The killer was an Afghan, of Afghan parents, who immigrated to the United States. His father published support for the Afghan Taliban, a regime which murders those who don’t share its radical views. The father even said he was running for president of that country. “The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place was because we allowed his family to come here. “That is a fact, and it’s a fact we need to talk about. “We have a dysfunctional immigration system which does not permit us to know who we let into our country, and it does not permit us to protect our citizens.” Immediately after Trump’s speech, MSNBC’s Katie Tur “fact-checked” Trump, announcing that he had incorrectly said Omar was “born in Afghan.” What did Tur think this meant? “Afghan” isn’t a country. Didn’t she pause for a moment and realize that what she thought he said makes no sense? Journalists with their outsized sense of importance say, No, no, that’s not what I heard. It says in my notes right here, you said, “blue carrots for Eisenhower.” I stand by my notes. Obviously, what Trump said was that Omar was “born an Afghan.” Which he was. The media began indignantly informing us that Trump was wrong because — as The Washington Post put it: “The shooter was born in Queens to parents who emigrated from Afghanistan.” With the media, you’re an “American” when you commit the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, an “Afghan” when you’re applying to college. You’re an “American” when you shoot up the San Bernardino community center, a “Pakistani” when you’re offended by Trump’s remarks. You’re an “American” when you slaughter troops at Fort Hood, a “Muslim” when the Army realizes it can’t fire you. This can lead to confusion. After the Post snippily corrected Trump on Omar not being an “Afghan” on Monday, on Tuesday, the Post admitted he was. Headline: “Orlando gunman said he carried out attack to get ‘Americans to stop bombing his country,’ witness says.” The Atlantic’s Ron Fournier, Dispenser of Conventional Liberal Opinion, wrote an article on Trump’s speech titled “A Victory Lap in Blood” that would make any social justice warrior proud. Like the rest of the media’s reviews of a speech they apparently didn’t read, there were no quotes from Trump’s speech. Instead, Fournier ran through a string of accusations, SJW-style: “You didn’t call it,” “You are helping ISIS recruit terrorists,” “You are dividing Americans …” Trump never claimed he “called it,” but, if he ever does, Fournier has a fantastic takedown: “You didn’t warn that an American man named Omar Mateen, a well-educated security guard investigated by the FBI for suspected ties to terrorism, would legally purchase a weapon made for warfare and use it to slaughter 49 people at a popular gay nightclub.” Hillary Clinton is presidential because she wants to dramatically increase the number of unvetted Syrian refugees we bring in. But Trump is an embarrassment because he doesn’t have superhuman powers to know that a “man named Omar Mateen” would attack an Orlando nightclub. Fournier repeated the fake fact currently sweeping the nation about Trump thinking he deserves congratulations, writing, “Donald Trump wants a pat on the back.” But then Fournier made the fatal mistake of quoting Trump’s tweet allegedly saying this: “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!” Fournier’s “Trump wants a pat on the back” was 12 words away from Trump saying, “I don’t want congrats.” Even the most bored reader is probably going to make it that far. Now you see why reporters aren’t quoting Trump and have to hope you won’t read the speech for yourself. COPYRIGHT 2016 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK

www.breitbart.com

right

SYSoQaLmPjINmnFn

test

YRU0lxRg0QmxUk69

lgbt_rights

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/06/19/turkish-police-fire-tear-gas-rubber-bullets-gay-pride-parade/

Turkish Police Fire Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets at Gay Pride Parade

2016-06-19

ISTANBUL ( AP ) — Turkish police fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse demonstrators who gathered Sunday for a gay pride rally in Istanbul despite a government ban . Dozens of participants advocating transgender rights assembled off Istiklal Street , a major commercial artery , some brandishing rainbow flags . Police called on them to disperse and prevented activists from marching or making statements . A couple of individuals were detained . More than 300 policemen in anti-riot gear and backed by water cannons were deployed along the pedestrian thoroughfare and on side streets . Istanbul ’ s governor had banned gay , lesbian and transgender individuals from holding two annual parades this year , both Sunday ’ s seventh Trans Pride March and a broader LGBT pride parade on June 26 . His office cited security concerns as the basis for the ban . In a statement that they were prevented from reading publicly , Trans Pride organizers said the community was “ terrorized by both the state and puritanical groups . ” Turkish Islamist and ultra-nationalist groups had threatened counterdemonstrations to stop the parade from taking place but didn ’ t turn up Sunday . Istanbul has witnessed a series of deadly bombings in the past year , including two suicide attacks targeting tourists – one on Istiklal Street . On Friday , Istanbul LGBTI+ Pride Week organizers issued a declaration with a # LoveWillWin hashtag in Turkish rejecting security concerns as a reason to ban the parades . It said “ the governorship prefers to limit people ’ s rights and freedoms instead of taking measures to deal with the threats . ” Sunday ’ s organizers , in their statement , also paid tribute to the victims of a bloody rampage at a gay night club in Orlando that left 49 people dead . “ We bow with respect to the memory of our friends massacred in Orlando and promise a world without homophobia and transphobia , ” their statement read . The U.S. consulate in Istanbul this week unfurled the rainbow flag in celebration of gay pride and to honor the Orlando victims .

ISTANBUL (AP) — Turkish police fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse demonstrators who gathered Sunday for a gay pride rally in Istanbul despite a government ban. Dozens of participants advocating transgender rights assembled off Istiklal Street, a major commercial artery, some brandishing rainbow flags. Police called on them to disperse and prevented activists from marching or making statements. A couple of individuals were detained. More than 300 policemen in anti-riot gear and backed by water cannons were deployed along the pedestrian thoroughfare and on side streets. Istanbul’s governor had banned gay, lesbian and transgender individuals from holding two annual parades this year, both Sunday’s seventh Trans Pride March and a broader LGBT pride parade on June 26. His office cited security concerns as the basis for the ban. In a statement that they were prevented from reading publicly, Trans Pride organizers said the community was “terrorized by both the state and puritanical groups.” Turkish Islamist and ultra-nationalist groups had threatened counterdemonstrations to stop the parade from taking place but didn’t turn up Sunday. Istanbul has witnessed a series of deadly bombings in the past year, including two suicide attacks targeting tourists – one on Istiklal Street. On Friday, Istanbul LGBTI+ Pride Week organizers issued a declaration with a #LoveWillWin hashtag in Turkish rejecting security concerns as a reason to ban the parades. It said “the governorship prefers to limit people’s rights and freedoms instead of taking measures to deal with the threats.” Sunday’s organizers, in their statement, also paid tribute to the victims of a bloody rampage at a gay night club in Orlando that left 49 people dead. “We bow with respect to the memory of our friends massacred in Orlando and promise a world without homophobia and transphobia,” their statement read. The U.S. consulate in Istanbul this week unfurled the rainbow flag in celebration of gay pride and to honor the Orlando victims.

www.breitbart.com

right

YRU0lxRg0QmxUk69

test

DmeJS8L331vHmESW

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gowdy-gop-benghazi-clinton/2015/04/22/id/639952/

Gowdy, GOP Likely to Release of Benghazi Report on Hillary Just Before Election

2015-04-22

Billy House

The findings of a Republican-led committee investigating Hillary Clinton ’ s response to the deadly 2012 attack in Benghazi , Libya , likely will not be released until next year , just months before the 2016 presidential election . Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina , chairman of the U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi , has been emphasizing a desire for the panel to finish investigative work by the end of 2015 , including its review of Clinton ’ s e-mail practices as secretary of state . Now that seems less likely . In a statement on Tuesday to Bloomberg News , committee spokesman Jamal Ware confirmed the delay . “ Factors beyond the committee ’ s control , including witness availability , compliance with documents requests , the granting of security clearances and accreditations—all of which are controlled by the Executive branch—could continue to impact the timing of the inquiry ’ s conclusion , ” Ware wrote . Even if the investigation phase could be concluded by the end of 2015 , he said in an interview , the committee would need more time to analyze the information collected , and compile findings and conclusions into a written report . No specific date for release in 2016 of the committee ’ s final report was offered by Ware . “ Any particular month—October ? ” joked Lee Miringoff , director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College in Poughkeepsie , N.Y. , referring to the month before voters go to the polls to vote for president . Gowdy , in a separate statement released by the committee , said , “ Secretary Clinton ’ s decision to seek the presidency of the United States does not and will not impact the work of the committee . '' Democrats , including Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta , note there already have been as many as seven congressional inquiries into the Sept. 11 , 2012 attack on the U.S. compound in Libya in which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed . Republicans have been trying for more than two years to prove that Clinton failed to bolster security before the assault and should share blame for what they say is the Obama administration ’ s initial , erroneous account of what happened . Before the Benghazi committee was created in May , the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee had been looking into the Benghazi attacks . Clinton also testified before the House and Senate foreign affairs committees in January 2013.Two Hearings As for the select Benghazi committee , the top Democrat , Representative Elijah Cummings of Maryland , notes that it has held only three public hearings since May but spent nearly $ 2.5 million . “ Rather than using the Select Committee—and its taxpayer- funded blank check—to target Secretary Clinton ahead of the 2016 election , Republicans should be using the Select Committee to help implement reforms to improve the safety and security of our officials serving overseas , ” he said in a statement . Gowdy , in his statement Tuesday , detailed new developments that have never before been reviewed by congressional inquiries . Those include uncovering Clinton ’ s exclusive use of a personal server and email to conduct official business , and continued questions about whether all relevant e-mails have been turned over. ‘ Firsthand Accounts ’ In addition , explained Gowdy , “ though it is not widely reported , the committee is interviewing Benghazi survivors and others who can give indispensable firsthand accounts of what happened before , during and after the attacks . ” “ These are eyewitnesses who have never been talked to by any committee of Congress that looked into Benghazi , ” Gowdy said . So far , about 20 people have been interviewed privately by the committee , a process intended to establish a broader base of facts . Those witnesses include State Department staffers and other individuals with knowledge of events whose accounts and identities are so far not publicly known . There are also sit-downs still planned with as many as 40 to 50 administration officials and others . The committee anticipates that those interviews will begin starting in May . Gowdy ’ s committee has said those interviews would include White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough , National Security Adviser Susan Rice , former White House press secretary Jay Carney , Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey , former Central Intelligence Agency Director David Petraeus and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.Committee Officials Clinton herself also has been asked by the committee to sit for a transcribed interview about her e-mails ; committee officials say the offer was intended to spare her from having to discuss personal and private information , aspects of some of her e-mails she has herself raised . That response is due on May 1 . Podesta told Bloomberg that Clinton would not testify privately to Gowdy though she would testify publicly . In his statement , Gowdy said efforts to secure “ a complete record ” of Clinton ’ s e-mails continue as a part of the overall Benghazi investigation . And he suggested it is part of the delay in the committee ’ s progress , as well . “ If the committee had talked to her back in November or December as some pushed , we would not have had possession of the 300 emails we now have or known about her exclusive use of a personal server and email to conduct official business , ” he said . “ Once issues regarding her unusual e-mail arrangement with herself and the completeness and responsiveness of what should be her public record have been resolved , we will move as expeditiously as possible to arrange a public hearing for her to testify on the substance of the Benghazi terrorist attacks , ” Gowdy said . Marist pollster Miringoff and New York-based pollster John Zogby say not releasing of the committee ’ s final report until 2016 could carry some real political benefits for Republicans—but also represent some drawbacks . Benghazi and e-mail issues have for the most part already been aired and done whatever damage they can do politically to Clinton , they both suggest . Ensuring those questions remain into the waning months of the 2016 campaign would help keep faithful Republican voters energized , a group Zogby says “ already can ’ t wait ’ til the day the can vote against Clinton . ” At the same time , says Miringoff , Republicans run the danger of angering some key blocs of swing-vote voters—particularly white , middle-aged women voters—and could face blowback from obvious foot-dragging if seen as a maneuver to “ jam ” Clinton ’ s presidential bid . Thomas Mann , a congressional expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington , says , “ Hope springs eternal on GOP investigations of the Clintons . ” “ I assume they have nothing newsworthy to report on Hillary and are banking on a ’ Hail Mary ’ right before the general election , ” he said .

The findings of a Republican-led committee investigating Hillary Clinton’s response to the deadly 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, likely will not be released until next year, just months before the 2016 presidential election. Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, chairman of the U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi, has been emphasizing a desire for the panel to finish investigative work by the end of 2015, including its review of Clinton’s e-mail practices as secretary of state. Now that seems less likely. In a statement on Tuesday to Bloomberg News, committee spokesman Jamal Ware confirmed the delay. “Factors beyond the committee’s control, including witness availability, compliance with documents requests, the granting of security clearances and accreditations—all of which are controlled by the Executive branch—could continue to impact the timing of the inquiry’s conclusion,” Ware wrote. Even if the investigation phase could be concluded by the end of 2015, he said in an interview, the committee would need more time to analyze the information collected, and compile findings and conclusions into a written report. No specific date for release in 2016 of the committee’s final report was offered by Ware. “Any particular month—October?” joked Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., referring to the month before voters go to the polls to vote for president. Gowdy, in a separate statement released by the committee, said, “Secretary Clinton’s decision to seek the presidency of the United States does not and will not impact the work of the committee." Seven Inquiries Democrats, including Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, note there already have been as many as seven congressional inquiries into the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. compound in Libya in which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed. Clinton was secretary of state at the time. Republicans have been trying for more than two years to prove that Clinton failed to bolster security before the assault and should share blame for what they say is the Obama administration’s initial, erroneous account of what happened. Before the Benghazi committee was created in May, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee had been looking into the Benghazi attacks. Clinton also testified before the House and Senate foreign affairs committees in January 2013.Two Hearings As for the select Benghazi committee, the top Democrat, Representative Elijah Cummings of Maryland, notes that it has held only three public hearings since May but spent nearly $2.5 million. “Rather than using the Select Committee—and its taxpayer- funded blank check—to target Secretary Clinton ahead of the 2016 election, Republicans should be using the Select Committee to help implement reforms to improve the safety and security of our officials serving overseas,” he said in a statement. Gowdy, in his statement Tuesday, detailed new developments that have never before been reviewed by congressional inquiries. Those include uncovering Clinton’s exclusive use of a personal server and email to conduct official business, and continued questions about whether all relevant e-mails have been turned over.‘Firsthand Accounts’ In addition, explained Gowdy, “though it is not widely reported, the committee is interviewing Benghazi survivors and others who can give indispensable firsthand accounts of what happened before, during and after the attacks.” “These are eyewitnesses who have never been talked to by any committee of Congress that looked into Benghazi,” Gowdy said. So far, about 20 people have been interviewed privately by the committee, a process intended to establish a broader base of facts. Those witnesses include State Department staffers and other individuals with knowledge of events whose accounts and identities are so far not publicly known. There are also sit-downs still planned with as many as 40 to 50 administration officials and others. The committee anticipates that those interviews will begin starting in May. Gowdy’s committee has said those interviews would include White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, former White House press secretary Jay Carney, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey, former Central Intelligence Agency Director David Petraeus and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.Committee Officials Clinton herself also has been asked by the committee to sit for a transcribed interview about her e-mails; committee officials say the offer was intended to spare her from having to discuss personal and private information, aspects of some of her e-mails she has herself raised. That response is due on May 1. Podesta told Bloomberg that Clinton would not testify privately to Gowdy though she would testify publicly. In his statement, Gowdy said efforts to secure “a complete record” of Clinton’s e-mails continue as a part of the overall Benghazi investigation. And he suggested it is part of the delay in the committee’s progress, as well. “If the committee had talked to her back in November or December as some pushed, we would not have had possession of the 300 emails we now have or known about her exclusive use of a personal server and email to conduct official business,” he said. “Once issues regarding her unusual e-mail arrangement with herself and the completeness and responsiveness of what should be her public record have been resolved, we will move as expeditiously as possible to arrange a public hearing for her to testify on the substance of the Benghazi terrorist attacks,” Gowdy said. Marist pollster Miringoff and New York-based pollster John Zogby say not releasing of the committee’s final report until 2016 could carry some real political benefits for Republicans—but also represent some drawbacks. Benghazi and e-mail issues have for the most part already been aired and done whatever damage they can do politically to Clinton, they both suggest. Ensuring those questions remain into the waning months of the 2016 campaign would help keep faithful Republican voters energized, a group Zogby says “already can’t wait ’til the day the can vote against Clinton.” At the same time, says Miringoff, Republicans run the danger of angering some key blocs of swing-vote voters—particularly white, middle-aged women voters—and could face blowback from obvious foot-dragging if seen as a maneuver to “jam” Clinton’s presidential bid. Thomas Mann, a congressional expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington, says, “Hope springs eternal on GOP investigations of the Clintons.” “I assume they have nothing newsworthy to report on Hillary and are banking on a ’Hail Mary’ right before the general election,” he said.

www.newsmax.com

right

DmeJS8L331vHmESW

test

UTr7Jv1neMw2LBnR

politics

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/22/chris-wallace-debbie-dingell-impeachment-senate/

‘Isn’t This Almost The Definition Of An Empty Threat?’ — Chris Wallace Presses Debbie Dingell On Sending Impeachment To The Senate

2019-12-22

Fox News anchor Chris Wallace pressed Democratic Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell about the fact that House Democrats have yet to send impeachment articles against President Donald Trump to the Senate for trial . “ If President Trump is such a threat , if this case is so urgent , why not send impeachment to the Senate right away ? ” Wallace asked on “ Fox News Sunday ” after playing clips of Democratic California Rep. Adam Schiff and others giving speeches during the House impeachment hearings about the supposed urgency of taking action . Dingell responded by insisting the Senate would have never started the trial “ before January 6th , ” after the holidays . She also said “ managers were not appointed until January 6th ” at former President Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment trial . Acknowledging the holiday delay , Wallace continued to press his point by bringing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi into the discussion . “ Nancy Pelosi made it clear hoping to hold it up it is creating leverage to allow Chuck Schumer to make a deal with Mitch McConnell on the ground rules for the trial , ” he said . “ The question is , why does she think she has any leverage here ? The president and top Republicans say she ’ s threatening to not give them something they don ’ t want anyway . ” Wallace added Harvard law professor Noah Feldman ’ s contention that the president isn ’ t actually impeached if it never reaches the Senate . “ So isn ’ t this almost the definition of an empty threat ? ” he asked . “ I don ’ t think it ’ s an empty threat , and I don ’ t like the word threat , ” Dingell replied . “ This is about our democracy . What we ’ re trying to do is make sure there is a fair trial. ” ( RELATED : ‘ Honey We Shrunk The Impeachment ’ : Kimberley Strassel Explains How Dems Narrowed Charges To Protect Themselves ) Taking “ one last crack ” at the issue , Wallace asked Dingell about the House ’ s continued role : “ The Constitution was very clear and very simple that impeachment is the sole purview of the House . It is equally clear , Article 1 , Section 3 says this , the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments . According to the founders , what happens in the Senate is none of you ’ re , you the House , is none of your business . ” “ All people are doing is making sure it ’ s a fair trial , ” Dingell insisted . “ By the way , I read that very same part of the Constitution . It doesn ’ t say how quickly you have to move it from the House to the Senate . I think that you ’ re going to see it go sooner than , quite frankly , Mitch McConnell maybe even likes . ”

Fox News anchor Chris Wallace pressed Democratic Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell about the fact that House Democrats have yet to send impeachment articles against President Donald Trump to the Senate for trial. “If President Trump is such a threat, if this case is so urgent, why not send impeachment to the Senate right away?” Wallace asked on “Fox News Sunday” after playing clips of Democratic California Rep. Adam Schiff and others giving speeches during the House impeachment hearings about the supposed urgency of taking action. Dingell responded by insisting the Senate would have never started the trial “before January 6th,” after the holidays. She also said “managers were not appointed until January 6th” at former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial. Acknowledging the holiday delay, Wallace continued to press his point by bringing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi into the discussion. “Nancy Pelosi made it clear hoping to hold it up it is creating leverage to allow Chuck Schumer to make a deal with Mitch McConnell on the ground rules for the trial,” he said. “The question is, why does she think she has any leverage here? The president and top Republicans say she’s threatening to not give them something they don’t want anyway.” Wallace added Harvard law professor Noah Feldman’s contention that the president isn’t actually impeached if it never reaches the Senate. “So isn’t this almost the definition of an empty threat?” he asked. “I don’t think it’s an empty threat, and I don’t like the word threat,” Dingell replied. “This is about our democracy. What we’re trying to do is make sure there is a fair trial.” (RELATED: ‘Honey We Shrunk The Impeachment’: Kimberley Strassel Explains How Dems Narrowed Charges To Protect Themselves) Taking “one last crack” at the issue, Wallace asked Dingell about the House’s continued role: “The Constitution was very clear and very simple that impeachment is the sole purview of the House. It is equally clear, Article 1, Section 3 says this, the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. According to the founders, what happens in the Senate is none of you’re, you the House, is none of your business.” “All people are doing is making sure it’s a fair trial,” Dingell insisted. “By the way, I read that very same part of the Constitution. It doesn’t say how quickly you have to move it from the House to the Senate. I think that you’re going to see it go sooner than, quite frankly, Mitch McConnell maybe even likes.”

www.dailycaller.com

right

UTr7Jv1neMw2LBnR

test

jQWgi5fsUXBW7RzG

great_britain

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/11/28/Black-Friday-Madness-Comes-To-Britain

Black Friday Madness Comes to Britain

2014-11-28

Andre Walker

Two years ago , almost no British people had heard of it , but this year Black Friday has become the latest American craze to cross the pond . At shops up and down the country punters fought to get their hands on discounters toasters and TVs . Amazon was the first UK-based retailer to discount goods on the day after the American Thanksgiving holiday three years ago . Last year they were followed by ASDA , which is owned by the US retail giant Walmart . So far there have been at least four arrests , as discounts whipped shoppers into a frenzy . The main disturbances were in South London and Manchester , where shoppers queued for hours before shops opened . When they did open the British abandoned their traditional love of politeness and queuing to join in what was much more akin to London ’ s new NFL team . By the time tills close tonight shoppers are expected to have spent £200m , a welcome boost for struggling retailers . The major chains joining in this year include the UK ’ s largest retailer TESCO and New Look which operates 1,100 branches . The major chains have offered seemingly unbelievable deals , with prices being halved on many products . In advance of Black Friday Ayaz Alam , Senior Directorof Asda , said : “ Last year we were the first major retailer to bring Black Friday to the UK . This year , we ’ ve stepped it up a gear again and by working closely with Walmart – the godfather of Black Friday – we ’ ll be bringing an even bigger and better sale to the UK than ever before . ” Despite the excitement of the retailers and shoppers , some experts sounded a note of caution over the stunt . Retail expert Dan Wagner from Powa Technologies told Sky News that the day could trigger a “ battle to reduce prices more and more ” until some retailers bankrupt themselves . The Metropolitan Police have also appealed for calm after they were asked to restore order in a number of participating stores today .

Two years ago, almost no British people had heard of it, but this year Black Friday has become the latest American craze to cross the pond. At shops up and down the country punters fought to get their hands on discounters toasters and TVs. Amazon was the first UK-based retailer to discount goods on the day after the American Thanksgiving holiday three years ago. Last year they were followed by ASDA, which is owned by the US retail giant Walmart. So far there have been at least four arrests, as discounts whipped shoppers into a frenzy. The main disturbances were in South London and Manchester, where shoppers queued for hours before shops opened. When they did open the British abandoned their traditional love of politeness and queuing to join in what was much more akin to London’s new NFL team. By the time tills close tonight shoppers are expected to have spent £200m, a welcome boost for struggling retailers. The major chains joining in this year include the UK’s largest retailer TESCO and New Look which operates 1,100 branches. The major chains have offered seemingly unbelievable deals, with prices being halved on many products. In advance of Black Friday Ayaz Alam, Senior Directorof Asda, said: “Last year we were the first major retailer to bring Black Friday to the UK. This year, we’ve stepped it up a gear again and by working closely with Walmart – the godfather of Black Friday – we’ll be bringing an even bigger and better sale to the UK than ever before.” Despite the excitement of the retailers and shoppers, some experts sounded a note of caution over the stunt. Retail expert Dan Wagner from Powa Technologies told Sky News that the day could trigger a “battle to reduce prices more and more” until some retailers bankrupt themselves. The Metropolitan Police have also appealed for calm after they were asked to restore order in a number of participating stores today.

www.breitbart.com

right

jQWgi5fsUXBW7RzG

test

wSDTT0tBA13VAPqb

fbi

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/23/in-jaw-dropping-text-peter-strzok-expressed-concern-about-joining-mueller-team/

In ‘Jaw-Dropping’ Text, Peter Strzok Expressed ‘Concern’ About Joining Mueller Team

2018-01-23

The FBI ’ s top agent on the Trump-Russia investigation sent a text message last year that one top Republican senator says suggests he saw no evidence of Trump campaign collusion . The text message , which was sent by Peter Strzok , is “ jaw-dropping , ” Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson , the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee , said in a radio interview on Tuesday . In an interview with WISN-Milwaukee radio host Jay Weber , Johnson read aloud a May 19 , 2017 text that Strzok sent to Lisa Page , an FBI lawyer and his mistress . Strzok wrote : “ You and I both know the odds are nothing . If I thought it was likely , I ’ d be there no question . I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern that there ’ s no big there there . ” Johnson said that the text referred to the Mueller investigation , which had kicked off two days earlier . Strzok joined that team , but was removed in July after the Justice Department ’ s inspector general discovered his anti-Trump text exchanges with Page . As the FBI ’ s deputy counterintelligence chief , Strzok was picked in July 2016 to oversee the investigation into possible Trump campaign collusion with the Russian government . Prior to that , he was a top investigator on the Clinton email inquiry . “ I think that ’ s kind of jaw-dropping , ” said Johnson , a Republican , said of the Strzok text . “ In other words , Peter Strzok , who was the FBI deputy assistant director of the counterintelligence division , the man who had a plan to do something because he just couldn ’ t abide Donald Trump being president , is saying that his gut sense is that there ’ s no big there there when it comes to the Mueller special counsel investigation , ” he said . The text message was included in 400 pages of text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page . Lawmakers have started reviewing the trove of documents for evidence of anti-Trump and pro-Clinton bias . Johnson also addressed the revelation last Friday that the FBI “ failed to preserve ” five months worth of text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page . A Justice Department official told Johnson ’ s committee and five other congressional panels that a “ misconfiguration ” issue caused “ many ” FBI-issued mobile devices to not back up to the bureau ’ s servers . ( RELATED : FBI ‘ Failed To Preserve ’ Strzok-Page Text Messages ) The FBI said it does not have text messages for Strzok and Page for the period between Dec. 14 , 2016 and May 17 , 2017 — the day that Mueller was appointed . Johnson said that Congress needs to see the missing text messages because Strzok and Page were “ completely unguarded in their communication . ” “ So we ’ re getting insight into exactly what is happening inside the FBI at the highest levels . And who knows who else they might implicate in terms of corruption , ” he said . The Strozk text verbatim on joining the Mueller investigation : May 19th , 2017- ‘ You and I both know the odds are nothing . If I thought it was likely , I ’ d be there no question . I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern that there ’ s no big there there. ’ — Jay Weber ( @ JayWeber3 ) January 23 , 2018 Johnson released two pages of Strzok-Page messages from May 19 , 2017 . They show the pair seemingly discussing the new Mueller investigation and whether they wanted to join . The messages show that Strzok and Page discussed the historical significance of the investigation and its potential impact on their career trajectory . “ A case which will be in the history books , ” Strzok wrote to Page in one text , adding that it was “ maybe the most important case of our lives . ” Strzok then appeared to try to coax Page into joining the Mueller investigation . She responded by saying that she didn ’ t “ understand what they need me for ! ” In another text , Strzok referred to his work on the Clinton investigation . “ For me , and this case , I personally have a sense of unfinished business , ” he said . “ I unleashed it with MYE . Now I need to fix it and finish it . ” “ MYE ” refers to “ Mid-Year Exam , ” the FBI ’ s code name for the Clinton investigation . “ You shouldn ’ t take this on , ” Page then wrote . “ I promise you , I would tell you if you should . ” After several exchanges discussing their positions at FBI , Strzok suggested to Page that he did not want to take on the Mueller job because of his “ gut sense and concern there ’ s no big there there . ” Strzok Page Text Messages 5-19-17 by Chuck Ross on Scribd

The FBI’s top agent on the Trump-Russia investigation sent a text message last year that one top Republican senator says suggests he saw no evidence of Trump campaign collusion. The text message, which was sent by Peter Strzok, is “jaw-dropping,” Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said in a radio interview on Tuesday. In an interview with WISN-Milwaukee radio host Jay Weber, Johnson read aloud a May 19, 2017 text that Strzok sent to Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer and his mistress. Strzok wrote: “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern that there’s no big there there.” Johnson said that the text referred to the Mueller investigation, which had kicked off two days earlier. Strzok joined that team, but was removed in July after the Justice Department’s inspector general discovered his anti-Trump text exchanges with Page. As the FBI’s deputy counterintelligence chief, Strzok was picked in July 2016 to oversee the investigation into possible Trump campaign collusion with the Russian government. Prior to that, he was a top investigator on the Clinton email inquiry. “I think that’s kind of jaw-dropping,” said Johnson, a Republican, said of the Strzok text. “In other words, Peter Strzok, who was the FBI deputy assistant director of the counterintelligence division, the man who had a plan to do something because he just couldn’t abide Donald Trump being president, is saying that his gut sense is that there’s no big there there when it comes to the Mueller special counsel investigation,” he said. The text message was included in 400 pages of text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page. Lawmakers have started reviewing the trove of documents for evidence of anti-Trump and pro-Clinton bias. Johnson also addressed the revelation last Friday that the FBI “failed to preserve” five months worth of text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page. A Justice Department official told Johnson’s committee and five other congressional panels that a “misconfiguration” issue caused “many” FBI-issued mobile devices to not back up to the bureau’s servers. (RELATED: FBI ‘Failed To Preserve’ Strzok-Page Text Messages) The FBI said it does not have text messages for Strzok and Page for the period between Dec. 14, 2016 and May 17, 2017 — the day that Mueller was appointed. Johnson said that Congress needs to see the missing text messages because Strzok and Page were “completely unguarded in their communication.” “So we’re getting insight into exactly what is happening inside the FBI at the highest levels. And who knows who else they might implicate in terms of corruption,” he said. The Strozk text verbatim on joining the Mueller investigation: May 19th, 2017- ‘You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern that there’s no big there there.’ — Jay Weber (@JayWeber3) January 23, 2018 Johnson released two pages of Strzok-Page messages from May 19, 2017. They show the pair seemingly discussing the new Mueller investigation and whether they wanted to join. The messages show that Strzok and Page discussed the historical significance of the investigation and its potential impact on their career trajectory. “A case which will be in the history books,” Strzok wrote to Page in one text, adding that it was “maybe the most important case of our lives.” Strzok then appeared to try to coax Page into joining the Mueller investigation. “You would obviously excel on the team,” he said. She responded by saying that she didn’t “understand what they need me for!” In another text, Strzok referred to his work on the Clinton investigation. “For me, and this case, I personally have a sense of unfinished business,” he said. “I unleashed it with MYE. Now I need to fix it and finish it.” “MYE” refers to “Mid-Year Exam,” the FBI’s code name for the Clinton investigation. “You shouldn’t take this on,” Page then wrote. “I promise you, I would tell you if you should.” After several exchanges discussing their positions at FBI, Strzok suggested to Page that he did not want to take on the Mueller job because of his “gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.” Strzok Page Text Messages 5-19-17 by Chuck Ross on Scribd Follow Chuck on Twitter

www.dailycaller.com

right

wSDTT0tBA13VAPqb

test

fcOUQvI5CVXJbZ44

media_bias

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/news/man-fires-gun-in-d-c-restaurant-while-investigating-pizzagate-conspiracy/

Man fires gun in D.C. restaurant while investigating “pizzagate” conspiracy

WASHINGTON , Dec. 5 ( UPI ) — A North Carolina man was arrested in Washington , D.C. , Sunday after he walked into a popular pizza shop , carrying an assault rifle , intending to investigate an outlandish conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton during the presidential election . Edgar Maddison Welch entered Comet Ping Pong Sunday afternoon intending to investigate the “ Pizzagate ” child sex ring conspiracy , pointed his gun at an employee and apparently fired it into the ground before police arrested him . Nobody was injured and Welch was charged with assault with a dangerous weapon . Comet Ping Pong has been deluged with visitors who want to check out the baseless “ Pizzagate ” conspiracy theory , which posits that Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager , John Podesta , are involved in a child sex trafficking ring . “ They putting a lot of curses and spells over the city , ” a woman who declined to give her name told WUSA-TV in November . “ All this underground tunnel that helps them take the kids and transport them back and forth so they can do these rituals . ” Putting aside that the rumor is not based on anything factual , but was nonetheless pushed by several conspiracy-minded media outlets and spawned a since-shuttered channel on Reddit , the restaurant has been pounded with threats and unsubstantiated stories about trafficking there for weeks . The restaurant ’ s owners and employees are baffled at the abuse they ’ ve dealt with , said Comet owner James Alefantis , if for no other reason than the restaurant does not have a basement — which pokes a large hole in the conspiracy theory . The restaurants ’ owners supported Clinton during the presidential election , which they think may have played a role in the development of the conspiracy , considering even those close to President-elect Donald Trump have half-bought into the rumor . “ What happened today demonstrates that promoting false and reckless conspiracy theories comes with consequences , ” Alefantis said . “ I hope that those involved in fanning these flames will take a moment to contemplate what happened here today , and stop promoting these falsehoods right away . ”

WASHINGTON, Dec. 5 (UPI) — A North Carolina man was arrested in Washington, D.C., Sunday after he walked into a popular pizza shop, carrying an assault rifle, intending to investigate an outlandish conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton during the presidential election. Edgar Maddison Welch entered Comet Ping Pong Sunday afternoon intending to investigate the “Pizzagate” child sex ring conspiracy, pointed his gun at an employee and apparently fired it into the ground before police arrested him. Nobody was injured and Welch was charged with assault with a dangerous weapon. Comet Ping Pong has been deluged with visitors who want to check out the baseless “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory, which posits that Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager, John Podesta, are involved in a child sex trafficking ring. “They putting a lot of curses and spells over the city,” a woman who declined to give her name told WUSA-TV in November. “All this underground tunnel that helps them take the kids and transport them back and forth so they can do these rituals.” Putting aside that the rumor is not based on anything factual, but was nonetheless pushed by several conspiracy-minded media outlets and spawned a since-shuttered channel on Reddit, the restaurant has been pounded with threats and unsubstantiated stories about trafficking there for weeks. The restaurant’s owners and employees are baffled at the abuse they’ve dealt with, said Comet owner James Alefantis, if for no other reason than the restaurant does not have a basement — which pokes a large hole in the conspiracy theory. The restaurants’ owners supported Clinton during the presidential election, which they think may have played a role in the development of the conspiracy, considering even those close to President-elect Donald Trump have half-bought into the rumor. “What happened today demonstrates that promoting false and reckless conspiracy theories comes with consequences,” Alefantis said. “I hope that those involved in fanning these flames will take a moment to contemplate what happened here today, and stop promoting these falsehoods right away.”

www.breitbart.com

right

fcOUQvI5CVXJbZ44

test

7Zsom5riACYnnN95

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47491688

Paul Manafort: Ex-Trump campaign chief jailed for fraud

US President Donald Trump 's ex-campaign manager Paul Manafort has been given a 47-month prison sentence for fraud . He was convicted last year of hiding millions of dollars of income earned by his political consulting in Ukraine . The charges stem from an inquiry into alleged Russian election meddling in the 2016 US elections . None of Manafort 's charges relate to allegations of collusion with Russia . Mr Trump has always denied the charge , describing the inquiry as a witch hunt . The 47-month sentence is far shorter than what was recommended by US Department of Justice Special Counsel Robert Mueller . Mr Mueller is thought to be finishing up his 22-month investigation , which has dogged the Trump presidency . Manafort , 69 , is due to be sentenced in another case next week related to his illegal lobbying . His sentencing marks a spectacular downfall for a Republican political guru who advised four US presidents , including Mr Trump , and foreign leaders . Manafort - who will receive credit for time served - must also pay $ 24m ( £18m ) in restitution and a $ 50,000 fine . He addressed the court on Thursday evening in Alexandria , Virginia , saying `` the last two years have been the most difficult of my life '' . `` To say I am humiliated and ashamed would be a gross understatement , '' he added , asking the judge to be `` compassionate '' . He described his life as `` professionally and financially in shambles '' . Judge TS Ellis said he was surprised that Manafort did not `` express regret for engaging in wrongful conduct '' . The formerly dapper lobbyist - who entered the court wearing a green prison jumpsuit and in a wheelchair - was impassive as he learned his fate . Judge Ellis said sentencing guidelines cited by prosecutors calling for between 19.5 and 24 years in prison were `` excessive '' compared to sentences for similar crimes . `` The government can not sweep away the history of all these previous sentences , '' he said . `` Clearly the guidelines were way out of whack on this . '' He added that Manafort had lived an `` otherwise blameless '' life where he `` earned the admiration of a number of people '' . US Senator Amy Klobuchar , who is running for the Democratic nomination for president , said Manafort had `` led far from a 'blameless life ' '' . Meanwhile , ex-CIA Director John Brennan described it as `` an extraordinarily lenient sentence ... Paul Manafort has a demonstrated track record of criminal , unethical , unprincipled behaviour . '' Others have contrasted Manafort 's sentence with those convicted of other crimes , arguing that the US legal system is lenient on white collar crime . One lawyer highlighted how his client was offered between 36 and 72 months for stealing $ 100 ( £76 ) . He added that he was `` not advocating for worse treatment for all '' , but wished his clients would get the `` same treatment as the privileged few '' . News website USA Today points out that , in the district where Manafort was sentenced , those convicted of fraud are normally jailed for an average of 36 months . Legal experts have also pointed out that Judge Ellis has a history of criticising mandatory minimum sentences - including those for drug and gun crimes - as he believes judges should have more discretion over jail sentences . A jury in Alexandria , Virginia , convicted Manafort last August of five counts of tax fraud , two counts of bank fraud , and one count of failing to declare a foreign bank account . The judge , however , declared a mistrial on 10 other fraud-related charges . Manafort was indicted for hiding $ 55m in offshore bank accounts in Cyprus , money he was paid as a political consultant for pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians . Prosecutors say Manafort failed to pay more than $ 6m in taxes , as he funded his opulent lifestyle , including a $ 15,000 ostrich-skin jacket and a luxury renovation of his mansion in the Hamptons . Manafort served three months as Trump 's campaign chairman until August 2016 , when he was forced to resign over his previous work in Ukraine . He was the first former Trump aide to be arrested in the special counsel investigation , in October 2017 . His legal team has previously said he suffers from debilitating foot pain resulting from gout as a result of his incarceration . Manafort 's bail was revoked for alleged witness-tampering and he has been held in solitary confinement for nine months . When news of the solitary confinement first emerged it caused controversy , with commentators describing it as a form of `` torture '' . Manafort 's lawyers acknowledged that the solitary confinement was put in place to guarantee Manafort 's safety , but argued that he should not have been detained at all . They said Manafort was `` locked in his cell for at least 23 hours per day '' and could not adequately prepare his defence . Mr Mueller said Manafort had enjoyed privileges in solitary confinement including `` a private , self-contained living unit , which is larger than other inmates ' units , his own bathroom and shower facility , his own personal telephone , and his own workspace to prepare for trial . '' According to court filings submitted by Mr Mueller 's team , Mr Manafort said on monitored phone calls from jail that he was `` being treated like a 'VIP ' '' . Manafort has not been charged with anything related to the special counsel 's investigation into an alleged Russian plot to influence the 2016 US presidential election . Manafort 's lawyers had argued that the charges were outside the special counsel 's remit . However , Democrats point out that a Washington DC judge last month backed the special counsel 's contention that Manafort lied about his contacts with Konstantin Kilimnik , an aide alleged to have ties to Russian intelligence . In February , Manafort 's lawyers inadvertently revealed in a court filing that their client had shared polling data about the 2016 Trump campaign with Mr Kilimnik . The president 's critics also highlight that Manafort was present at a June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between campaign staff and a Kremlin-linked Russian lawyer promising `` dirt '' on then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton . During sentencing the judge noted that the charges do not relate to alleged Russian meddling , leading to Mr Trump to claim vindication in a tweet mischaracterising the judge 's remarks . Manafort is due to be sentenced next Wednesday in another case brought by the special counsel , this time in Washington DC . He pleaded guilty in September to two felony counts - conspiracy against the United States and conspiracy to obstruct justice - related to his lobbying . He also agreed to co-operate with the special counsel inquiry in a deal for a possible lighter sentence . However , just two months later that plea deal collapsed as investigators said Manafort had repeatedly lied to the government . He faces a maximum of 10 years in the case . President Trump , who frequently denounces the Mueller investigation , has not ruled out granting a presidential pardon to Manafort . He said in November : `` I would n't take it off the table . '' The special counsel is expected soon to submit his report to US Attorney General William Barr . The political world is feverishly anticipating findings on whether the Trump campaign conspired with Russia , or if Mr Trump unlawfully sought to obstruct the inquiry . Mr Trump has denied collusion and obstruction and Russia has denied election interference . Five other Trump aides have been charged in connection with Mr Mueller 's investigation . None have been indicted with criminally conspiring to subvert the 2016 election . Former campaign staff Rick Gates and George Papadopoulos , former US National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen have all pleaded guilty .

Image copyright AFP US President Donald Trump's ex-campaign manager Paul Manafort has been given a 47-month prison sentence for fraud. He was convicted last year of hiding millions of dollars of income earned by his political consulting in Ukraine. The charges stem from an inquiry into alleged Russian election meddling in the 2016 US elections. None of Manafort's charges relate to allegations of collusion with Russia. Mr Trump has always denied the charge, describing the inquiry as a witch hunt. The 47-month sentence is far shorter than what was recommended by US Department of Justice Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Mr Mueller is thought to be finishing up his 22-month investigation, which has dogged the Trump presidency. Image copyright William Hennessy Jr Image caption Manafort entered court wearing a green prison jumpsuit and in a wheelchair Manafort, 69, is due to be sentenced in another case next week related to his illegal lobbying. His sentencing marks a spectacular downfall for a Republican political guru who advised four US presidents, including Mr Trump, and foreign leaders. What happened at the hearing? Manafort - who will receive credit for time served - must also pay $24m (£18m) in restitution and a $50,000 fine. He addressed the court on Thursday evening in Alexandria, Virginia, saying "the last two years have been the most difficult of my life". "To say I am humiliated and ashamed would be a gross understatement," he added, asking the judge to be "compassionate". He described his life as "professionally and financially in shambles". Judge TS Ellis said he was surprised that Manafort did not "express regret for engaging in wrongful conduct". The formerly dapper lobbyist - who entered the court wearing a green prison jumpsuit and in a wheelchair - was impassive as he learned his fate. Was the sentence too short? Judge Ellis said sentencing guidelines cited by prosecutors calling for between 19.5 and 24 years in prison were "excessive" compared to sentences for similar crimes. "The government cannot sweep away the history of all these previous sentences," he said. "Clearly the guidelines were way out of whack on this." He added that Manafort had lived an "otherwise blameless" life where he "earned the admiration of a number of people". Many Democrats have reacted to the sentence with disappointment. US Senator Amy Klobuchar, who is running for the Democratic nomination for president, said Manafort had "led far from a 'blameless life'". Meanwhile, ex-CIA Director John Brennan described it as "an extraordinarily lenient sentence... Paul Manafort has a demonstrated track record of criminal, unethical, unprincipled behaviour." Others have contrasted Manafort's sentence with those convicted of other crimes, arguing that the US legal system is lenient on white collar crime. One lawyer highlighted how his client was offered between 36 and 72 months for stealing $100 (£76). He added that he was "not advocating for worse treatment for all", but wished his clients would get the "same treatment as the privileged few". News website USA Today points out that, in the district where Manafort was sentenced, those convicted of fraud are normally jailed for an average of 36 months. Legal experts have also pointed out that Judge Ellis has a history of criticising mandatory minimum sentences - including those for drug and gun crimes - as he believes judges should have more discretion over jail sentences. Image copyright Reuters Image caption Manafort pictured with Donald Trump at the Republican convention in July 2016 What's the background to the case? A jury in Alexandria, Virginia, convicted Manafort last August of five counts of tax fraud, two counts of bank fraud, and one count of failing to declare a foreign bank account. The judge, however, declared a mistrial on 10 other fraud-related charges. Manafort was indicted for hiding $55m in offshore bank accounts in Cyprus, money he was paid as a political consultant for pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians. Prosecutors say Manafort failed to pay more than $6m in taxes, as he funded his opulent lifestyle, including a $15,000 ostrich-skin jacket and a luxury renovation of his mansion in the Hamptons. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Manafort's indictment: Where did all the money go? Manafort served three months as Trump's campaign chairman until August 2016, when he was forced to resign over his previous work in Ukraine. He was the first former Trump aide to be arrested in the special counsel investigation, in October 2017. His legal team has previously said he suffers from debilitating foot pain resulting from gout as a result of his incarceration. Image copyright AFP Image caption Manafort will be held in a federal facility in Cumberland, Maryland Manafort's bail was revoked for alleged witness-tampering and he has been held in solitary confinement for nine months. How was Manafort treated in prison? When news of the solitary confinement first emerged it caused controversy, with commentators describing it as a form of "torture". Manafort's lawyers acknowledged that the solitary confinement was put in place to guarantee Manafort's safety, but argued that he should not have been detained at all. They said Manafort was "locked in his cell for at least 23 hours per day" and could not adequately prepare his defence. Mr Mueller said Manafort had enjoyed privileges in solitary confinement including "a private, self-contained living unit, which is larger than other inmates' units, his own bathroom and shower facility, his own personal telephone, and his own workspace to prepare for trial." According to court filings submitted by Mr Mueller's team, Mr Manafort said on monitored phone calls from jail that he was "being treated like a 'VIP'". How does the case relate to the Russia inquiry? Manafort has not been charged with anything related to the special counsel's investigation into an alleged Russian plot to influence the 2016 US presidential election. Manafort's lawyers had argued that the charges were outside the special counsel's remit. However, Democrats point out that a Washington DC judge last month backed the special counsel's contention that Manafort lied about his contacts with Konstantin Kilimnik, an aide alleged to have ties to Russian intelligence. In February, Manafort's lawyers inadvertently revealed in a court filing that their client had shared polling data about the 2016 Trump campaign with Mr Kilimnik. The president's critics also highlight that Manafort was present at a June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between campaign staff and a Kremlin-linked Russian lawyer promising "dirt" on then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. During sentencing the judge noted that the charges do not relate to alleged Russian meddling, leading to Mr Trump to claim vindication in a tweet mischaracterising the judge's remarks. What's the other case? Manafort is due to be sentenced next Wednesday in another case brought by the special counsel, this time in Washington DC. He pleaded guilty in September to two felony counts - conspiracy against the United States and conspiracy to obstruct justice - related to his lobbying. He also agreed to co-operate with the special counsel inquiry in a deal for a possible lighter sentence. However, just two months later that plea deal collapsed as investigators said Manafort had repeatedly lied to the government. He faces a maximum of 10 years in the case. President Trump, who frequently denounces the Mueller investigation, has not ruled out granting a presidential pardon to Manafort. He said in November: "I wouldn't take it off the table." Image copyright Getty Images Image caption The special counsel is expected any day to submit his report to the US attorney general What's happening with the Mueller inquiry? The special counsel is expected soon to submit his report to US Attorney General William Barr. The political world is feverishly anticipating findings on whether the Trump campaign conspired with Russia, or if Mr Trump unlawfully sought to obstruct the inquiry. Mr Trump has denied collusion and obstruction and Russia has denied election interference. Five other Trump aides have been charged in connection with Mr Mueller's investigation. None have been indicted with criminally conspiring to subvert the 2016 election. Former campaign staff Rick Gates and George Papadopoulos, former US National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen have all pleaded guilty. Long-time Trump adviser Roger Stone has pleaded not guilty.

www.bbc.com

center

7Zsom5riACYnnN95

test

aM4JgUoYFtFG7Awj

mexico

Associated Press

https://www.apnews.com/c69a92dd9bf147eaa0b73477f8963067

Some migrants allowed to cross on first day of asylum policy

2019-07-17

Elliot Spagat, Cedar Attanasio

People wait to apply for asylum in the United States along the border , Tuesday , July 16 , 2019 , in Tijuana , Mexico . Dozens of immigrants lined up Tuesday at a major Mexico border crossing , waiting to learn how the Trump administration 's plans to end most asylum protections would affect their hopes of taking refuge in the United States . ( AP Photo/Gregory Bull ) People wait to apply for asylum in the United States along the border , Tuesday , July 16 , 2019 , in Tijuana , Mexico . Dozens of immigrants lined up Tuesday at a major Mexico border crossing , waiting to learn how the Trump administration 's plans to end most asylum protections would affect their hopes of taking refuge in the United States . ( AP Photo/Gregory Bull ) TIJUANA , Mexico ( AP ) — Hundreds of immigrants showed up at border crossings Tuesday in hopes of getting into the U.S. but faced the likelihood of being turned away under a new Trump administration asylum rule that upends long-standing protections for people fleeing violence and oppression in their homelands . The policy went into effect Tuesday but drew two swift lawsuits from immigrant advocacy groups in federal courts , one in San Francisco and one in Washington , D.C . “ This is the Trump administration ’ s most extreme run at an asylum ban yet , ” said Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union , an attorney on the San Francisco lawsuit . “ It clearly violates domestic and international law and can not stand . ” The policy represents the most forceful attempt to date by President Donald Trump to slash the number of people seeking asylum in America . It comes at a time when Trump ’ s recent tweets telling four members of Congress to “ go back ” to other countries have set off an uproar . Trump did not mention the new practices Tuesday during a White House meeting . Under the rules , migrants who pass through another country on their way to the U.S. will be ineligible for asylum . Most of the immigrants arriving at the border this year pass through Mexico — including Central Americans , Africans , Cubans and Haitians . That makes it all but impossible for them to get asylum . The rule also applies to children who have crossed the border alone . At the crossing in Tijuana , 12 people whose numbers were first on a waiting list to enter through a San Diego border crossing were escorted behind a metal gate to a white van that left minutes later to turn them over to U.S. authorities . Ndifor Gedeon , 27 , arrived in Tijuana nearly three months ago with the hope of seeking asylum in the U.S. after being jailed in Cameroon by a government that has been going after the African nation ’ s English-speaking minority . He was rethinking those plans after hearing that he may not have a chance at getting asylum because of the new policy and if his case is denied he will be deported straight back to Cameroon . “ I feel sick , ” he said of the anxiety consuming him . “ If I am sent back to Cameroon , I ’ d lose my life . The situation is very horrible . ” He speaks no Spanish and does not feel safe in Tijuana , which has one of the highest homicide rates in Mexico . Even so , he prefers Tijuana to returning to Cameroon . Trump has long complained that immigrants are taking advantage of the nation ’ s asylum system to get into the country , and his administration has taken several steps to limit their options . Many of the measures have been rejected by the courts , but one notable exception is a policy that requires certain asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their immigration court cases get resolved . About 20,000 have been sent back to Mexico , and thousands more are on wait lists just to get to the front of the line to get an asylum interview . Asylum seekers must also pass an initial screening called a “ credible fear ” interview , a hurdle that a vast majority clear . Under the new policy , they would fail the test unless they sought asylum in at least one country they traveled through and were denied . They would be placed in fast-track deportation proceedings and flown to their home countries at U.S. expense . Despite the policies , record numbers of immigrant families have been crossing the border this year , overwhelming border facilities and authorities . Five immigrant children have died since late last year after being detained by the government , and children have been found in squalid and overcrowded border facilities . The crisis has only served to intensify immigration as a campaign issue as Trump looks to rally his base like he did in 2016 with his vow to build a wall on the border . At a crossing in Ciudad Juarez , Mexico , 10 Cuban asylum seekers were called by Mexican officials and led across the Paso Del Norte Bridge to El Paso , where they were handed over to Customs and Border Protection officers . They were taken to a room where their possessions were searched , laid out on a table and bagged . The immigrants will still go through the normal first steps of requesting asylum , but will face a dramatically higher bar to be allowed in the country . Lawyers who represent Cuban migrants say that they are not deportable because Cuba will not accept them . “ I ’ d rather be in prison the rest of my life than go back to Cuba , ” said Dileber Urrista Sanchez , who had hoped his number would be called Tuesday , but he was further down the list . Sanchez , 35 , has waited with his wife in Juarez for the past two months , renting a room with money his mother sends him from Las Vegas . He said his mother left Cuba years ago because she was part of an opposition party . In retaliation , he said , the government took away his job as a chauffeur , and he and his wife had been imprisoned for days at a time for being “ untrustworthy . ” He criticized the Trump administration ’ s new policy , pointing out that the first country he was able to reach after leaving Cuba was Nicaragua . “ How are we going to apply for asylum in Nicaragua when it ’ s just as communist ? ” he said . Derek Mbi of Cameroon was among nearly 50 migrants who gathered in Tijuana . He arrived there about a month ago , and more than 8,100 people were ahead of him on the waiting list . Processing new arrivals has ground to a virtual halt in recent days , down from an average of about 40 names a day . Mbi , 29 , joined a wave of Cameroonians who fled fierce government oppression against their country ’ s English-speaking minority by flying to Ecuador , which does not require a visa . From there , he traveled for months by bus and on foot through seven other countries to reach Tijuana . Mbi learned about the new policy but mistakenly believed that it applied only to Central and South Americans . He hopes to settle with a friend in Texas . For now , he is sharing a one-bedroom apartment with 13 Cameroonians in Tijuana and scraping by with odd jobs , like peeling tomatoes at open-air markets . He said many companies refused to hire him because his short-term transit permit in Mexico does not allow him to work .

People wait to apply for asylum in the United States along the border, Tuesday, July 16, 2019, in Tijuana, Mexico. Dozens of immigrants lined up Tuesday at a major Mexico border crossing, waiting to learn how the Trump administration's plans to end most asylum protections would affect their hopes of taking refuge in the United States. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull) People wait to apply for asylum in the United States along the border, Tuesday, July 16, 2019, in Tijuana, Mexico. Dozens of immigrants lined up Tuesday at a major Mexico border crossing, waiting to learn how the Trump administration's plans to end most asylum protections would affect their hopes of taking refuge in the United States. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull) TIJUANA, Mexico (AP) — Hundreds of immigrants showed up at border crossings Tuesday in hopes of getting into the U.S. but faced the likelihood of being turned away under a new Trump administration asylum rule that upends long-standing protections for people fleeing violence and oppression in their homelands. The policy went into effect Tuesday but drew two swift lawsuits from immigrant advocacy groups in federal courts, one in San Francisco and one in Washington, D.C. “This is the Trump administration’s most extreme run at an asylum ban yet,” said Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union, an attorney on the San Francisco lawsuit. “It clearly violates domestic and international law and cannot stand.” The policy represents the most forceful attempt to date by President Donald Trump to slash the number of people seeking asylum in America. It comes at a time when Trump’s recent tweets telling four members of Congress to “go back” to other countries have set off an uproar. Trump did not mention the new practices Tuesday during a White House meeting. Under the rules, migrants who pass through another country on their way to the U.S. will be ineligible for asylum. Most of the immigrants arriving at the border this year pass through Mexico — including Central Americans, Africans, Cubans and Haitians. That makes it all but impossible for them to get asylum. The rule also applies to children who have crossed the border alone. At the crossing in Tijuana, 12 people whose numbers were first on a waiting list to enter through a San Diego border crossing were escorted behind a metal gate to a white van that left minutes later to turn them over to U.S. authorities. Ndifor Gedeon, 27, arrived in Tijuana nearly three months ago with the hope of seeking asylum in the U.S. after being jailed in Cameroon by a government that has been going after the African nation’s English-speaking minority. He was rethinking those plans after hearing that he may not have a chance at getting asylum because of the new policy and if his case is denied he will be deported straight back to Cameroon. “I feel sick,” he said of the anxiety consuming him. “If I am sent back to Cameroon, I’d lose my life. The situation is very horrible.” He speaks no Spanish and does not feel safe in Tijuana, which has one of the highest homicide rates in Mexico. Even so, he prefers Tijuana to returning to Cameroon. Trump has long complained that immigrants are taking advantage of the nation’s asylum system to get into the country, and his administration has taken several steps to limit their options. Many of the measures have been rejected by the courts, but one notable exception is a policy that requires certain asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their immigration court cases get resolved. About 20,000 have been sent back to Mexico, and thousands more are on wait lists just to get to the front of the line to get an asylum interview. Asylum seekers must also pass an initial screening called a “credible fear” interview, a hurdle that a vast majority clear. Under the new policy, they would fail the test unless they sought asylum in at least one country they traveled through and were denied. They would be placed in fast-track deportation proceedings and flown to their home countries at U.S. expense. Despite the policies, record numbers of immigrant families have been crossing the border this year, overwhelming border facilities and authorities. Five immigrant children have died since late last year after being detained by the government, and children have been found in squalid and overcrowded border facilities. The crisis has only served to intensify immigration as a campaign issue as Trump looks to rally his base like he did in 2016 with his vow to build a wall on the border. At a crossing in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, 10 Cuban asylum seekers were called by Mexican officials and led across the Paso Del Norte Bridge to El Paso, where they were handed over to Customs and Border Protection officers. They were taken to a room where their possessions were searched, laid out on a table and bagged. The immigrants will still go through the normal first steps of requesting asylum, but will face a dramatically higher bar to be allowed in the country. Lawyers who represent Cuban migrants say that they are not deportable because Cuba will not accept them. “I’d rather be in prison the rest of my life than go back to Cuba,” said Dileber Urrista Sanchez, who had hoped his number would be called Tuesday, but he was further down the list. Sanchez, 35, has waited with his wife in Juarez for the past two months, renting a room with money his mother sends him from Las Vegas. He said his mother left Cuba years ago because she was part of an opposition party. In retaliation, he said, the government took away his job as a chauffeur, and he and his wife had been imprisoned for days at a time for being “untrustworthy.” He criticized the Trump administration’s new policy, pointing out that the first country he was able to reach after leaving Cuba was Nicaragua. “How are we going to apply for asylum in Nicaragua when it’s just as communist?” he said. Derek Mbi of Cameroon was among nearly 50 migrants who gathered in Tijuana. He arrived there about a month ago, and more than 8,100 people were ahead of him on the waiting list. Processing new arrivals has ground to a virtual halt in recent days, down from an average of about 40 names a day. Mbi, 29, joined a wave of Cameroonians who fled fierce government oppression against their country’s English-speaking minority by flying to Ecuador, which does not require a visa. From there, he traveled for months by bus and on foot through seven other countries to reach Tijuana. Mbi learned about the new policy but mistakenly believed that it applied only to Central and South Americans. He hopes to settle with a friend in Texas. For now, he is sharing a one-bedroom apartment with 13 Cameroonians in Tijuana and scraping by with odd jobs, like peeling tomatoes at open-air markets. He said many companies refused to hire him because his short-term transit permit in Mexico does not allow him to work. ___ Cedar Attanasio reported from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. Associated Press writers Colleen Long and Michael Balsamo in Washington and Julie Watson in Tijuana contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

aM4JgUoYFtFG7Awj

test

KqhihtlMSfEEsyE2

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2017/april/moving-the-dc-goalposts-freedom-caucus-power-player-flexes-for-faith

Moving the DC Goalposts: Meet the Man Who's Calling the Shots and Fighting for You

2017-04-24

WASHINGTON – Congressman Mark Meadows looks so unassuming : a mild-mannered evangelical congressman from North Carolina who 's been married to the same woman for nearly 40 years . But looks can be deceiving because Mark Meadows is a major power player in Washington . Meadows leads the Freedom Caucus , a group of more than 30 conservatives in the U.S. House of Representatives who can make or break a president 's agenda . Last month , Meadows and his merry men stood firm against GOP leadership and The White House , demanding a better health care bill . President Donald Trump was n't happy . He tweeted that if Meadows `` would get on board we would have both great healthcare and massive tax cuts & reform . '' `` I do n't take his tweets as personal , '' Meadows told ███ News . `` They 're part of the negotiation , part of getting people to move , to get people to a 'yes . ' Being a punching bag is difficult because sometimes the narratives are just not true . '' The narrative on Meadows and the House Freedom Caucus has been that they 're too rigid and demanding . `` There 's been talk about us moving the goalposts , '' says Meadows . `` Well , we have . We 've moved it closer to a solution not further away . '' While the verdict is still out on whether the group 's tactics will lead to a better health care bill , most agree that Meadows is a tough negotiator who likes a challenge . That could be because he 's faced them before . As a high school sophomore , he weighed in at 240 pounds and stood just 5 ' 4 '' . Two years later , a better diet and exercise helped him lose more than fifty pounds . `` Anybody who has looked at their weight , it does n't define who I am but certainly wanting to be accepted , people talking about you , '' Meadows told CBS Radio . People are sure talking about Meadows today . Look for him to be at the center of a number of key issues like the upcoming tax reform negotiation . Meadows will be the one ensuring President Trump and GOP leadership stay true to conservative principles . Those who stray know he can be a thorn in their side . In 2015 , Meadows pushed to remove John Boehner as speaker of the House . Before that , he played a key role in shutting down the federal government . He knows the DC knives will come out against him again but Meadows walks by faith accompanied by solid approval numbers in his home district . `` When you have a faith in your Lord , when you have the backings of thousands of friends , it does your heart good , '' Meadows tells those in his congressional district . Meadows tries to draw closer to the Lord every day . `` I have a quiet time every morning so I 'm in the scriptures on a daily basis , '' Meadows said . He 'll need it . While he may have walked away from the health care fight with bruises , Meadows believes patience helped in that situation . Coincidentally , that was the exact topic in Bible study at the time . `` Patience is not a virtue that comes easily to me , but it 's to be to able to wait upon the Lord , '' Meadows told ███ News . `` As I see that it has been reminded over and over and over again and it 's been confirmed over a dozen different places whether it 's in scripture or by other people sharing encouraging thoughts that 's where it 's been , '' he said . 'It 's Not About Me . It 's About the People of this Great Country . ' But Meadows knows it will take more than patience and encouragement to help him deal with the pressure that constant media attention can bring . `` What I hope that I 've been able to portray is a real humble spirit in everything that I do because this is not about me ; it 's not about the Freedom Caucus . It 's about the people of this great country that God has blessed , '' he said . The question now : Will Meadows , the House Freedom Caucus and The White House be blessed with legislative compromises that will determine the future of the Republican Party ?

WASHINGTON – Congressman Mark Meadows looks so unassuming: a mild-mannered evangelical congressman from North Carolina who's been married to the same woman for nearly 40 years. But looks can be deceiving because Mark Meadows is a major power player in Washington. Meadows leads the Freedom Caucus, a group of more than 30 conservatives in the U.S. House of Representatives who can make or break a president's agenda. Last month, Meadows and his merry men stood firm against GOP leadership and The White House, demanding a better health care bill. President Donald Trump wasn't happy. He tweeted that if Meadows "would get on board we would have both great healthcare and massive tax cuts & reform." "I don't take his tweets as personal," Meadows told CBN News. "They're part of the negotiation, part of getting people to move, to get people to a 'yes.' Being a punching bag is difficult because sometimes the narratives are just not true." Freedom Caucus: Too Rigid and Demanding? The narrative on Meadows and the House Freedom Caucus has been that they're too rigid and demanding. "There's been talk about us moving the goalposts," says Meadows. "Well, we have. We've moved it closer to a solution not further away." While the verdict is still out on whether the group's tactics will lead to a better health care bill, most agree that Meadows is a tough negotiator who likes a challenge. That could be because he's faced them before. As a high school sophomore, he weighed in at 240 pounds and stood just 5'4". Two years later, a better diet and exercise helped him lose more than fifty pounds. "Anybody who has looked at their weight, it doesn't define who I am but certainly wanting to be accepted, people talking about you," Meadows told CBS Radio. Next Meadows Issue: Tax Reform People are sure talking about Meadows today. Look for him to be at the center of a number of key issues like the upcoming tax reform negotiation. Meadows will be the one ensuring President Trump and GOP leadership stay true to conservative principles. Those who stray know he can be a thorn in their side. In 2015, Meadows pushed to remove John Boehner as speaker of the House. Before that, he played a key role in shutting down the federal government. He knows the DC knives will come out against him again but Meadows walks by faith accompanied by solid approval numbers in his home district. "When you have a faith in your Lord, when you have the backings of thousands of friends, it does your heart good," Meadows tells those in his congressional district. Drawing on Faith in God for Guidance Meadows tries to draw closer to the Lord every day. "I have a quiet time every morning so I'm in the scriptures on a daily basis," Meadows said. He'll need it. While he may have walked away from the health care fight with bruises, Meadows believes patience helped in that situation. Coincidentally, that was the exact topic in Bible study at the time. "Patience is not a virtue that comes easily to me, but it's to be to able to wait upon the Lord," Meadows told CBN News. "As I see that it has been reminded over and over and over again and it's been confirmed over a dozen different places whether it's in scripture or by other people sharing encouraging thoughts that's where it's been," he said. 'It's Not About Me. It's About the People of this Great Country.' But Meadows knows it will take more than patience and encouragement to help him deal with the pressure that constant media attention can bring. "What I hope that I've been able to portray is a real humble spirit in everything that I do because this is not about me; it's not about the Freedom Caucus. It's about the people of this great country that God has blessed," he said. The question now: Will Meadows, the House Freedom Caucus and The White House be blessed with legislative compromises that will determine the future of the Republican Party?

www1.cbn.com

right

KqhihtlMSfEEsyE2

test

olwrBqzGvAyJqvyI

lgbt_rights

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/EdwardPentin/gay-ireland-catholic-pope/2015/05/31/id/647799/

After Ireland, Gay Agenda Eyes Catholic Church

2015-05-31

Evidence is coming to light of concerted and covert attempts to coax the Catholic Church into accepting homosexual relationships , principally using an upcoming church synod on the family to achieve it.A group of influential church figures , mainly from Germany and northern Europe , appear intent on making the meeting about same-sex relationships , while cloaking their agenda in vague and abstruse language.They speak of “ enriching ” the “ biblical and theological foundations ” of the synod ( code for ignoring traditional church teaching ) , creating a “ new theology of love ” ( an abstract concept aimed at legitimizing extramarital unions ) , and finding a “ nonhostile ” language to convey church doctrine ( a watering down of Catholic teaching ) .They are publicly distancing themselves from endorsing same-sex “ marriage , ” but at the same time supporting church recognition of homosexual relationships and acts — sins that used to “ cry to heaven for vengeance ” until the church began softening its language 50 years ago.The published aim of the October Synod on the Family , called by Pope Francis and to be attended by over 400 bishops and experts , is to look at how to better pastorally apply the church ’ s teaching on marriage and the family . But like last year ’ s synod on the family , it is already in danger of being derailed by powerful lobbies , some of whom are running the synod itself.On Monday , 50 participants , including nine bishops and over 20 liberal theologians , attended a secretive “ study-day ” at Rome ’ s prestigious Gregorian Jesuit university . None of those attending opposed church recognition of same-sex relationships when it was explicitly proposed by one of the speakers.The meeting took place at the invitation of the heads of the German , Swiss and French bishops ’ conferences . Cardinal Reinhard Marx , president of the German bishops and one of nine cardinals advising the Pope on church and Vatican reform , gave the meeting ’ s closing address.Professor Manfred Spieker , a German church expert , wrote on the website Kathnet that the meeting was “ divisive ” and an abuse of the presidents ’ offices , given that only those bishops sympathetic to the homosexual agenda were invited . He spoke scathingly of the event , saying it undermined the purpose and intent of the upcoming synod , and promoted views that have “ schismatic potential. ” The study-day took place just days after a referendum in Ireland to allow same-sex marriage , leading some to believe the timing was not coincidental.German Cardinal Walter Kasper , whose controversial theology Pope Francis admires , told Corriere della Sera May 27 that the Irish vote means the church needs to address the question of same-sex couples more fully , and that what was a “ marginal topic ” at the last Synod on the Family in October 2014 , has now become “ central. ” The church , he said , has been too silent about this issue for too long and , in later comments , said the church needs to “ disarm ” her language to try to make contact with the secular world . The church , he believes , needs to honor long-lasting same-sex relationships.Such sentiments are roundly rejected by faithful Catholics who view this kind of approach as surrendering to secular values and sowing confusion.But the church homosexual lobby , driven by ideology more than the well-being of souls of homosexuals themselves , is unlikely to be deterred.One of the tools it is using to achieve its goal is the media . The major German publishing house , Herder , is to publish a large book in September — just a month before the synod — by a group of Catholic academics pushing the homosexual agenda.Called “ Who Am I to Judge ? ” after the Pope ’ s misquoted remark on the issue , it calls for more acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle on the grounds that condemning homosexuality no longer meets with a “ positive response ” among the faithful.Although Pope Francis has warned of a homosexual lobby in the church , it remains unclear how serious he is in confronting it . A significant number of church leaders and academics and some of his closest advisers are pushing the agenda , but his silence and inaction in the face of such dissent is causing increasing distress among many faithful Catholics.Church historian Roberto de Mattei observed that during the Irish referendum the Pope kept a “ sepulchral silence ” and , despite its gravity , chose instead to often rail against other evils such as “ corruption , trafficking in arms and slaves , and the vanity of power and money. ” De Mattei and others feel that if the Pope , given his popularity , had strongly urged the Irish people to vote no a week or so before the ballot , it could have swung the result by as much as 10 percent , possibly enough to have led to a no vote.By not doing so , they argue , not only was the Irish vote lost , but church divisions are being left to fester and deepen , driven by a wealthy and powerful German church that has all but lost its faith.Last week , church figures in Germany publicly rebuked Cardinal Pietro Parolin , the Pope ’ s deputy , for saying the Irish referendum result was a “ defeat for humanity. ” Meanwhile , media pressure is beginning to be exerted on those few German bishops who are resisting the homosexual lobby.Arguably a positive element to all of this is that the homosexual lobby is being exposed as they look to the synod for their salvation . But the potential damage they will cause the church and souls in the meantime could be beyond measure .

Evidence is coming to light of concerted and covert attempts to coax the Catholic Church into accepting homosexual relationships, principally using an upcoming church synod on the family to achieve it.A group of influential church figures, mainly from Germany and northern Europe, appear intent on making the meeting about same-sex relationships, while cloaking their agenda in vague and abstruse language.They speak of “enriching” the “biblical and theological foundations” of the synod (code for ignoring traditional church teaching), creating a “new theology of love” (an abstract concept aimed at legitimizing extramarital unions), and finding a “nonhostile” language to convey church doctrine (a watering down of Catholic teaching).They are publicly distancing themselves from endorsing same-sex “marriage,” but at the same time supporting church recognition of homosexual relationships and acts — sins that used to “cry to heaven for vengeance” until the church began softening its language 50 years ago.The published aim of the October Synod on the Family, called by Pope Francis and to be attended by over 400 bishops and experts, is to look at how to better pastorally apply the church’s teaching on marriage and the family. But like last year’s synod on the family, it is already in danger of being derailed by powerful lobbies, some of whom are running the synod itself.On Monday, 50 participants, including nine bishops and over 20 liberal theologians, attended a secretive “study-day” at Rome’s prestigious Gregorian Jesuit university. None of those attending opposed church recognition of same-sex relationships when it was explicitly proposed by one of the speakers.The meeting took place at the invitation of the heads of the German, Swiss and French bishops’ conferences. Cardinal Reinhard Marx, president of the German bishops and one of nine cardinals advising the Pope on church and Vatican reform, gave the meeting’s closing address.Professor Manfred Spieker, a German church expert, wrote on the website Kathnet that the meeting was “divisive” and an abuse of the presidents’ offices, given that only those bishops sympathetic to the homosexual agenda were invited. He spoke scathingly of the event, saying it undermined the purpose and intent of the upcoming synod, and promoted views that have “schismatic potential.”The study-day took place just days after a referendum in Ireland to allow same-sex marriage, leading some to believe the timing was not coincidental.German Cardinal Walter Kasper, whose controversial theology Pope Francis admires, told Corriere della Sera May 27 that the Irish vote means the church needs to address the question of same-sex couples more fully, and that what was a “marginal topic” at the last Synod on the Family in October 2014, has now become “central.”The church, he said, has been too silent about this issue for too long and, in later comments, said the church needs to “disarm” her language to try to make contact with the secular world. The church, he believes, needs to honor long-lasting same-sex relationships.Such sentiments are roundly rejected by faithful Catholics who view this kind of approach as surrendering to secular values and sowing confusion.But the church homosexual lobby, driven by ideology more than the well-being of souls of homosexuals themselves, is unlikely to be deterred.One of the tools it is using to achieve its goal is the media. The major German publishing house, Herder, is to publish a large book in September — just a month before the synod — by a group of Catholic academics pushing the homosexual agenda.Called “Who Am I to Judge?” after the Pope’s misquoted remark on the issue, it calls for more acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle on the grounds that condemning homosexuality no longer meets with a “positive response” among the faithful.Although Pope Francis has warned of a homosexual lobby in the church, it remains unclear how serious he is in confronting it. A significant number of church leaders and academics and some of his closest advisers are pushing the agenda, but his silence and inaction in the face of such dissent is causing increasing distress among many faithful Catholics.Church historian Roberto de Mattei observed that during the Irish referendum the Pope kept a “sepulchral silence” and, despite its gravity, chose instead to often rail against other evils such as “corruption, trafficking in arms and slaves, and the vanity of power and money.”De Mattei and others feel that if the Pope, given his popularity, had strongly urged the Irish people to vote no a week or so before the ballot, it could have swung the result by as much as 10 percent, possibly enough to have led to a no vote.By not doing so, they argue, not only was the Irish vote lost, but church divisions are being left to fester and deepen, driven by a wealthy and powerful German church that has all but lost its faith.Last week, church figures in Germany publicly rebuked Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Pope’s deputy, for saying the Irish referendum result was a “defeat for humanity.” Meanwhile, media pressure is beginning to be exerted on those few German bishops who are resisting the homosexual lobby.Arguably a positive element to all of this is that the homosexual lobby is being exposed as they look to the synod for their salvation. But the potential damage they will cause the church and souls in the meantime could be beyond measure.

www.newsmax.com

right

olwrBqzGvAyJqvyI

test

XGXTKpfmXZdzttIw

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/6da852f910238ecc2fd4f8a71e7d298a

Black voters power Joe Biden’s Super Tuesday success

2020-03-05

Kat Stafford, Hannah Fingerhut

People wait to attend a campaign rally for Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday , March 3 , 2020 , in Los Angeles . ( AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez ) People wait to attend a campaign rally for Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday , March 3 , 2020 , in Los Angeles . ( AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez ) DETROIT ( AP ) — Joe Biden ’ s presidential campaign spent the past month on the verge of collapse after disappointing finishes in the overwhelmingly white states that launched the Democratic primary . As he watched the turmoil unfold from Gadsden , Alabama , Robert Avery thought the race would change dramatically when it moved into the South . “ He knows us , he cares about us , ” the 71-year-old community organizer said . “ People have given us no credit as to knowing what ’ s going on or being involved , and that ’ s the furthest thing from the truth . ” After a brutal February for Biden , black voters throughout the South transformed Biden ’ s White House bid over the course of three days . A back-of-the-pack operation surged to front-runner status powered by support from black voters , starting with Biden ’ s commanding win Saturday in South Carolina and coming into full focus on Super Tuesday as he racked up wins in Virginia , North Carolina , Alabama and Tennessee . Biden is now in a tight race with progressive rival Bernie Sanders , who emerged as the initial Democratic leader after strong performances in Iowa , New Hampshire and Nevada last month . Activists said Biden ’ s success is a reminder that the path to victory in the Democratic contest runs straight through their communities . “ You can ’ t win the Democratic presidential nomination without winning the South , and you can ’ t win the South without the black vote , and you can ’ t win the black vote without winning the black women ’ s vote , ” said Melanie Campbell , president and CEO of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation . “ We believe all roads to the White House must come through the South . ” Black voters strongly aligned behind Biden over other candidates , according to AP VoteCast surveys across eight Super Tuesday states . In Alabama , where African American voters made up a majority of the Democratic primary electorate , roughly 7 in 10 supported the former vice president . That support held across ages and gender . In other states , like Texas , Virginia and North Carolina , black voters made up a smaller but sizable share of Democratic primary voters . While a majority of both black men and women supported Biden , Sanders did pull about even with Biden among black voters under 45 . Biden will be looking to carry that momentum into next week ’ s six primaries that will include states like Michigan and Mississippi , which are also home to significant populations of black voters . More than 78 % of residents in Detroit , Michigan ’ s largest city , are African American . The former vice president ’ s success also poses warning signs for Sanders . The Vermont senator ’ s 2016 presidential campaign was unsuccessful in part because he couldn ’ t line up enough support from black voters in the South to win the Democratic nomination . Since 2016 , Sanders has focused on building relationships with black leaders and voters . He frequently speaks of a multiracial coalition that will help him win the nomination and the White House . But Tuesday ’ s results — combined with his distant second-place finish in South Carolina — suggest he could face similar challenges in 2020 . Sanders has warned in recent days that the party ’ s elite establishment is aligning to thwart his campaign . But Biden allies pointed to their success with a diverse set of voters on Tuesday to rebut that . “ I just did not know that African Americans in the South were considered part of the establishment , ” said Louisiana Democratic Rep. Cedric Richmond , Biden ’ s campaign co-chairman . “ African American voters have made a conscious decision that we fought and earned through civil rights , ” Richmond said , because they understand the importance of “ nominating a person that they know , nominating a person that can win . ” Niambi Carter , a political science professor at Howard University , said the race shifted in Biden ’ s favor after he nabbed an endorsement from South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn , the highest-ranking black member of Congress . Carter said Clyburn is a beloved and trusted figure in the black community , and she believes it potentially gave black voters in states like Alabama and Virginia the necessary push to support Biden . “ Older black voters are an important constituency for Democrats , ” Carter said . “ I think people underestimate the importance of having a steadfast core group of supporters , and Joe Biden had that . I think this sort of narrative that it ’ s just about black people voting their fears is perhaps not necessarily the case . Black people are not just pragmatic , they ’ re strategic . ” Trudy Lucas , the religious affairs and external relations manager at National Action Network South Carolina , agreed . “ We listen to Jim Clyburn , and we ’ ve been doing that for years now , ” Lucas said . That rings true for Sheryl Threadgill-Matthews , a member of the Alabama New South Coalition Inc. who voted for Biden . Threadgill-Matthews said it initially wasn ’ t an easy choice , but as candidates began to drop out of the race , her choice became clear . “ I really think across the nation that people will start to galvanize , ” Threadgill-Matthews said . “ I grappled with it initially , but when I thought about his record and the integrity that he ’ s always shown through his vice presidency , I decided to vote for him . I think Biden would be a candidate that a diverse electorate could support . ” Kat Stafford is a member of The ███ ’ Race and Ethnicity team . Follow her on Twitter at https : //twitter.com/kat__stafford Catch up on the 2020 election campaign with AP experts on our weekly politics podcast , “ Ground Game . ”

People wait to attend a campaign rally for Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday, March 3, 2020, in Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez) People wait to attend a campaign rally for Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday, March 3, 2020, in Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez) DETROIT (AP) — Joe Biden’s presidential campaign spent the past month on the verge of collapse after disappointing finishes in the overwhelmingly white states that launched the Democratic primary. As he watched the turmoil unfold from Gadsden, Alabama, Robert Avery thought the race would change dramatically when it moved into the South. “He knows us, he cares about us,” the 71-year-old community organizer said. “People have given us no credit as to knowing what’s going on or being involved, and that’s the furthest thing from the truth.” It turns out Avery’s instinct was right. After a brutal February for Biden, black voters throughout the South transformed Biden’s White House bid over the course of three days. A back-of-the-pack operation surged to front-runner status powered by support from black voters, starting with Biden’s commanding win Saturday in South Carolina and coming into full focus on Super Tuesday as he racked up wins in Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee. Biden is now in a tight race with progressive rival Bernie Sanders, who emerged as the initial Democratic leader after strong performances in Iowa , New Hampshire and Nevada last month. Activists said Biden’s success is a reminder that the path to victory in the Democratic contest runs straight through their communities. “You can’t win the Democratic presidential nomination without winning the South, and you can’t win the South without the black vote, and you can’t win the black vote without winning the black women’s vote,” said Melanie Campbell, president and CEO of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation. “We believe all roads to the White House must come through the South.” Black voters strongly aligned behind Biden over other candidates, according to AP VoteCast surveys across eight Super Tuesday states. In Alabama, where African American voters made up a majority of the Democratic primary electorate, roughly 7 in 10 supported the former vice president. That support held across ages and gender. In other states, like Texas, Virginia and North Carolina, black voters made up a smaller but sizable share of Democratic primary voters. While a majority of both black men and women supported Biden, Sanders did pull about even with Biden among black voters under 45. Biden will be looking to carry that momentum into next week’s six primaries that will include states like Michigan and Mississippi, which are also home to significant populations of black voters. More than 78% of residents in Detroit, Michigan’s largest city, are African American. The former vice president’s success also poses warning signs for Sanders. The Vermont senator’s 2016 presidential campaign was unsuccessful in part because he couldn’t line up enough support from black voters in the South to win the Democratic nomination. Since 2016, Sanders has focused on building relationships with black leaders and voters. He frequently speaks of a multiracial coalition that will help him win the nomination and the White House. But Tuesday’s results — combined with his distant second-place finish in South Carolina — suggest he could face similar challenges in 2020. Sanders has warned in recent days that the party’s elite establishment is aligning to thwart his campaign. But Biden allies pointed to their success with a diverse set of voters on Tuesday to rebut that. “I just did not know that African Americans in the South were considered part of the establishment,” said Louisiana Democratic Rep. Cedric Richmond, Biden’s campaign co-chairman. “African American voters have made a conscious decision that we fought and earned through civil rights,” Richmond said, because they understand the importance of “nominating a person that they know, nominating a person that can win.” Niambi Carter, a political science professor at Howard University, said the race shifted in Biden’s favor after he nabbed an endorsement from South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn, the highest-ranking black member of Congress. Carter said Clyburn is a beloved and trusted figure in the black community, and she believes it potentially gave black voters in states like Alabama and Virginia the necessary push to support Biden. “Older black voters are an important constituency for Democrats,” Carter said. “I think people underestimate the importance of having a steadfast core group of supporters, and Joe Biden had that. I think this sort of narrative that it’s just about black people voting their fears is perhaps not necessarily the case. Black people are not just pragmatic, they’re strategic.” Trudy Lucas, the religious affairs and external relations manager at National Action Network South Carolina, agreed. “We listen to Jim Clyburn, and we’ve been doing that for years now,” Lucas said. That rings true for Sheryl Threadgill-Matthews, a member of the Alabama New South Coalition Inc. who voted for Biden. Threadgill-Matthews said it initially wasn’t an easy choice, but as candidates began to drop out of the race, her choice became clear. “I really think across the nation that people will start to galvanize,” Threadgill-Matthews said. “I grappled with it initially, but when I thought about his record and the integrity that he’s always shown through his vice presidency, I decided to vote for him. I think Biden would be a candidate that a diverse electorate could support.” ____ Associated Press writer Bill Barrow in Los Angeles contributed to this report. ___ Kat Stafford is a member of The Associated Press’ Race and Ethnicity team. Follow her on Twitter at https://twitter.com/kat__stafford ___ Catch up on the 2020 election campaign with AP experts on our weekly politics podcast, “Ground Game.”

www.apnews.com

center

XGXTKpfmXZdzttIw

test

jtuQuzGybnvEgiao

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/16/liberals-are-so-desperate-to-take-down-trump-theyre-paying-thousands-for-fake-docs/

Liberals Are So Desperate To Take Down Trump They’re Paying Thousands For Fake Docs

2017-03-16

A liberal activist desperate to take down President Donald Trump paid thousands of dollars for what turned out to be forged documents , revealing a willingness among Trump ’ s critics to believe almost anything that might hurt his presidency . The Israeli flew to Rome in January to meet with an Italian businessman who promised him a set of potentially explosive documents on Trump in exchange for $ 9,000 in cash , reports Buzzfeed News . The documents appeared to prove ExxonMobil had secretly bribed the president to nominate Rex Tillerson as his secretary of state , and the man eagerly passed them on to Democrat operatives and journalists . But they turned out to be forgeries . ( RELATED : Former CIA Director Says No Evidence Of Trump-Kremlin Collusion ) The story is a look inside a growing market for information and is just one example of the lengths Trump ’ s opponents will go in the hopes of toppling his presidency , and gives a glimpse inside the growing market for potentially damaging information on him . Scam artists have taken note , Buzzfeed reports , and are whipping up elaborate schemes to tempt activists with fake information for a price . The forged documents regarding the ExxonMobil bribe involved a network of people , including the Italian businessman , who claims to be a knight , an American felon who spends time digging up dirt on Trump , and the Israeli who fell for the scam . “ Such forged documents also feed the hunger of a growing audience on the left that seems willing to believe virtually any claim about Trump ’ s supposed bad deeds , ” Buzzfeed reports . Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith cautions journalists to watch out in a companion piece : “ And those of us covering the story and the stew of real information , fantasy , and — now — forgery around it need to continue to report and think clearly about what we know and what we don ’ t , and to resist the sugar high that comes with telling people exactly what they want to hear . ”

A liberal activist desperate to take down President Donald Trump paid thousands of dollars for what turned out to be forged documents, revealing a willingness among Trump’s critics to believe almost anything that might hurt his presidency. The Israeli flew to Rome in January to meet with an Italian businessman who promised him a set of potentially explosive documents on Trump in exchange for $9,000 in cash, reports Buzzfeed News. The documents appeared to prove ExxonMobil had secretly bribed the president to nominate Rex Tillerson as his secretary of state, and the man eagerly passed them on to Democrat operatives and journalists. But they turned out to be forgeries. (RELATED: Former CIA Director Says No Evidence Of Trump-Kremlin Collusion) The story is a look inside a growing market for information and is just one example of the lengths Trump’s opponents will go in the hopes of toppling his presidency, and gives a glimpse inside the growing market for potentially damaging information on him. Scam artists have taken note, Buzzfeed reports, and are whipping up elaborate schemes to tempt activists with fake information for a price. The forged documents regarding the ExxonMobil bribe involved a network of people, including the Italian businessman, who claims to be a knight, an American felon who spends time digging up dirt on Trump, and the Israeli who fell for the scam. “Such forged documents also feed the hunger of a growing audience on the left that seems willing to believe virtually any claim about Trump’s supposed bad deeds,” Buzzfeed reports. Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith cautions journalists to watch out in a companion piece: “And those of us covering the story and the stew of real information, fantasy, and — now — forgery around it need to continue to report and think clearly about what we know and what we don’t, and to resist the sugar high that comes with telling people exactly what they want to hear.” 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

jtuQuzGybnvEgiao

test

AmsOsZCxcP6WYn6N

fbi

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/james-comey-fbi-citizens-government/2014/10/10/id/600072/

FBI's Comey Urges Americans: Be 'Deeply Skeptical' of Government

2014-10-10

Todd Beamon

Americans should be `` deeply skeptical '' of government power , says FBI Director James Comey , adding that law enforcement should be able to access someone 's telephone only with a court order , '' I believe that Americans should be deeply skeptical of government power , '' Comey told CBS News ' Scott Pelley in an interview for `` 60 Minutes '' that will air on Sunday . `` You can not trust people in power . `` The Founders knew that , '' he said . `` That ’ s why they divided power among three branches , to set interest against interest . `` Comey , 53 , who became FBI chief in September 2013 , cautioned that courts must grant law-enforcement agencies permission to telephones if the information is deemed to be critical to a criminal case or national security.His comments come in light of numerous leaks since last year by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealing that agency 's extensive telephone and Internet surveillance programs and cell phones introduced last month by Apple Inc. that were designed to avoid surveillance by law enforcement.Apple 's new iOS8 operating system for its cellphones and other devices contains personal encoding software to prevent anyone outside of the phone 's owner from accessing its data . Apple will not be able to access the data , Arstechnica.com reports . `` The notion that we would market devices that would allow someone to place themselves beyond the law , troubles me a lot , '' Comey said . `` As a country , I don ’ t know why we would want to put people beyond the law . `` That is , sell cars with trunks that couldn ’ t ever be opened by law enforcement with a court order , or sell an apartment that could never be entered even by law enforcement , '' he continued . `` Would you want to live in that neighborhood ? This is a similar concern . `` The notion that people have devices , again , that with court orders — based on a showing of probable cause in a case involving kidnapping or child exploitation or terrorism — we could never open that phone ? '' Comey asked . `` My sense is that we ’ ve gone too far when we 've gone there . ''

Americans should be "deeply skeptical" of government power, says FBI Director James Comey, adding that law enforcement should be able to access someone's telephone only with a court order,"I believe that Americans should be deeply skeptical of government power," Comey told CBS News' Scott Pelley in an interview for "60 Minutes" that will air on Sunday. "You cannot trust people in power."The Founders knew that," he said. "That’s why they divided power among three branches, to set interest against interest."Comey, 53, who became FBI chief in September 2013, cautioned that courts must grant law-enforcement agencies permission to telephones if the information is deemed to be critical to a criminal case or national security.His comments come in light of numerous leaks since last year by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealing that agency's extensive telephone and Internet surveillance programs and cell phones introduced last month by Apple Inc. that were designed to avoid surveillance by law enforcement.Apple's new iOS8 operating system for its cellphones and other devices contains personal encoding software to prevent anyone outside of the phone's owner from accessing its data. Apple will not be able to access the data, Arstechnica.com reports."The notion that we would market devices that would allow someone to place themselves beyond the law, troubles me a lot," Comey said. "As a country, I don’t know why we would want to put people beyond the law."That is, sell cars with trunks that couldn’t ever be opened by law enforcement with a court order, or sell an apartment that could never be entered even by law enforcement," he continued. "Would you want to live in that neighborhood? This is a similar concern."The notion that people have devices, again, that with court orders — based on a showing of probable cause in a case involving kidnapping or child exploitation or terrorism — we could never open that phone?" Comey asked. "My sense is that we’ve gone too far when we've gone there."

www.newsmax.com

right

AmsOsZCxcP6WYn6N

test

N3FKtsKT7aCBy3ig

supreme_court

Associated Press

https://www.apnews.com/ff15dab27d76473aa552eed91dac41de

Justice Ginsburg reports she’s ‘very well’ following cancer

2019-09-01

Jessica Gresko

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Saturday she ’ s “ alive ” and on her way to being “ very well ” following radiation treatment for cancer . Ginsburg , 86 , made the comments at the Library of Congress National Book Festival in Washington . The event came a little over a week after Ginsburg disclosed that she had completed three weeks of outpatient radiation therapy for a cancerous tumor on her pancreas and is now disease-free . It is the fourth time over the past two decades that Ginsburg , the leader of the court ’ s liberal wing , has been treated for cancer . She had colorectal cancer in 1999 , pancreatic cancer in 2009 and lung cancer surgery in December . Both liberals and conservatives watch the health of the court ’ s oldest justice closely because it ’ s understood the Supreme Court would shift right for decades if Republican President Donald Trump were to get the ability to nominate someone to replace her . On Saturday , Ginsburg , who came out with the book “ My Own Words ” in 2016 , spoke to an audience of more than 4,000 at Washington ’ s convention center . Near the beginning of an hour-long talk , her interviewer , NPR reporter Nina Totenberg , said : “ Let me ask you a question that everyone here wants to ask , which is : How are you feeling ? Why are you here instead of resting up for the term ? And are you planning on staying in your current job ? ” “ How am I feeling ? Well , first , this audience can see that I am alive , ” Ginsburg said to applause and cheers . The comment was a seeming reference to the fact that when she was recuperating from lung cancer surgery earlier this year , some doubters demanded photographic proof that she was still living . Ginsburg went on to say that she was “ on my way ” to being “ very well. ” As for her work on the Supreme Court , which is on its summer break and begins hearing arguments again Oct. 7 , Ginsburg said she will “ be prepared when the time comes . ” Ginsburg , who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1993 , did not directly answer how long she plans to stay on the court . Earlier this summer , however , she reported a conversation she had with former Justice John Paul Stevens , who retired from the court in 2010 at age 90 . Ginsburg said she told Stevens : “ My dream is to remain on the court as long as you did. ” Stevens responded : “ Stay longer. ” He died in July at age 99 . “ It ’ s the best and the hardest job I ’ ve ever had , ” she said . “ It has kept me going through four cancer bouts . Instead of concentrating on my aches and pains , I just know that I have to read this set of briefs , go over the draft opinion . So I have to somehow surmount whatever is going on in my body and concentrate on the court ’ s work . ” Ginsburg ’ s appearance Saturday was not her first following her most recent cancer announcement . Earlier this week she spoke at an event at the University at Buffalo , where she also accepted an honorary degree . At the time she talked only briefly about her most recent cancer scare , saying she wanted to keep her promise to attend the event despite “ three weeks of daily radiation . ”

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Saturday she’s “alive” and on her way to being “very well” following radiation treatment for cancer. Ginsburg, 86, made the comments at the Library of Congress National Book Festival in Washington. The event came a little over a week after Ginsburg disclosed that she had completed three weeks of outpatient radiation therapy for a cancerous tumor on her pancreas and is now disease-free. It is the fourth time over the past two decades that Ginsburg, the leader of the court’s liberal wing, has been treated for cancer. She had colorectal cancer in 1999, pancreatic cancer in 2009 and lung cancer surgery in December. Both liberals and conservatives watch the health of the court’s oldest justice closely because it’s understood the Supreme Court would shift right for decades if Republican President Donald Trump were to get the ability to nominate someone to replace her. On Saturday, Ginsburg, who came out with the book “My Own Words” in 2016, spoke to an audience of more than 4,000 at Washington’s convention center. Near the beginning of an hour-long talk, her interviewer, NPR reporter Nina Totenberg, said: “Let me ask you a question that everyone here wants to ask, which is: How are you feeling? Why are you here instead of resting up for the term? And are you planning on staying in your current job?” “How am I feeling? Well, first, this audience can see that I am alive,” Ginsburg said to applause and cheers. The comment was a seeming reference to the fact that when she was recuperating from lung cancer surgery earlier this year, some doubters demanded photographic proof that she was still living. Ginsburg went on to say that she was “on my way” to being “very well.” As for her work on the Supreme Court, which is on its summer break and begins hearing arguments again Oct. 7, Ginsburg said she will “be prepared when the time comes.” Ginsburg, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1993, did not directly answer how long she plans to stay on the court. Earlier this summer, however, she reported a conversation she had with former Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired from the court in 2010 at age 90. Ginsburg said she told Stevens: “My dream is to remain on the court as long as you did.” Stevens responded: “Stay longer.” He died in July at age 99. Ginsburg said Saturday that she loves her job. “It’s the best and the hardest job I’ve ever had,” she said. “It has kept me going through four cancer bouts. Instead of concentrating on my aches and pains, I just know that I have to read this set of briefs, go over the draft opinion. So I have to somehow surmount whatever is going on in my body and concentrate on the court’s work.” Ginsburg’s appearance Saturday was not her first following her most recent cancer announcement. Earlier this week she spoke at an event at the University at Buffalo, where she also accepted an honorary degree. At the time she talked only briefly about her most recent cancer scare, saying she wanted to keep her promise to attend the event despite “three weeks of daily radiation.” ___ Follow Jessica Gresko on Twitter at twitter.com/jessicagresko.

www.apnews.com

center

N3FKtsKT7aCBy3ig

test

AdnyxCrdslGOpKLj

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/17/governments-crisis-coronavirus-business

This crisis calls for massive government intervention: here's how to do it

2020-03-17

Emmanuel Saez, Gabriel Zucman

Coronavirus threatens the world ’ s economic life , and current proposals from governments around the globe are failing to match the scale of the crisis . Today , the chancellor , Rishi Sunak , announced £330bn of loans and that some companies would not have to pay business rates for the next 12 months . While loans help businesses in the short term , they do not compensate for losses and only allow companies to smooth costs over a longer period . Workers should immediately start receiving special unemployment benefits so they are no longer a cost to their employers In the US , the Trump administration has suggested direct cash payments to individuals . Such measures ( such as $ 1,000 given to each US household ) help to alleviate temporary economic hardship but are poorly targeted : it ’ s too little for those who lose their jobs , and it is not needed by those who don ’ t . During social distancing , the goal should not be to increase demand , since people can no longer spend on many goods and services . Unemployment insurance , or benefits , and paid sick leave policies come closest to helping laid off workers and those unable to work , but they do not prevent redundancies and do not help businesses . Tax relief , such as the business rate holiday offered by the UK to sectors most affected by the recession , such as hospitality and retail , will help . But there ’ s no guarantee this relief will be enough to prevent bankruptcies and job losses . There is , however , a radical and targeted solution to the specific causes of the coronavirus global recession : governments should step in as payers of last resort , which means they would cover wage and maintenance costs for businesses facing shutdown . In the context of this pandemic , we need a new form of social insurance , one that directly helps both workers and businesses . So , how does this work in practice ? The drop in demand caused by social distancing measures , and a following decrease in output and therefore GDP , is expected to be short , probably for a few months . Governments can not undo this direct output loss , but they can prevent a very sharp but short recession becoming a long-lasting depression . Absent government actions , and many businesses and workers do not have enough liquidity to weather dramatic shortfalls in demand causing mass redundancies . Keeping businesses alive through this crisis and making sure workers continue to receive their wages is essential . The most direct way to provide this insurance is to have governments act as payers of last resort , so that hibernating businesses can keep paying their workers ( known in economic terms as idle workers ) instead of laying them off , and can keep paying their necessary bills such as rent , utilities and interest instead of going bankrupt . In practice , in the US , the unemployment insurance system is already up and running , making it possible to compute and deliver compensation to idle workers . Workers should immediately start receiving special unemployment insurance benefits so they are no longer a cost to their employers – even though they stay formally employed – and no re-hiring process is needed once they can come back to work . Self-employed individuals ( such as gig workers ) could report themselves as idle and be eligible for this special unemployment insurance . In case of partial idling – if someone ’ s working hours have been cut – unemployment insurance benefits would be prorated . These benefits would be progressive if they replaced a higher fraction of earnings for low-paid workers . This is a desirable feature , as low-paid workers are more likely to be affected by the lockdown ( ie less likely to be able to work from home ) and less likely to have savings to replace a temporary loss in earnings . In the payer-of-last-resort programme we envision , businesses on lockdown would report their monthly necessary costs of maintenance and receive payment from the government . Necessary costs are rent , utility payments , interest on debt , health insurance ( in the US ) and national insurance contributions ( in the UK ) of idle workers , and other costs that are vital for the maintenance of businesses . For partially shut down sectors , governments would pay a fraction of the maintenance costs . The amounts don ’ t need to be exact ; verification and correction can take place once the lockdown is over . Any excess government payment could be transformed into an interest-free loan that could be recouped over several years . There are two reasons why such a policy would work in the case of the coronavirus pandemic . First , it is clear what is driving the shock : a health crisis that has nothing to do with any business ’ s decision and will be temporary . Second , different industries are affected differently . That ’ s in contrast to normal recessions , where the drop in demand is widely spread and has no clear timeline . How much would such a payer-of-last-resort programme cost ? Based on national account statistics by industry , we estimate that with a nationwide lockdown up to 30 % of aggregate demand could evaporate in the US over the next three months , leading to a 7.5 % drop in annual GDP . Tear up the economic rule book . This pandemic calls for radical intervention | Ed Miliband Read more Compensating idle workers and necessary business maintenance costs would involve government payments of around half of this total . Unemployment insurance replaces about 50-60 % of wages , and essential maintenance costs of businesses are probably less than half of their normal operating costs ( for example , non-flying planes do not burn fuel ) . The total cost for the government would be around 3.75 % points of GDP , financed via an increase in public debt . The direct output loss from social distancing measures would in effect be put on the government ’ s tab , ie socialised . A payer-of-last-resort programme will work if it is limited in time ( eg three months ) , so the cost remains manageable and business decisions are not affected . It would not fully offset the economic cost of coronavirus . No matter what governments do , there will be real output losses . Even if airline workers are paid , the plane rides won ’ t happen . For other sectors , supply-chain distortions will happen no matter what , due , for example , to quarantine measures . But a payer-of-last-resort programme would alleviate the hardship on workers and businesses . It would maintain the cash flow for families and businesses so the coronavirus shock has no secondary impacts on demand – such as laid-off workers cutting down on consumption – and a quick rebound can take place once demand comes back . Business activity is on hold today , but with an intravenous cash flow it can be kept alive until the health crisis is over . • Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman are economics professors at the University of California , Berkeley

Coronavirus threatens the world’s economic life, and current proposals from governments around the globe are failing to match the scale of the crisis. Today, the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, announced £330bn of loans and that some companies would not have to pay business rates for the next 12 months. While loans help businesses in the short term, they do not compensate for losses and only allow companies to smooth costs over a longer period. Workers should immediately start receiving special unemployment benefits so they are no longer a cost to their employers In the US, the Trump administration has suggested direct cash payments to individuals. Such measures (such as $1,000 given to each US household) help to alleviate temporary economic hardship but are poorly targeted: it’s too little for those who lose their jobs, and it is not needed by those who don’t. During social distancing, the goal should not be to increase demand, since people can no longer spend on many goods and services. Unemployment insurance, or benefits, and paid sick leave policies come closest to helping laid off workers and those unable to work, but they do not prevent redundancies and do not help businesses. Tax relief, such as the business rate holiday offered by the UK to sectors most affected by the recession, such as hospitality and retail, will help. But there’s no guarantee this relief will be enough to prevent bankruptcies and job losses. There is, however, a radical and targeted solution to the specific causes of the coronavirus global recession: governments should step in as payers of last resort, which means they would cover wage and maintenance costs for businesses facing shutdown. In the context of this pandemic, we need a new form of social insurance, one that directly helps both workers and businesses. So, how does this work in practice? The drop in demand caused by social distancing measures, and a following decrease in output and therefore GDP, is expected to be short, probably for a few months. Governments cannot undo this direct output loss, but they can prevent a very sharp but short recession becoming a long-lasting depression. Absent government actions, and many businesses and workers do not have enough liquidity to weather dramatic shortfalls in demand causing mass redundancies. Keeping businesses alive through this crisis and making sure workers continue to receive their wages is essential. The most direct way to provide this insurance is to have governments act as payers of last resort, so that hibernating businesses can keep paying their workers (known in economic terms as idle workers) instead of laying them off, and can keep paying their necessary bills such as rent, utilities and interest instead of going bankrupt. In practice, in the US, the unemployment insurance system is already up and running, making it possible to compute and deliver compensation to idle workers. Workers should immediately start receiving special unemployment insurance benefits so they are no longer a cost to their employers – even though they stay formally employed – and no re-hiring process is needed once they can come back to work. Self-employed individuals (such as gig workers) could report themselves as idle and be eligible for this special unemployment insurance. In case of partial idling – if someone’s working hours have been cut – unemployment insurance benefits would be prorated. These benefits would be progressive if they replaced a higher fraction of earnings for low-paid workers. This is a desirable feature, as low-paid workers are more likely to be affected by the lockdown (ie less likely to be able to work from home) and less likely to have savings to replace a temporary loss in earnings. In the payer-of-last-resort programme we envision, businesses on lockdown would report their monthly necessary costs of maintenance and receive payment from the government. Necessary costs are rent, utility payments, interest on debt, health insurance (in the US) and national insurance contributions (in the UK) of idle workers, and other costs that are vital for the maintenance of businesses. For partially shut down sectors, governments would pay a fraction of the maintenance costs. The amounts don’t need to be exact; verification and correction can take place once the lockdown is over. Any excess government payment could be transformed into an interest-free loan that could be recouped over several years. There are two reasons why such a policy would work in the case of the coronavirus pandemic. First, it is clear what is driving the shock: a health crisis that has nothing to do with any business’s decision and will be temporary. Second, different industries are affected differently. That’s in contrast to normal recessions, where the drop in demand is widely spread and has no clear timeline. How much would such a payer-of-last-resort programme cost? Based on national account statistics by industry, we estimate that with a nationwide lockdown up to 30% of aggregate demand could evaporate in the US over the next three months, leading to a 7.5% drop in annual GDP. Tear up the economic rule book. This pandemic calls for radical intervention | Ed Miliband Read more Compensating idle workers and necessary business maintenance costs would involve government payments of around half of this total. Unemployment insurance replaces about 50-60% of wages, and essential maintenance costs of businesses are probably less than half of their normal operating costs (for example, non-flying planes do not burn fuel). The total cost for the government would be around 3.75% points of GDP, financed via an increase in public debt. The direct output loss from social distancing measures would in effect be put on the government’s tab, ie socialised. A payer-of-last-resort programme will work if it is limited in time (eg three months), so the cost remains manageable and business decisions are not affected. It would not fully offset the economic cost of coronavirus. No matter what governments do, there will be real output losses. Even if airline workers are paid, the plane rides won’t happen. For other sectors, supply-chain distortions will happen no matter what, due, for example, to quarantine measures. But a payer-of-last-resort programme would alleviate the hardship on workers and businesses. It would maintain the cash flow for families and businesses so the coronavirus shock has no secondary impacts on demand – such as laid-off workers cutting down on consumption – and a quick rebound can take place once demand comes back. Business activity is on hold today, but with an intravenous cash flow it can be kept alive until the health crisis is over. • Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman are economics professors at the University of California, Berkeley

www.theguardian.com

left

AdnyxCrdslGOpKLj

test

Fq5VeQSepBiFodNU

media_bias

Reason

http://reason.com/archives/2016/09/09/the-media-is-giving-hillary-clinton-a-fr

The Media Is Giving Hillary Clinton a Free Pass

2016-09-09

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

Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton was finally asked a tough question during NBC 's commander-in-chief forum , so naturally the establishment media immediately coagulated around the notion that NBC 's Matt Lauer was the worst moderator ever . An Air Force and Navy veteran , who said he held `` the top secret sensitive compartmentalized information clearance , '' said to Clinton regarding her acts as secretary of state , `` Had I communicated this information not following prescribed protocols , I would have been prosecuted and imprisoned . '' He then asked , `` Secretary Clinton , how can you expect those such as myself who were and are trusted with America 's most sensitive information to have any confidence in your leadership as president when you clearly corrupted our national security ? '' How could Lauer allow a veteran to spend precious time on Clinton 's email `` scandal , '' they wondered from the bubble ? Since Clinton claims that her experience is what makes her ready `` on day one , '' it 's not unreasonable to wonder why she still supposedly did n't understand how classified documents worked ; or why she engaged in actions that probably allowed foreign actors to access top secret information ; or why she attempted to obstruct the investigation into those emails . We ca n't talk about Donald Trump tweets 24/7 , after all . For critics , there was an even uglier moment . How could Lauer let Trump get away with lying about his position on Iraq ? This was the big takeaway last night , and the dominant apprehension of the media , the sanctity of the candidate roundtable and political debates . As if politicians blatantly lying about their positions were a unique event . Basically , everyone lied about everything at the forum . Yet rarely was any of the post-forum hand-wringing concerned about Clinton 's performance . It is true that Clinton 's distortions are better-couched , but why was there no pushback when she claimed that no Americans died in Libya `` action '' in 2011 ? Why was there no fact-check on Clinton 's false intimation that no one hacked her emails ? The consensus is that a foreign nation probably did hack her classified emails . No one seemed exceptionally concerned about her prevaricating on that one . Now , media types are wondering if perhaps moderators should engage in spontaneous fact-checks , which , theoretically , sounds like a wonderful idea . In practice , though , as the very stories calling for fact-checks illustrate , the media is highly selective in ascertaining which inaccuracies they find problematic , and which would skew coverage even more than it 's already skewed—if that 's possible . Imagine Candy Crowley , who moderated the second presidential debate in 2012 , using incorrect information to defend President Barack Obama from Gov . Mitt Romney but having no moderator challenging the president 's litany of untruths regarding Obamacare . Republicans `` lie , '' but Democrats offer imprecise or nuanced assertions that can be transformed into a truth with a couple of Vox.com explainers . What must have been most off-putting was Clinton 's performance . For the first time , a small part of me was forced to concede that Clinton might be one of the few politicians in the country awful enough to lose a general election to Trump . She must have felt something went wrong as well because for the first time in 278 days she held a formal press conference , on a tarmac in New York . Not that it mattered . The press did n't exactly roll her an orange and ask her what her favorite color is , but it was n't far off . Most of her time was spent ripping Trump 's ugly assertion that he prefers Russian President Vladimir Putin to President Obama . It was unpatriotic and outside the norms of political discourse , said Clinton , who probably forgot that a couple of months ago she was cheering on Democrats who were accusing Republicans of arming ISIS . With the freedom to ask the probable next president of the United States anything in the world they wanted , the first query from the media was about polls . Why are n't you winning by a larger margin , Hillary ? By the end , Clinton had answered a total of four questions , not one of them challenging or enlightening in any genuine way . Two softballs allowed her to pontificate about foreign policy . One question was about the horserace , and one about the unfair treatment she receives from the media . Clinton said during the press conference : `` I have been somewhat heartened by the number of articles recently pointing out the quite disparate treatment of Trump and his campaign compared to ours . I do n't understand the reasons for it . '' That 's probably because it 's a complete fantasy propagated by partisans and now internalized by the media as a reality .

Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton was finally asked a tough question during NBC's commander-in-chief forum, so naturally the establishment media immediately coagulated around the notion that NBC's Matt Lauer was the worst moderator ever. An Air Force and Navy veteran, who said he held "the top secret sensitive compartmentalized information clearance," said to Clinton regarding her acts as secretary of state, "Had I communicated this information not following prescribed protocols, I would have been prosecuted and imprisoned." He then asked, "Secretary Clinton, how can you expect those such as myself who were and are trusted with America's most sensitive information to have any confidence in your leadership as president when you clearly corrupted our national security?" How could Lauer allow a veteran to spend precious time on Clinton's email "scandal," they wondered from the bubble? Since Clinton claims that her experience is what makes her ready "on day one," it's not unreasonable to wonder why she still supposedly didn't understand how classified documents worked; or why she engaged in actions that probably allowed foreign actors to access top secret information; or why she attempted to obstruct the investigation into those emails. We can't talk about Donald Trump tweets 24/7, after all. For critics, there was an even uglier moment. How could Lauer let Trump get away with lying about his position on Iraq? This was the big takeaway last night, and the dominant apprehension of the media, the sanctity of the candidate roundtable and political debates. As if politicians blatantly lying about their positions were a unique event. Basically, everyone lied about everything at the forum. Yet rarely was any of the post-forum hand-wringing concerned about Clinton's performance. It is true that Clinton's distortions are better-couched, but why was there no pushback when she claimed that no Americans died in Libya "action" in 2011? Why was there no fact-check on Clinton's false intimation that no one hacked her emails? The consensus is that a foreign nation probably did hack her classified emails. No one seemed exceptionally concerned about her prevaricating on that one. Now, media types are wondering if perhaps moderators should engage in spontaneous fact-checks, which, theoretically, sounds like a wonderful idea. In practice, though, as the very stories calling for fact-checks illustrate, the media is highly selective in ascertaining which inaccuracies they find problematic, and which would skew coverage even more than it's already skewed—if that's possible. Imagine Candy Crowley, who moderated the second presidential debate in 2012, using incorrect information to defend President Barack Obama from Gov. Mitt Romney but having no moderator challenging the president's litany of untruths regarding Obamacare. Republicans "lie," but Democrats offer imprecise or nuanced assertions that can be transformed into a truth with a couple of Vox.com explainers. What must have been most off-putting was Clinton's performance. For the first time, a small part of me was forced to concede that Clinton might be one of the few politicians in the country awful enough to lose a general election to Trump. She must have felt something went wrong as well because for the first time in 278 days she held a formal press conference, on a tarmac in New York. Not that it mattered. The press didn't exactly roll her an orange and ask her what her favorite color is, but it wasn't far off. Most of her time was spent ripping Trump's ugly assertion that he prefers Russian President Vladimir Putin to President Obama. It was unpatriotic and outside the norms of political discourse, said Clinton, who probably forgot that a couple of months ago she was cheering on Democrats who were accusing Republicans of arming ISIS. With the freedom to ask the probable next president of the United States anything in the world they wanted, the first query from the media was about polls. Why aren't you winning by a larger margin, Hillary? By the end, Clinton had answered a total of four questions, not one of them challenging or enlightening in any genuine way. Two softballs allowed her to pontificate about foreign policy. One question was about the horserace, and one about the unfair treatment she receives from the media. Clinton said during the press conference: "I have been somewhat heartened by the number of articles recently pointing out the quite disparate treatment of Trump and his campaign compared to ours. I don't understand the reasons for it." That's probably because it's a complete fantasy propagated by partisans and now internalized by the media as a reality. COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM

www.reason.com

right

Fq5VeQSepBiFodNU

test

GZfGeluKv11pnkiA

media_bias

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2018/november/cbs-major-garrett-on-the-medias-credibility-problem-thats-our-problem-of-our-creation-and-weve-got-to-own-up-to-that

CBS' Major Garrett on the Media's Credibility Problem: 'That's Our Problem of Our Creation and We've Got to Own Up to That'

2018-11-21

WASHINGTON – CBS White House Reporter Major Garrett tells ███ News the mainstream media has a credibility problem and needs to fix it . Garrett , who has worked at CNN , Fox News and now CBS , has a front-row seat during President Donald Trump 's first two years in office . He 's surveyed the media landscape and much more . His new book pretty much sums it all up with the title , Mr. Trump 's Wild Ride : The Thrills , Chills , Screams , and Occasional Blackouts of an Extraordinary Presidency . A major driver of this ride has been the love-hate relationship between the White House and mainstream media or as President Trump calls the press , `` fake news . '' Garrett says it 's not just the president who has a problem with the media . `` When the public is asking those of us who are front-line reporters , 'Who can they believe ? ' they are essentially saying , 'We 're not sure we can believe you , ' '' Garrett tells ███ News . `` That 's our problem of our creation and we 've got to own up to that and we 've got to reverse that trend line . '' That 's one reason the battle between CNN 's Jim Acosta and the Trump administration over press passes and decorum has Garrett 's attention . `` I am what they say in the legal community 'an interested party ' because I work there . I 'm on the same front row that Jim Acosta is , that CNN is . '' Garrett says it 's a fight that Trump and CNN President Jeff Zucker want . `` The First Amendment is important and due process is important and the court is struggling with things that are not clearly defined in this clash , '' says Garrett . `` But I do think that Jeff Zucker and Donald Trump want to have this fight on behalf of not just these serious underlying legal questions but on their own reputational relationship to one another . '' This week , the White House laid out certain ground rules for reporters during press conferences . While Garrett sees himself as a neutral observer , he does believe the Trump administration has a good point . `` The CNN position is also , to a certain degree , absolute that there are no limits on decorum in the White House . Well , I do n't believe that as a reporter , '' he says . When asked if there are limits , Garrett says bluntly : `` I 've exercised them . '' Garrett recalled an encounter during a Rose Garden event . He had the microphone in his hand ready to ask a question , but Trump said no and called on the reporter behind him . `` Was I giving up my First Amendment rights ? No . The president said , 'No , not you . ' It 's his press conference . I 'm either asked to ask a question , given that privilege and that responsibility , or I 'm not . But guess who runs that ? He does , '' Garrett says . That example is just one of many that keep Garrett covering this wild ride . As a passenger , whether as correspondent or author , he felt it was also his job to cover the ups and downs responsibly . `` I 'd covered three presidents before and it felt to me like the country was getting the impression that because this was so different and comes at us so differently , maybe the typical powers of the presidency do n't still exist , '' Garrett tells ███ News . `` Well , they do . And maybe things are n't getting done ? They are . '' Garrett 's reporting style follows the 'just the facts ' trademark and his book also follows that example : recounting the issues with no dreaded anonymous sources . `` Everyone is quoted by name . Everyone is quoted by their title and what they saw and what they saw happening… no one has complained . No one has said , 'That 's inaccurate , that 's out of context . ' No , because they know I 'm a faithful chronicler of what they said and what they observed and what has happened , '' he explains . In a literary market filled with pro and anti-Trump books , Garrett hopes his strikes the right balance as the voice of reason , though it has its drawbacks . `` If you want to ask me my deepest , darkest fear about this book , you 've just described it , '' Garrett says . `` That it will fall into this uncomfortable and unknown commercial space…I know it 's valuable , but that is my greatest fear . I told my best friends as I was writing the book that my greatest fear is that it will not love the president enough and it will not hate the president enough . '' As President Trump runs the country , Garrett will continue to report on one of the most important times in political history . `` We had 113 million Americans participate in the midterms : 49.2 percent participation rate , higher than any year since 1966 , '' Garrett says . `` This country cares about this time politically and we 're sorting it out . '' Garrett hopes voters will look to his book that tries to do just that : sort it all out in a fair and honest way .

WASHINGTON – CBS White House Reporter Major Garrett tells CBN News the mainstream media has a credibility problem and needs to fix it. Garrett, who has worked at CNN, Fox News and now CBS, has a front-row seat during President Donald Trump's first two years in office. He's surveyed the media landscape and much more. His new book pretty much sums it all up with the title, Mr. Trump's Wild Ride: The Thrills, Chills, Screams, and Occasional Blackouts of an Extraordinary Presidency. A major driver of this ride has been the love-hate relationship between the White House and mainstream media or as President Trump calls the press, "fake news." Garrett says it's not just the president who has a problem with the media. "When the public is asking those of us who are front-line reporters, 'Who can they believe?' they are essentially saying, 'We're not sure we can believe you,'" Garrett tells CBN News. "That's our problem of our creation and we've got to own up to that and we've got to reverse that trend line." That's one reason the battle between CNN's Jim Acosta and the Trump administration over press passes and decorum has Garrett's attention. "I am what they say in the legal community 'an interested party' because I work there. I'm on the same front row that Jim Acosta is, that CNN is." Garrett says it's a fight that Trump and CNN President Jeff Zucker want. "The First Amendment is important and due process is important and the court is struggling with things that are not clearly defined in this clash," says Garrett. "But I do think that Jeff Zucker and Donald Trump want to have this fight on behalf of not just these serious underlying legal questions but on their own reputational relationship to one another." This week, the White House laid out certain ground rules for reporters during press conferences. While Garrett sees himself as a neutral observer, he does believe the Trump administration has a good point. "The CNN position is also, to a certain degree, absolute that there are no limits on decorum in the White House. Well, I don't believe that as a reporter," he says. When asked if there are limits, Garrett says bluntly: "I've exercised them." Garrett recalled an encounter during a Rose Garden event. He had the microphone in his hand ready to ask a question, but Trump said no and called on the reporter behind him. "Was I giving up my First Amendment rights? No. The president said, 'No, not you.' It's his press conference. I'm either asked to ask a question, given that privilege and that responsibility, or I'm not. But guess who runs that? He does," Garrett says. That example is just one of many that keep Garrett covering this wild ride. As a passenger, whether as correspondent or author, he felt it was also his job to cover the ups and downs responsibly. "I'd covered three presidents before and it felt to me like the country was getting the impression that because this was so different and comes at us so differently, maybe the typical powers of the presidency don't still exist," Garrett tells CBN News. "Well, they do. And maybe things aren't getting done? They are." Garrett's reporting style follows the 'just the facts' trademark and his book also follows that example: recounting the issues with no dreaded anonymous sources. "Everyone is quoted by name. Everyone is quoted by their title and what they saw and what they saw happening… no one has complained. No one has said, 'That's inaccurate, that's out of context.' No, because they know I'm a faithful chronicler of what they said and what they observed and what has happened," he explains. In a literary market filled with pro and anti-Trump books, Garrett hopes his strikes the right balance as the voice of reason, though it has its drawbacks. "If you want to ask me my deepest, darkest fear about this book, you've just described it," Garrett says. "That it will fall into this uncomfortable and unknown commercial space…I know it's valuable, but that is my greatest fear. I told my best friends as I was writing the book that my greatest fear is that it will not love the president enough and it will not hate the president enough." As President Trump runs the country, Garrett will continue to report on one of the most important times in political history. "We had 113 million Americans participate in the midterms: 49.2 percent participation rate, higher than any year since 1966," Garrett says. "This country cares about this time politically and we're sorting it out." Garrett hopes voters will look to his book that tries to do just that: sort it all out in a fair and honest way.

www1.cbn.com

right

GZfGeluKv11pnkiA

test

45i5QhtyRfe0zmRd

politics

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/20/report-wendy-davis-life-story-more-complicated-than-compelling-narrative/

Report: Wendy Davis' life story more complicated than compelling narrative

2014-01-20

( CNN ) – Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis admitted in an interview with the Dallas Morning News that she has n't been totally accurate about her life 's story , a compelling narrative she has used to appeal to voters in Texas and bolster her national profile . `` My language should be tighter , '' the Democratic state senator said . `` I 'm learning about using broader , looser language . I need to be more focused on the detail . '' After her marathon filibuster against proposed abortion laws in the Texas legislature last summer , Davis was propelled to the national stage . The attention gave her the support and encouragement to announce a bid for governor in October . She frequently shared her biography both before and after she started running for governor , saying she was a single mother by the age of 19 and lived in a trailer with her young daughter . From there , she eventually put herself through community college , Texas Christian University , and Harvard Law School with the help of scholarship and loans . The Morning News , however , reported over the weekend that Davis became a single mother at 21 , not 19 , when she got divorced from her then-husband , who was directed to pay child support . `` She lived only a few months in the family mobile home while separated from her husband before moving into an apartment with her daughter , '' writes Wayne Slater , the paper 's senior political writer . Davis ' campaign released a statement later Monday to clarify some of the details from her life . `` Wendy left home at 17 , married when she was 18 and had her first daughter Amber when she was 19 . She and her husband lived in a trailer , and Wendy continued to live there with Amber after they were separated . '' `` As a single mother at age 19 , she often struggled to make ends meet , '' the statement continued . `` Wendy filed for divorce when she was 20 and she and Amber lived for a short time with her mother . The divorce became final when she was 21 . '' Davis later got help from a second husband , Jeff Davis , who helped pay for her two years at Texas Christian University and her time at Harvard . `` When she was accepted to Harvard Law School , Jeff Davis cashed in his 401 ( k ) account and eventually took out a loan to pay for her final year there , '' Slater reports . The Texas Tribune also reported details from Wendy Davis ' relationship with Jeff Davis , as well as her complicated life story , back in September . While Davis was in Boston , her husband took care of their two young daughters , the Morning News article stated . However , according to the statement provided by her campaign , the girls lived with Davis in Boston during her first year at law school . After that , the girls lived in Fort Worth and Davis commuted weekly to see them . Her mother played a `` daily caretaking role '' to help Jeff Davis , her campaign said . After she graduated from Harvard , she came back to Fort Worth and completed a judicial clerkship and worked as an attorney at the law firm Haynes and Boone . Jeff Davis told the Morning News he `` opened some doors for her with some people '' so she could pursue her interest in running for city council in 1996 . She lost , but ran two years later and won . Jeff and Wendy Davis ended up getting divorced in 2005 , roughly when her final Harvard payment was due . `` I made the last payment , and it was the next day she left , '' Jeff Davis told the Morning News . Wendy Davis took issue with the idea that he solely supported her . `` I was a vibrant part of contributing to our family finances from the time I graduated to the time we separated in 2003 , '' she told the paper . `` The idea that suddenly there was this instantaneous departure after Jeff had partnered so beautifully with me in putting me through school is just absurd . '' Slater reports : `` In his initial divorce filing , Jeff Davis said the marriage had failed , citing adultery on her part and conflicts that the couple could not overcome . The final court decree makes no mention of infidelity , granting the divorce solely `` on the ground of insupportability . '' '' Jeff Davis won parental custody , and Wendy Davis agreed to pay $ 1,200 per month in child support , according to the report . Citing her own rocky childhood , Wendy Davis said she wanted her daughters to stay in the home they grew up in . `` I very willingly , as part of my divorce settlement , paid child support . That was at my request , not any court telling me I needed to financially support my daughters , '' she said . Her campaign , however , said Jeff and Wendy Davis shared custody of both daughters after the final divorce proceedings . Davis is on good terms with her daughters , who are now adults . They support their mother 's run for governor and appear in a campaign video for her . `` She and Jeff Davis have a healthy and respectful relationship based on their mutual love of their daughters , '' her campaign said . Twitter lit afire Monday with critics blasting Davis for leaving out key parts of her personal history , such as the help she received from Jeff Davis . The hashtag # MoreFakeThanWendyDavis , used mostly by conservatives , became a trending topic on the social media site . Though she admitted some details had been blurred , Davis defended her overall story as a young single mother who rose out of poverty and built a successful career . `` Most people would identify with the fact that we tend to be defined by the struggles we came through than by the successes . And certainly for me that 's true , '' she told the Morning News . `` When I think about who I am and how it 's reflected in the things I worked on , it comes from that place . '' Davis raised a sizable $ 12 million last year , but she 's still far behind from likely GOP nominee and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott , who took in $ 16 million and had $ 27 million cash on hand . In the statement sent by her campaign , Davis dismissed attacks from her opponents over the Morning News article . `` ( The attacks ) wo n't work , because my story is the story of millions of Texas women who know the strength it takes when you 're young , alone and a mother , '' she said .

6 years ago Updated 3:47 p.m. ET, 1/20/2014 (CNN) – Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis admitted in an interview with the Dallas Morning News that she hasn't been totally accurate about her life's story, a compelling narrative she has used to appeal to voters in Texas and bolster her national profile. "My language should be tighter," the Democratic state senator said. "I'm learning about using broader, looser language. I need to be more focused on the detail." Follow @politicalticker Follow @KilloughCNN After her marathon filibuster against proposed abortion laws in the Texas legislature last summer, Davis was propelled to the national stage. The attention gave her the support and encouragement to announce a bid for governor in October. She frequently shared her biography both before and after she started running for governor, saying she was a single mother by the age of 19 and lived in a trailer with her young daughter. From there, she eventually put herself through community college, Texas Christian University, and Harvard Law School with the help of scholarship and loans. The Morning News, however, reported over the weekend that Davis became a single mother at 21, not 19, when she got divorced from her then-husband, who was directed to pay child support. "She lived only a few months in the family mobile home while separated from her husband before moving into an apartment with her daughter," writes Wayne Slater, the paper's senior political writer. Davis' campaign released a statement later Monday to clarify some of the details from her life. "Wendy left home at 17, married when she was 18 and had her first daughter Amber when she was 19. She and her husband lived in a trailer, and Wendy continued to live there with Amber after they were separated." "As a single mother at age 19, she often struggled to make ends meet," the statement continued. "Wendy filed for divorce when she was 20 and she and Amber lived for a short time with her mother. The divorce became final when she was 21." Davis later got help from a second husband, Jeff Davis, who helped pay for her two years at Texas Christian University and her time at Harvard. "When she was accepted to Harvard Law School, Jeff Davis cashed in his 401(k) account and eventually took out a loan to pay for her final year there," Slater reports. The Texas Tribune also reported details from Wendy Davis' relationship with Jeff Davis, as well as her complicated life story, back in September. While Davis was in Boston, her husband took care of their two young daughters, the Morning News article stated. However, according to the statement provided by her campaign, the girls lived with Davis in Boston during her first year at law school. After that, the girls lived in Fort Worth and Davis commuted weekly to see them. Her mother played a "daily caretaking role" to help Jeff Davis, her campaign said. After she graduated from Harvard, she came back to Fort Worth and completed a judicial clerkship and worked as an attorney at the law firm Haynes and Boone. Jeff Davis told the Morning News he "opened some doors for her with some people" so she could pursue her interest in running for city council in 1996. She lost, but ran two years later and won. Jeff and Wendy Davis ended up getting divorced in 2005, roughly when her final Harvard payment was due. "I made the last payment, and it was the next day she left," Jeff Davis told the Morning News. Wendy Davis took issue with the idea that he solely supported her. "I was a vibrant part of contributing to our family finances from the time I graduated to the time we separated in 2003," she told the paper. "The idea that suddenly there was this instantaneous departure after Jeff had partnered so beautifully with me in putting me through school is just absurd." Slater reports: "In his initial divorce filing, Jeff Davis said the marriage had failed, citing adultery on her part and conflicts that the couple could not overcome. The final court decree makes no mention of infidelity, granting the divorce solely "on the ground of insupportability."" Jeff Davis won parental custody, and Wendy Davis agreed to pay $1,200 per month in child support, according to the report. Citing her own rocky childhood, Wendy Davis said she wanted her daughters to stay in the home they grew up in. "I very willingly, as part of my divorce settlement, paid child support. That was at my request, not any court telling me I needed to financially support my daughters," she said. Her campaign, however, said Jeff and Wendy Davis shared custody of both daughters after the final divorce proceedings. Davis is on good terms with her daughters, who are now adults. They support their mother's run for governor and appear in a campaign video for her. "She and Jeff Davis have a healthy and respectful relationship based on their mutual love of their daughters," her campaign said. Twitter lit afire Monday with critics blasting Davis for leaving out key parts of her personal history, such as the help she received from Jeff Davis. The hashtag #MoreFakeThanWendyDavis, used mostly by conservatives, became a trending topic on the social media site. Though she admitted some details had been blurred, Davis defended her overall story as a young single mother who rose out of poverty and built a successful career. "Most people would identify with the fact that we tend to be defined by the struggles we came through than by the successes. And certainly for me that's true," she told the Morning News. "When I think about who I am and how it's reflected in the things I worked on, it comes from that place." Davis raised a sizable $12 million last year, but she's still far behind from likely GOP nominee and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who took in $16 million and had $27 million cash on hand. In the statement sent by her campaign, Davis dismissed attacks from her opponents over the Morning News article. "(The attacks) won't work, because my story is the story of millions of Texas women who know the strength it takes when you're young, alone and a mother," she said.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

45i5QhtyRfe0zmRd

test

VHcvZ6QGkZa2Xnuj

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/29/hillary-clinton-speaker-massive-pay-cut/

Hillary Clinton Is Back On The Speaker Circuit — But She’s Taken a Massive Pay Cut

2018-03-29

Hillary Clinton is scheduled to speak at Rutgers University on Thursday , mainly on her role in women ’ s political history in America . Rutgers confirmed that Clinton is to be compensated — via an endowment — a sum of $ 25,000 , which she reportedly intends to donate to charity . In the years leading up to her failed 2016 presidential campaign , however , Clinton commanded a much higher price tag . A 2015 Business Insider report listed speaker fees well into six figures , and although different media outlets clashed on the exact amounts , it was clear that the range was from $ 125,000 to $ 335,000 . All told , it was estimated that she earned close to $ 12 million in speaking fees in the years after she left the State Department . Clinton ’ s planned speech at Rutgers was also criticized by the university ’ s College Republicans , who said that allowing Clinton a platform when former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had been disinvited amid protests was evidence of hypocrisy . Ruth B. Mandel , director of Rutgers ’ Eagleton Institute of Politics , was very complimentary of the former first lady . “ Eagleton is proud to host the most important American political woman of our time , ” Mandel said . “ As a public leader , Hillary Rodham Clinton has crossed traditional boundaries , making both history and headlines . This visit will afford our students and the Rutgers community an opportunity to witness a conversation with the person behind the media fog . ” In contrast , a Rutgers faculty council voted to rescind Rice ’ s invitation to speak at commencement in 2014 , saying , “ Condoleezza Rice … played a prominent role in ( the Bush ) administration ’ s effort to mislead the American people about the presence of weapons of mass destruction . And she at the very least condoned the Bush administration ’ s policy of ‘ enhanced interrogation techniques ’ such as waterboarding , ” The College Republicans also made it clear that they were not interested in getting Clinton ’ s event canceled . “ We are not protesting Secretary Hillary Clinton ’ s right to speak on campus , as was regrettably done to Secretary Rice. ” Their goal was simply to showcase the disparity in the way each was treated on the Rutgers University campus .

Hillary Clinton is scheduled to speak at Rutgers University on Thursday, mainly on her role in women’s political history in America. Rutgers confirmed that Clinton is to be compensated — via an endowment — a sum of $25,000, which she reportedly intends to donate to charity. In the years leading up to her failed 2016 presidential campaign, however, Clinton commanded a much higher price tag. A 2015 Business Insider report listed speaker fees well into six figures, and although different media outlets clashed on the exact amounts, it was clear that the range was from $125,000 to $335,000. All told, it was estimated that she earned close to $12 million in speaking fees in the years after she left the State Department. Clinton’s planned speech at Rutgers was also criticized by the university’s College Republicans, who said that allowing Clinton a platform when former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had been disinvited amid protests was evidence of hypocrisy. Ruth B. Mandel, director of Rutgers’ Eagleton Institute of Politics, was very complimentary of the former first lady. “Eagleton is proud to host the most important American political woman of our time,” Mandel said. “As a public leader, Hillary Rodham Clinton has crossed traditional boundaries, making both history and headlines. This visit will afford our students and the Rutgers community an opportunity to witness a conversation with the person behind the media fog.” In contrast, a Rutgers faculty council voted to rescind Rice’s invitation to speak at commencement in 2014, saying, “Condoleezza Rice … played a prominent role in (the Bush) administration’s effort to mislead the American people about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. And she at the very least condoned the Bush administration’s policy of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ such as waterboarding,” The College Republicans also made it clear that they were not interested in getting Clinton’s event canceled. “We are not protesting Secretary Hillary Clinton’s right to speak on campus, as was regrettably done to Secretary Rice.” Their goal was simply to showcase the disparity in the way each was treated on the Rutgers University campus.

www.dailycaller.com

right

VHcvZ6QGkZa2Xnuj

test

Xr6RDW4IVMhm7sKQ

lgbt_rights

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/06/Same-Sex-Marriage-SCOTUS

SCOTUS Refuses Gay Marriage Cases, Effectively Makes Gay Marriage Law of the Land

2014-10-06

Ben Shapiro

On Monday , the Supreme Court refused to take on the issue of gay marriage – and by doing so , essentially greenlit same-sex marriage across the nation , encouraging low-level courts to continue knocking down traditional marriage laws across the country . Challenges to pro-same-sex marriage rulings in Indiana , Oklahoma , Utah , Virginia and Wisconsin have been rejected , placing all of those states on notice that they must begin issuing marriage licenses to two men or two women . The Court clearly wants to wait until a majority of states have been forced to embrace same-sex marriage by lower-level appeals courts . Then they can determine that a “ trend-line ” has been established , suggest that society has “ evolved , ” and declare that a new standard must be enshrined . That , of course , was the logic of Lawrence v. Texas ( 2003 ) , in which the Court waited 17 years to overrule Bowers v. Hardwick ( 1986 ) , stating that anal penetration was a hard-fought Constitutional right ; the Court in that case stated that Bowers no longer applied because of “ an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex. ” Justice Scalia rightly pointed out that the Court ’ s statement was false – the state , he explained , still regulates “ prostitution , adult incest , adultery , obscenity , and child pornography. ” And Scalia also pointed out that “ Constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence because some States choose to lessen or eliminate criminal sanctions on certain behavior . ” They will wait until the time is right , then declare same-sex marriage the law of the land . They have already given lower courts precisely the tools with which to create an “ emerging consensus. ” Last year , the Court ruled that state attorneys general could simply refuse to defend state laws in favor of traditional marriage , thereby allowing the executive branch of state government to completely destroy law it doesn ’ t like . The Court furthermore set the predicate for future same-sex marriage rulings in United States v. Windsor , in which , as Scalia summarized , the Court declared “ anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency . ” This is the beauty of Supreme Court doctrine : they don ’ t even have to do their judicial dirty work anymore . They can rely on lower-level courts to violate the Constitution , then declare the Constitution magically changed because of an “ emerging ” consensus on violating the Constitution . And the people have no recourse . They can not pass laws that for two and a half centuries have been fully Constitutional . They can not fight state attorneys general who betray their voters . They must sit by as the courts play legal games while awaiting the great Obama-esque “ evolution ” – an evolution that is almost entirely top-down , and that will then be dictated to us by our betters . Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of ███ and author of the new book , The People vs. Barack Obama : The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration ( Threshold Editions , June 10 , 2014 ) . He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org . Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @ benshapiro .

On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to take on the issue of gay marriage – and by doing so, essentially greenlit same-sex marriage across the nation, encouraging low-level courts to continue knocking down traditional marriage laws across the country. Challenges to pro-same-sex marriage rulings in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin have been rejected, placing all of those states on notice that they must begin issuing marriage licenses to two men or two women. The Court clearly wants to wait until a majority of states have been forced to embrace same-sex marriage by lower-level appeals courts. Then they can determine that a “trend-line” has been established, suggest that society has “evolved,” and declare that a new standard must be enshrined. That, of course, was the logic of Lawrence v. Texas (2003), in which the Court waited 17 years to overrule Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), stating that anal penetration was a hard-fought Constitutional right; the Court in that case stated that Bowers no longer applied because of “an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.” Justice Scalia rightly pointed out that the Court’s statement was false – the state, he explained, still regulates “prostitution, adult incest, adultery, obscenity, and child pornography.” And Scalia also pointed out that “Constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence because some States choose to lessen or eliminate criminal sanctions on certain behavior.” But that will not stop the Court. They will wait until the time is right, then declare same-sex marriage the law of the land. They have already given lower courts precisely the tools with which to create an “emerging consensus.” Last year, the Court ruled that state attorneys general could simply refuse to defend state laws in favor of traditional marriage, thereby allowing the executive branch of state government to completely destroy law it doesn’t like. The Court furthermore set the predicate for future same-sex marriage rulings in United States v. Windsor, in which, as Scalia summarized, the Court declared “anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency.” This is the beauty of Supreme Court doctrine: they don’t even have to do their judicial dirty work anymore. They can rely on lower-level courts to violate the Constitution, then declare the Constitution magically changed because of an “emerging” consensus on violating the Constitution. And the people have no recourse. They cannot pass laws that for two and a half centuries have been fully Constitutional. They cannot fight state attorneys general who betray their voters. They must sit by as the courts play legal games while awaiting the great Obama-esque “evolution” – an evolution that is almost entirely top-down, and that will then be dictated to us by our betters. Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

www.breitbart.com

right

Xr6RDW4IVMhm7sKQ

test

QYdMNGCVpRT8X4ne

cybersecurity

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/47797e89ddb470b3244fae3a799481c5

UK, US, Canada accuse Russia of hacking virus vaccine trials

2020-07-16

Eric Tucker, Jill Lawless, Danica Kirka

FILE - In this March 16 , 2020 file photo , a subject receives a shot in the first-stage safety study clinical trial of a potential vaccine by Moderna for COVID-19 , the disease caused by the new coronavirus , at the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle . Britain , the United States and Canada accused Russia on Thursday July 16 , 2020 , of trying to steal information from researchers seeking a COVID-19 vaccine . ( AP Photo/Ted S. Warren , File ) FILE - In this March 16 , 2020 file photo , a subject receives a shot in the first-stage safety study clinical trial of a potential vaccine by Moderna for COVID-19 , the disease caused by the new coronavirus , at the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle . Britain , the United States and Canada accused Russia on Thursday July 16 , 2020 , of trying to steal information from researchers seeking a COVID-19 vaccine . ( AP Photo/Ted S. Warren , File ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — Western governments on Thursday accused hackers believed to be part of Russian intelligence of trying to steal valuable private information about a coronavirus vaccine , calling out the Kremlin in an unusually detailed public warning to scientists and medical companies . The alleged culprit is a familiar foe . Intelligence agencies in the United States , United Kingdom and Canada say the hacking group APT29 , also known as Cozy Bear , is attacking academic and pharmaceutical research institutions involved in COVID-19 vaccine development . The same group was implicated in the hacking of Democratic email accounts during the 2016 U.S. presidential election . It was unclear whether any useful information was stolen . But British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said , “ It is completely unacceptable that the Russian Intelligence Services are targeting those working to combat the coronavirus pandemic . ” He accused Moscow of pursuing “ selfish interests with reckless behavior . ” Sticking to more general language , White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said , “ We worked very closely with our allies to ensure that we would take measures to keep that information safe and we continue do so so . ” The allegation that hackers linked to a foreign government are attempting to siphon secret research during the pandemic is not entirely new . U.S. officials as recently as Thursday have accused China of similar conduct . But the latest warning was startling for the detail it provided , attributing the targeting by name to a particular hacking group and specifying the software vulnerabilities the hackers have been exploiting . Also , Russian cyberattacks strike a particular nerve in the U.S. given the Kremlin ’ s sophisticated campaign to influence the 2016 presidential election . And the coordination of the new warning across continents seemed designed to add heft and gravity to the announcement and to prompt the Western targets of the hackers to protect themselves . “ I think ( the governments ) have very specific intelligence that they can provide , ” said John Hultquist , senior director of analysis at Mandiant Threat Intelligence . “ The report is full of specific operational information that defenders can use ” to protect their networks . Russian President Vladimir Putin ’ s spokesman , Dmitry Peskov , rejected the accusations , saying , “ We don ’ t have information about who may have hacked pharmaceutical companies and research centers in Britain . ” “ We may say one thing : Russia has nothing to do with those attempts , ” Peskov said , according to the state news agency Tass . The accusations come at a tenuous time for relations between Russia and both the U.S. and U.K . Besides political ill will , especially among Democrats , about the 2016 election interference , the Trump administration is under pressure to confront Russia over intelligence information that Moscow offered bounties to Taliban fighters to attack allied fighters . The Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee , Adam Schiff , said “ it ’ s clear that Russia ’ s malign cyber operations and other destabilizing activities — from financial and other material support to non-state actors in Afghanistan to poisoning dissidents in democratic countries — have persisted , even when exposed. ” He urged President Donald Trump to condemn such activities . The vaccine assessment came two years to the day after Trump met with Putin in Helsinki and appeared to side with Moscow over U.S. intelligence agencies about the election interference . The U.K. did not say whether Putin knew about the more recent research hacking , but British officials believe such intelligence would be highly prized . Relations between Russia and the U.K. , meanwhile , have plummeted since former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a Soviet-made nerve agent in the English city of Salisbury in 2018 , though they later recovered . Britain blamed Moscow for the attack , which triggered a round of retaliatory diplomatic expulsions between Russia and Western countries . More broadly , Thursday ’ s announcement speaks to the cybersecurity vulnerability created by the pandemic and the global race for a vaccine . The U.S. Department of Homeland Security ’ s cybersecurity agency warned in May that cybercriminals and other groups were targeting COVID-19 research , noting at the time that the increase in people teleworking because of the pandemic had created potential avenues for hackers to exploit . Profit-motivated criminals have exploited the situation , and so have foreign governments “ who also have their own urgent demands for information about the pandemic and about things like vaccine research , ” Tonya Ugoretz , a deputy assistant director in the FBI ’ s cyber division , said at a cybersecurity conference last month . “ Some of them are using their cyber capabilities to , for example , attempt to break into the networks of those who are conducting this research as well as into nongovernmental organizations to satisfy their own information needs , ” Ugoretz said . The alert did not name the targeted organizations themselves or say how many were affected . But it did say the organizations were in the U.S. , U.K. and Canada , and said the goal was to steal information and intellectual property related to vaccine development . Britain ’ s NCSC said its assessment was shared by the National Security Agency , the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and by the Canadian Communication Security Establishment . A 16-page advisory prepared by Western agencies and made public Thursday accuses Cozy Bear of using custom malicious software to target a number of organizations globally . The malware , called WellMess and WellMail , has not previously been associated with the group , the advisory said . “ In recent attacks targeting COVID-19 vaccine research and development , the group conducted basic vulnerability scanning against specific external IP addresses owned by the organizations . The group then deployed public exploits against the vulnerable services identified , ” the advisory said . Cozy Bear is one of two hacking groups suspected of separate break-ins of computer networks of the Democratic National Committee before the 2016 U.S. election . Stolen emails were then published by WikiLeaks in what U.S. intelligence authorities say was an effort to aid Trump ’ s campaign over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton . A report on Russian election interference by former special counsel Robert Mueller called out another group , Fancy Bear , in the hack-and-leak operation . Cozy Bear , though , operates “ quietly gaining access and gathering intelligence , ” said Hultquist of the Mandiant cybersecurity firm . Separately , Thursday , Britain accused “ Russian actors ” of trying to interfere in December ’ s U.K. national election by circulating leaked or stolen documents online . Unlike in the vaccine report , the U.K. did not allege that the Russian government was involved in the political meddling . This version corrects in paragraph 17 that DHS cybersecurity warned of dangers in May , not April . Lawless and Kirka reported from London . ███ writers Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow and Jonathan Lemire and Ben Fox in Washington contributed .

FILE - In this March 16, 2020 file photo, a subject receives a shot in the first-stage safety study clinical trial of a potential vaccine by Moderna for COVID-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus, at the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle. Britain, the United States and Canada accused Russia on Thursday July 16, 2020, of trying to steal information from researchers seeking a COVID-19 vaccine. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren, File) FILE - In this March 16, 2020 file photo, a subject receives a shot in the first-stage safety study clinical trial of a potential vaccine by Moderna for COVID-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus, at the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle. Britain, the United States and Canada accused Russia on Thursday July 16, 2020, of trying to steal information from researchers seeking a COVID-19 vaccine. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — Western governments on Thursday accused hackers believed to be part of Russian intelligence of trying to steal valuable private information about a coronavirus vaccine, calling out the Kremlin in an unusually detailed public warning to scientists and medical companies. The alleged culprit is a familiar foe. Intelligence agencies in the United States, United Kingdom and Canada say the hacking group APT29, also known as Cozy Bear, is attacking academic and pharmaceutical research institutions involved in COVID-19 vaccine development. The same group was implicated in the hacking of Democratic email accounts during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. ADVERTISEMENT It was unclear whether any useful information was stolen. But British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said, “It is completely unacceptable that the Russian Intelligence Services are targeting those working to combat the coronavirus pandemic.” He accused Moscow of pursuing “selfish interests with reckless behavior.” Sticking to more general language, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said, “We worked very closely with our allies to ensure that we would take measures to keep that information safe and we continue do so so.” The allegation that hackers linked to a foreign government are attempting to siphon secret research during the pandemic is not entirely new. U.S. officials as recently as Thursday have accused China of similar conduct. But the latest warning was startling for the detail it provided, attributing the targeting by name to a particular hacking group and specifying the software vulnerabilities the hackers have been exploiting. Also, Russian cyberattacks strike a particular nerve in the U.S. given the Kremlin’s sophisticated campaign to influence the 2016 presidential election. And the coordination of the new warning across continents seemed designed to add heft and gravity to the announcement and to prompt the Western targets of the hackers to protect themselves. “I think (the governments) have very specific intelligence that they can provide,” said John Hultquist, senior director of analysis at Mandiant Threat Intelligence. “The report is full of specific operational information that defenders can use” to protect their networks. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, rejected the accusations, saying, “We don’t have information about who may have hacked pharmaceutical companies and research centers in Britain.” ADVERTISEMENT “We may say one thing: Russia has nothing to do with those attempts,” Peskov said, according to the state news agency Tass. Full Coverage: Virus Outbreak The accusations come at a tenuous time for relations between Russia and both the U.S. and U.K. Besides political ill will, especially among Democrats, about the 2016 election interference, the Trump administration is under pressure to confront Russia over intelligence information that Moscow offered bounties to Taliban fighters to attack allied fighters. The Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, said “it’s clear that Russia’s malign cyber operations and other destabilizing activities — from financial and other material support to non-state actors in Afghanistan to poisoning dissidents in democratic countries — have persisted, even when exposed.” He urged President Donald Trump to condemn such activities. The vaccine assessment came two years to the day after Trump met with Putin in Helsinki and appeared to side with Moscow over U.S. intelligence agencies about the election interference. The U.K. did not say whether Putin knew about the more recent research hacking, but British officials believe such intelligence would be highly prized. Relations between Russia and the U.K., meanwhile, have plummeted since former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a Soviet-made nerve agent in the English city of Salisbury in 2018, though they later recovered. Britain blamed Moscow for the attack, which triggered a round of retaliatory diplomatic expulsions between Russia and Western countries. More broadly, Thursday’s announcement speaks to the cybersecurity vulnerability created by the pandemic and the global race for a vaccine. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s cybersecurity agency warned in May that cybercriminals and other groups were targeting COVID-19 research, noting at the time that the increase in people teleworking because of the pandemic had created potential avenues for hackers to exploit. Profit-motivated criminals have exploited the situation, and so have foreign governments “who also have their own urgent demands for information about the pandemic and about things like vaccine research,” Tonya Ugoretz, a deputy assistant director in the FBI’s cyber division, said at a cybersecurity conference last month. “Some of them are using their cyber capabilities to, for example, attempt to break into the networks of those who are conducting this research as well as into nongovernmental organizations to satisfy their own information needs,” Ugoretz said. The alert did not name the targeted organizations themselves or say how many were affected. But it did say the organizations were in the U.S., U.K. and Canada, and said the goal was to steal information and intellectual property related to vaccine development. Britain’s NCSC said its assessment was shared by the National Security Agency, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and by the Canadian Communication Security Establishment. A 16-page advisory prepared by Western agencies and made public Thursday accuses Cozy Bear of using custom malicious software to target a number of organizations globally. The malware, called WellMess and WellMail, has not previously been associated with the group, the advisory said. “In recent attacks targeting COVID-19 vaccine research and development, the group conducted basic vulnerability scanning against specific external IP addresses owned by the organizations. The group then deployed public exploits against the vulnerable services identified,” the advisory said. Cozy Bear is one of two hacking groups suspected of separate break-ins of computer networks of the Democratic National Committee before the 2016 U.S. election. Stolen emails were then published by WikiLeaks in what U.S. intelligence authorities say was an effort to aid Trump’s campaign over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. A report on Russian election interference by former special counsel Robert Mueller called out another group, Fancy Bear, in the hack-and-leak operation. Cozy Bear, though, operates “quietly gaining access and gathering intelligence,” said Hultquist of the Mandiant cybersecurity firm. Their goal, he said, is “good old-fashioned espionage.” Separately, Thursday, Britain accused “Russian actors” of trying to interfere in December’s U.K. national election by circulating leaked or stolen documents online. Unlike in the vaccine report, the U.K. did not allege that the Russian government was involved in the political meddling. —- This version corrects in paragraph 17 that DHS cybersecurity warned of dangers in May, not April. Lawless and Kirka reported from London. Associated Press writers Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow and Jonathan Lemire and Ben Fox in Washington contributed.

www.apnews.com

center

QYdMNGCVpRT8X4ne

test

0S6j7oqfJIag8MR4

politics

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41663609

Trump denies 'insensitive' remarks to soldier's widow

US President Donald Trump says a claim that he made insensitive remarks to the recently bereaved widow of a soldier is `` totally fabricated '' . Congresswoman Frederica Wilson said he had told Myeshia Johnson : `` He knew what he was signing up for , but I guess it hurts anyway . '' The Democratic lawmaker said she was shocked by the alleged comments . Sgt La David Johnson was among four US special service soldiers killed in Niger by Islamist militants this month . Mr Trump had already been criticised for not contacting the families of the dead servicemen right after the fatal ambush on 4 October . After ( inaccurately ) swiping at his predecessors for not calling the family members of US soldiers killed in combat , Mr Trump is on the defensive over allegations he mishandled a call with a grieving widow . The accuser is a partisan Democratic congresswoman and the president , not surprisingly , is pushing back hard . This controversy is spiralling towards the gutter . Mr Trump made this bed , however . He was quick to cite the slain son of chief of staff John Kelly to justify his contention that Barack Obama did n't always make phone calls . Then there were the disparaging comments candidate Mr Trump made last summer about the parents of a Muslim-American soldier killed in Iraq . The more this story drags on - and it will drag on - the more damage it could do to a president who wraps himself in the symbols of patriotism and the military , but is in danger of being viewed by the public as lacking empathy when it counts most . An important presidential role is consoler-in-chief during times of tragedy . Successful politicians learn early that they need a human touch . It 's a job Mr Trump , the anti-politician , has little experience doing - and it shows . The president tweeted on Wednesday morning : `` Democrat Congresswoman totally fabricated what I said to the wife of a soldier who died in action ( and I have proof ) . Sad ! '' A White House official said Mr Trump 's conversations with the families of dead servicemen were private . Mr Trump later told reporters : `` I did not say what she [ Ms Wilson ] said ... I had a very nice conversation . '' When asked about what `` proof '' he could offer , Trump said : `` Let her make her statement again , then you will find out . '' Ms Wilson , who represents a Florida district , told CNN the president 's call had been made shortly before Sgt Johnson 's coffin arrived by aircraft in Miami . Ms Wilson told WPLG , a Miami TV station , she had heard the president 's `` so insensitive '' remarks to the widow on speakerphone in a limousine . `` Yeah , he [ President Trump ] said that , '' Ms Wilson said . `` To me , that is something that you can say in a conversation , but you should n't say that to a grieving widow . `` And everyone knows when you go to war , you could possibly not come back alive . But you do n't remind a grieving widow of that . '' Ms Wilson told the Washington Post that Ms Johnson , who is expecting the couple 's third child , had broken down in tears after the conversation . The congresswoman told the newspaper that she had wanted to grab the phone and `` curse him out '' , but an army sergeant who was holding the handset would not let her speak to the president . She later responded to Mr Trump 's denial by tweeting : `` I stand my account of the call with @ realDonaldTrump and was not the only one who heard and was dismayed by his insensitive remarks . '' And Sgt Johnson 's mother , Cowanda Jones-Johnson , told the Washington Post newspaper that President Trump `` did disrespect my son '' . She said she was present during the call from the White House on Tuesday , and stood by Ms Wilson 's account of the call . Mr Trump has been on the defensive over the deaths in Niger since a reporter asked him at the White House on Monday why he had still not called the families . He provoked fury by falsely claiming that his predecessor , Barack Obama , and other former US presidents had not called the relatives of dead service members . Mr Trump also said he had written letters to the families of the four killed in Niger and planned to call them soon . The White House later said the president had spoken to the families but it did not say when . On Tuesday , Mr Trump ratcheted up the row by suggesting that President Obama had not called the family of Mr Trump 's chief of staff , Gen John Kelly , when his son was killed in Afghanistan in 2010 . The Associated Press says that like presidents before him , Mr Trump has made personal contact with some families of dead soldiers - but not all . `` What 's different is that Trump , alone among them , has picked a political fight over who 's done better to honour the war dead and their families , '' the news agency reports . `` He placed himself at the top of this pantheon , boasting Tuesday that ' I think I 've called every family of someone who 's died ' while past presidents did n't place such calls . '' This is not the first time Mr Trump has found himself in an imbroglio over US veterans . As presidential candidate , he mocked Senator John McCain for having been captured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam . He also engaged in a racially charged feud with the parents of decorated army captain Humayun Khan , who was killed in Iraq in 2004 .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Congresswoman Frederica Wilson: "How insensitive can you be?" US President Donald Trump says a claim that he made insensitive remarks to the recently bereaved widow of a soldier is "totally fabricated". Congresswoman Frederica Wilson said he had told Myeshia Johnson: "He knew what he was signing up for, but I guess it hurts anyway." The Democratic lawmaker said she was shocked by the alleged comments. Sgt La David Johnson was among four US special service soldiers killed in Niger by Islamist militants this month. Mr Trump had already been criticised for not contacting the families of the dead servicemen right after the fatal ambush on 4 October. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Mr Trump has been criticised for the alleged remarks Consoler-in-chief? By Anthony Zurcher, senior North America reporter, BBC News In US politics, nothing is off-limits any more. After (inaccurately) swiping at his predecessors for not calling the family members of US soldiers killed in combat, Mr Trump is on the defensive over allegations he mishandled a call with a grieving widow. The accuser is a partisan Democratic congresswoman and the president, not surprisingly, is pushing back hard. This controversy is spiralling towards the gutter. Mr Trump made this bed, however. He was quick to cite the slain son of chief of staff John Kelly to justify his contention that Barack Obama didn't always make phone calls. Then there were the disparaging comments candidate Mr Trump made last summer about the parents of a Muslim-American soldier killed in Iraq. The more this story drags on - and it will drag on - the more damage it could do to a president who wraps himself in the symbols of patriotism and the military, but is in danger of being viewed by the public as lacking empathy when it counts most. An important presidential role is consoler-in-chief during times of tragedy. Successful politicians learn early that they need a human touch. It's a job Mr Trump, the anti-politician, has little experience doing - and it shows. How did Trump respond? The president tweeted on Wednesday morning: "Democrat Congresswoman totally fabricated what I said to the wife of a soldier who died in action (and I have proof). Sad!" Mr Trump has yet to provide any evidence. A White House official said Mr Trump's conversations with the families of dead servicemen were private. Mr Trump later told reporters: "I did not say what she [Ms Wilson] said... I had a very nice conversation." When asked about what "proof" he could offer, Trump said: "Let her make her statement again, then you will find out." What do his accusers say? Ms Wilson, who represents a Florida district, told CNN the president's call had been made shortly before Sgt Johnson's coffin arrived by aircraft in Miami. Ms Wilson told WPLG, a Miami TV station, she had heard the president's "so insensitive" remarks to the widow on speakerphone in a limousine. "Yeah, he [President Trump] said that," Ms Wilson said. "To me, that is something that you can say in a conversation, but you shouldn't say that to a grieving widow. "And everyone knows when you go to war, you could possibly not come back alive. But you don't remind a grieving widow of that." Image copyright CBS News/US Army Ms Wilson told the Washington Post that Ms Johnson, who is expecting the couple's third child, had broken down in tears after the conversation. "He made her cry," Ms Wilson said. The congresswoman told the newspaper that she had wanted to grab the phone and "curse him out", but an army sergeant who was holding the handset would not let her speak to the president. She later responded to Mr Trump's denial by tweeting: "I stand my account of the call with @realDonaldTrump and was not the only one who heard and was dismayed by his insensitive remarks." And Sgt Johnson's mother, Cowanda Jones-Johnson, told the Washington Post newspaper that President Trump "did disrespect my son". She said she was present during the call from the White House on Tuesday, and stood by Ms Wilson's account of the call. How did this row begin? Mr Trump has been on the defensive over the deaths in Niger since a reporter asked him at the White House on Monday why he had still not called the families. He provoked fury by falsely claiming that his predecessor, Barack Obama, and other former US presidents had not called the relatives of dead service members. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Trump denigrates Obama over false fallen soldier claim Mr Trump also said he had written letters to the families of the four killed in Niger and planned to call them soon. The White House later said the president had spoken to the families but it did not say when. On Tuesday, Mr Trump ratcheted up the row by suggesting that President Obama had not called the family of Mr Trump's chief of staff, Gen John Kelly, when his son was killed in Afghanistan in 2010. The Associated Press says that like presidents before him, Mr Trump has made personal contact with some families of dead soldiers - but not all. "What's different is that Trump, alone among them, has picked a political fight over who's done better to honour the war dead and their families," the news agency reports. "He placed himself at the top of this pantheon, boasting Tuesday that 'I think I've called every family of someone who's died' while past presidents didn't place such calls." Have there been previous run-ins? This is not the first time Mr Trump has found himself in an imbroglio over US veterans. As presidential candidate, he mocked Senator John McCain for having been captured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. He also engaged in a racially charged feud with the parents of decorated army captain Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq in 2004.

www.bbc.com

center

0S6j7oqfJIag8MR4

test

n03lqSPi7emekfD8

lgbt_rights

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/an-identity-crisis-of-a-decade/

An Identity Crisis of a Decade

Daniel J. Flynn, Ben Stein, Terry Heinrichs, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Robert Stacy Mccain, Jeff Goldstein, Jeffrey Lord

A transgender “ man ” just gave birth to a child named Jamie in Great Britain fathered by a transgender “ woman. ” This seems a fitting coda to the 2010s . The decade in search of an identity passes mercifully at midnight . It began with the first black president . It ended with the first orange president . Many of the same people who voted for hope and change cast ballots to make America great again . Along the way , Americans joined tea parties , occupied Wall Street , wore red MAGA hats , and proclaimed that black lives mattered . People seeking to lose their individuality found mass movements more than eager to subsume their identities in the glob . We liked Star Wars , Star Trek , and A Star Is Born the first time . Naturally , a decade without its own identity resurrected them , and The Lion King , Hawaii Five-O , Dallas , The A-Team , Planet of the Apes , Beverly Hills 90210 , and so much else for parasitic purposes . Septuagenarians selling nostalgia , and nostalgia several generations removed at that , dominated the concert circuit . Whoever said , “ Keep the past in the past , ” never said it to the 2010s . Of the top 10 box office draws of each of the last 10 years , superhero movies constituted a full third of them . We know the secret identities of Peter Parker , Steve Rogers , and Bruce Banner . The identities of Americans living vicariously , and sometimes in costume , through old comic-book characters appearing on screens in CGI in search of a story seem more mysterious . Emojis conveyed a deeper sense of individuality than this easily herded horde . Speaking of secret identities , we thought we knew Matt Lauer , Subway Jared , Bill Cosby , Charlie Rose , and so many others as nonthreatening , beta-ish males deserving of their high Q ratings . Then # MeToo and accusers exposed them as figures unfit to sell pudding pops and five-dollar footlongs and phony public television intellectualism set to black backgrounds . Victimhood impressed in the 2010s . Bad actor Jussie Smollett won no Emmys pretending that Trump supporters who watched Empire recognized him in the early morning hours of a Chicago enveloped in a polar vortex , and proceeded to beat him , hurl racial and anti-homosexual slurs at him , put a noose around his neck , and pour bleach upon him as he ventured into the night in search of a submarine sandwich . An American Indian portrayed himself as a human shield protecting four older black men from enraged MAGA-hat wearing Covington Catholic high school students on a field trip to Washington ; the full video showed Black Israelites hurling slurs at the boys and the Native American approaching them with a drum bizarrely banged at too-close-for-comfort range . The media naturally went with what flattered their prejudices and discarded common sense and video evidence . # Narratives . Cultural tics masquerading as public health crusades told us that football is bad for you and cannabis is good for you . Regarding health , the government , in keeping with its paternalistic arrogance , recognized 26-year-olds as children . Americans , and Brits , told pollsters one thing and then did another thing at the polls . We lived shorter lives than we once did , a grim statistic fueled by gluttony , addiction , and other diseases of the soul , as we laboriously attempted to convince others of our happiness through the hi-tech slide shows of social media . We imagined terrorists in Syria , Egypt , and elsewhere in the Middle East as freedom fighters until we didn ’ t . We pretended not to laugh at jokes about difference and laughed out of ideological solidarity at political sermons masked as comedy . Average Americans showed greater difficulty identifying celebrities as fame moved away from accomplishment . We bullied to advance anti-bullying campaigns , became body positive about the morbidly obese , and imagined everything not politics — sports , awards shows , shaving-cream commercials , fast food restaurants specializing in chicken , etc . — as politics . Fake news , bot social media accounts , fact-challenged fact checkers , and lie-for-a-living influencers became accepted parts of the communications terrain . What just happened in these 10 years that lasted 10 seconds ? The fifties screamed James Dean and diners and door-to-door salesmen . The eighties arrived as the seventies with a shave and a shower only to move further away as a result of the push of MTV , John Hughes , Pac Man , and Ronald Reagan . Does the decade that invented Neflix-and-chill and fed on the decay of past pop cultures offer much in the way of distinguishing characteristics ? Julia Sweeney predicted our current confusion almost three decades ago on a skit called “ It ’ s Pat ” that Saturday Night Live would reject for airing today as transphobic . Sure , Bradley Manning began the decade as a U.S. Army specialist in Iraq telling Julian Assange everything he knows about the government and Chelsea Manning ended it in a jail cell in Alexandria , Virginia , for refusing to tell the government anything she knows about Julian Assange . And , yes , Bruce Jenner rechristened himself Caitlyn Jenner ( then she did something truly stunning and brave in coming out as a Republican ) . But that ’ s not quite the identity crisis that the androgynous SNL character conjures up about now . We can not figure out the 2010s like that earlier audience could not put a finger on Pat . When we ask Pat about her love interest , she says “ Chris. ” When we investigate the Pat Decade , we see monster tours by Billy Joel and the Rolling Stones , Star Wars and Batman dominating at the box office , and a one-way time machine called YouTube bringing us back to Yesterdayville . Were the 2010s about presidential teleprompters or Tourette ’ s ? Wokeness or its alarm-clock-jarring counterslap ? Shocking multiple-victim public shootings or the numbing down effect of that shock as a result of their frequency ? Perhaps in a time when Amazon caters to shoppers through algorithms and news programs target Democrats and Republicans more than the facts , we should remember the times as this and that because that ’ s the personalized way we experienced them . In an age in which identity acted as the buzzword , most Americans ironically seemed as befuddled about their identity , personal , national , and otherwise , as viewers of “ It ’ s Pat ” were about hers , er , his , um , zirs . The absence of a decadal hallmark leaves a mark all its own .

A transgender “man” just gave birth to a child named Jamie in Great Britain fathered by a transgender “woman.” This seems a fitting coda to the 2010s. The decade in search of an identity passes mercifully at midnight. It began with the first black president. It ended with the first orange president. Many of the same people who voted for hope and change cast ballots to make America great again. Along the way, Americans joined tea parties, occupied Wall Street, wore red MAGA hats, and proclaimed that black lives mattered. People seeking to lose their individuality found mass movements more than eager to subsume their identities in the glob. We liked Star Wars, Star Trek, and A Star Is Born the first time. Naturally, a decade without its own identity resurrected them, and The Lion King, Hawaii Five-O, Dallas, The A-Team, Planet of the Apes, Beverly Hills 90210, and so much else for parasitic purposes. Septuagenarians selling nostalgia, and nostalgia several generations removed at that, dominated the concert circuit. Whoever said, “Keep the past in the past,” never said it to the 2010s. Of the top 10 box office draws of each of the last 10 years, superhero movies constituted a full third of them. We know the secret identities of Peter Parker, Steve Rogers, and Bruce Banner. The identities of Americans living vicariously, and sometimes in costume, through old comic-book characters appearing on screens in CGI in search of a story seem more mysterious. Emojis conveyed a deeper sense of individuality than this easily herded horde. Speaking of secret identities, we thought we knew Matt Lauer, Subway Jared, Bill Cosby, Charlie Rose, and so many others as nonthreatening, beta-ish males deserving of their high Q ratings. Then #MeToo and accusers exposed them as figures unfit to sell pudding pops and five-dollar footlongs and phony public television intellectualism set to black backgrounds. Victimhood impressed in the 2010s. Bad actor Jussie Smollett won no Emmys pretending that Trump supporters who watched Empire recognized him in the early morning hours of a Chicago enveloped in a polar vortex, and proceeded to beat him, hurl racial and anti-homosexual slurs at him, put a noose around his neck, and pour bleach upon him as he ventured into the night in search of a submarine sandwich. An American Indian portrayed himself as a human shield protecting four older black men from enraged MAGA-hat wearing Covington Catholic high school students on a field trip to Washington; the full video showed Black Israelites hurling slurs at the boys and the Native American approaching them with a drum bizarrely banged at too-close-for-comfort range. The media naturally went with what flattered their prejudices and discarded common sense and video evidence. #Narratives. Cultural tics masquerading as public health crusades told us that football is bad for you and cannabis is good for you. Regarding health, the government, in keeping with its paternalistic arrogance, recognized 26-year-olds as children. Americans, and Brits, told pollsters one thing and then did another thing at the polls. We lived shorter lives than we once did, a grim statistic fueled by gluttony, addiction, and other diseases of the soul, as we laboriously attempted to convince others of our happiness through the hi-tech slide shows of social media. We imagined terrorists in Syria, Egypt, and elsewhere in the Middle East as freedom fighters until we didn’t. We pretended not to laugh at jokes about difference and laughed out of ideological solidarity at political sermons masked as comedy. Average Americans showed greater difficulty identifying celebrities as fame moved away from accomplishment. We bullied to advance anti-bullying campaigns, became body positive about the morbidly obese, and imagined everything not politics — sports, awards shows, shaving-cream commercials, fast food restaurants specializing in chicken, etc. — as politics. Fake news, bot social media accounts, fact-challenged fact checkers, and lie-for-a-living influencers became accepted parts of the communications terrain. What just happened in these 10 years that lasted 10 seconds? The fifties screamed James Dean and diners and door-to-door salesmen. The eighties arrived as the seventies with a shave and a shower only to move further away as a result of the push of MTV, John Hughes, Pac Man, and Ronald Reagan. Does the decade that invented Neflix-and-chill and fed on the decay of past pop cultures offer much in the way of distinguishing characteristics? Julia Sweeney predicted our current confusion almost three decades ago on a skit called “It’s Pat” that Saturday Night Live would reject for airing today as transphobic. Sure, Bradley Manning began the decade as a U.S. Army specialist in Iraq telling Julian Assange everything he knows about the government and Chelsea Manning ended it in a jail cell in Alexandria, Virginia, for refusing to tell the government anything she knows about Julian Assange. And, yes, Bruce Jenner rechristened himself Caitlyn Jenner (then she did something truly stunning and brave in coming out as a Republican). But that’s not quite the identity crisis that the androgynous SNL character conjures up about now. We cannot figure out the 2010s like that earlier audience could not put a finger on Pat. When we ask Pat about her love interest, she says “Chris.” When we investigate the Pat Decade, we see monster tours by Billy Joel and the Rolling Stones, Star Wars and Batman dominating at the box office, and a one-way time machine called YouTube bringing us back to Yesterdayville. Were the 2010s about presidential teleprompters or Tourette’s? Wokeness or its alarm-clock-jarring counterslap? Shocking multiple-victim public shootings or the numbing down effect of that shock as a result of their frequency? Perhaps in a time when Amazon caters to shoppers through algorithms and news programs target Democrats and Republicans more than the facts, we should remember the times as this and that because that’s the personalized way we experienced them. In an age in which identity acted as the buzzword, most Americans ironically seemed as befuddled about their identity, personal, national, and otherwise, as viewers of “It’s Pat” were about hers, er, his, um, zirs. The absence of a decadal hallmark leaves a mark all its own.

www.spectator.org

right

n03lqSPi7emekfD8

test

79xjQmQh13YKxRm5

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/understanding-trump-and-the-fear-for-u-s-democracy/

Understanding Trump and the Fear for U.S. Democracy

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

Americans are constantly being warned that Donald Trump ’ s presidency means the end of American democracy — this from not simply obvious partisans but Hollywood and TV , the nation ’ s top journalists and commentators , the academy , mainstream think tanks , Republican and Democratic politicians and even former presidents of both political parties . To understand this fear requires reaching back to one of the great political scientists of the 20th century . His character is best exemplified by the fact he insisted that credit for his accomplishments be shared by listing his associates in alphabetical order with his name Wildavsky , Aaron Wildavsky , always unpretentiously last . His crowning glory was a book titled Culture Theory ( with Richard J. Ellis and Michael Thompson elaborating on earlier ideas from Mary Douglas and Thompson ) that after decades still drives much modern research . The jewel is a four-part typology of human subcultures that populate all societies , rivaling each other for adherents , prestige , resources , and power . The subcultures range along two cross-cutting continua — the importance they place on group solidarity and upon cultural conformity . Deferential people who value high group solidarity and strong conformity to social rules and mores ; Egalitarians who rate solidarity important within their group but oppose conformity to general societal rules and restrictions ; Individualists who have low tolerance for both group solidarity and social restraints ; and Fatalists who demonstrate low solidarity within their group but high conformity to common social mores . These cultures derive from different views of human nature . Individualists have a highly positive view of nature as benign and so do not require support by either groups or social customs . They view their environment so positively that Wildavsky pictures each confident Individualist as a glass marble fully nested deep within a test tube where he hardly can be shaken out into nature ’ s dangers . The Egalitarian , on the contrary , is extremely wary of an ephemeral nature , picturing his marble-self resting uneasily at the top of an inverted test tube , always in danger of falling and so requiring a very strong group cohesion to keep things from tumbling into nature ’ s void . The Deferential views his marble-self balanced between two tubes protected on each side from nature ’ s harm but still with sufficient threat to require protection by a strong beneficial hierarchical social order where everyone follows the rules and works in their own groups to keep all safe . The Fatalist follows the rules but not because all work together in harmony but because the rules bind everyone under furtive and dangerous forces that determine one ’ s life with little rhyme , reason , or beneficence . The analogy is not to a tube at all but to a glass plane around which his marble can roll dangerously and capriciously in any mysterious direction at all . Individual nations have different mixes of these four types ( there is a fifth but is very small ) that can change in their size and composition over time . Using this model can help one understand today ’ s Trump phenomenon and the presumed threat to democracy . How about his winning the presidency ? Using Wildavsky I predicted months before others that Trump would be a serious candidate because he represented a real constituency that was ignored by the others . Fatalists are a normally quiescent cultural group accepting their fate , alienated from politics until someone new comes offering some escape from the normal rules stacked against them by the powerful establishment forces holding them down . African-American Fatalists had been mobilized by Barack Obama and rural , blue-collar , white Fatalists were susceptible to Trump ’ s appeal . Egalitarians would view Trump as dangerous simply for poaching their traditional allies but his message so successfully undermined the presumptions justifying their political leadership that they responded reflexively , emotionally . In their view Trump questioned the fundamentals , the very nature of reality . He was a denier of the obvious fragility of the planet , the immanent environmental catastrophe threatening us all , and the need for all Americans to unite to save it . He questioned science and called egalitarian media fake ! He threatened to abandon the crucial Paris environmental agreement and even to increase energy consumption to create more jobs , then changing regulations to then actually harm the environment and eliminate the funds needed for the crusade by cutting taxes on the rich . To win , such a person could only have stolen the election with Russians ’ help , both of them plotting to destroy American democracy . Many Deferentials were also upset . Society is a careful balancing act between disputing group forces requiring a fine consensual institutional order to keep the peace . Trump threatened to upset this fine balance between the networks of society , threatening good relations between leaders and followers . His language was divisive between groups upsetting the social hierarchy and perhaps undermining the whole moral consensus . He was constantly stirring things up , not gentlemanly . Individualists were concerned too ; did he really value freedom ? But they liked his independent political incorrectness and thought he might give government a good shaking out — and nature is resilient enough to recover from his wild ways anyway . Well , these are generalities . Let ’ s start with the former presidents . As award-winning syndicated columnist and TV and radio commentator E.J . Dionne Jr. was kind enough to explain , the coinciding October 2017 speeches by George W. Bush and Barack Obama were “ searing , overlapping condemnations of Trumpism without naming President Trump. ” Yes , but the differences between the two types were critical . Deferential Bush was concerned that “ our discourse ” today was now “ degraded by casual cruelty ” and “ turns too easily into animosity . Disagreement escalates into dehumanization , ” upsetting the social order . Egalitarian Obama told David Letterman : “ One of the biggest challenges we have to our democracy is the degree to which we don ’ t share a common baseline of facts . If you watch Fox News , you are living on a different planet than you are if you are listening to NPR. ” Translation : do you not understand we are all in peril together and must all unite on common NPR facts and confront the Fox space-aliens to save our planet ? Even less combative egalitarians simply can not help themselves . Deputy Washington Post commentary editor and Pulitzer finalist Ruth Marcus was cool enough to concede that “ people like me ” may disagree with Trump ’ s policies “ but they are the natural result of having elected a Republican president. ” But the good Egalitarian could not stop there . “ The longer-term and greater danger is that Trump does not believe in American ideals and institutions . He does not believe in a free press or free speech ; unconstrained , he would crack down on both . He does not believe in the rule of law , a Justice Department free of political interference , the separation of powers or an independent judiciary . He does not believe in the United States as a beacon and example to the world. ” “ Trump does not reflect who we are. ” The good folks holding the beacon must come together and save the nation and the world from this horrible man . Well , that is just partisans . Harvard ’ s Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt ’ s new book How Democracies Die promised a more neutral academic view with four objective criteria offered to evaluate whether a democracy is being threatened by an authoritarian leader : by his rejecting the rules of the game , by denying legitimacy to opponents , by tolerating political violence , and by undermining opponents ’ civil liberties . But they found Trump violating each of these even before being elected because he lashed out at Obama and Hillary Clinton , denying “ the legitimacy of opponents ” by labeling them “ foreign agents ” among other slurs . Trump does not even tell the truth and “ without credible information about what our elected leaders do we can not effectively exercise our right to vote , ” with previous presidents apparently all truth-tellers — and not name-callers . The authors found that “ Trump exhibited clear authoritarian instincts ” in criticizing the FBI and media — only “ instincts , ” and apparently not held by earlier presidents ? They first said Trump “ rejects the Constitution ” but then fell back to , even if he “ did not break the hard guardrails of our constitutional democracy he has increased the likelihood that a future president will. ” Since people did “ not immediately realize what is happening , ” even thinking they still “ are living in a democracy , ” the Republican Party must be “ refounded ” as Germany ’ s conservative party was after Hitler , an analysis ending-up sounding more Egalitarian-partisan than objective . On the other side of the cultural spectrum , it merely took tax cuts , and deregulation to lead Individualist voters and intellectuals to downplay Trump positions on trade and immigration and turn a blind eye to the big spending and large debt they previously thought would bring bankruptcy , cheerily hoping all will turn out right anyway . Many Deferentials came to support Trump for social conservative appointments to cabinet and court , especially the Supreme Court , while Fatalists were uncharacteristically positive and looking forward to the wall . With all the subcultures reverting to type , half of the country still thought it was the end of democracy . All Egalitarians , the Deferential groups wedded to the status quo and upset by Trump ’ s demeanor , and minority group Fatalists were resolutely opposed . A perhaps crucial further Deferential group remained up for grabs . Unlike the dyed-in-the-wool Democrat groups , these Deferentials were Republican , overwhelmingly upper middle class , suburban and mostly female . These really do not like his bad manners and his macho style . He is uncouth , like a bad boyfriend or spouse . He is not caring , could cut benefits to the needy , or to the not so needy . All remain deeply set within our cultural presuppositions . Former CEO of National Public Radio Ken Stern tried to break out , noticing that “ most reporters and editors are liberal ” — that is egalitarian — based on an old poll but also on his own experience at NPR . “ When you are liberal , and everyone else around you is as well , it is easy to fall into groupthink on what stories are important , what sources are legitimate and what the narrative of the day will be . ” This may seem like an unusual admission from someone who once ran NPR , but it is borne of recent experience . Spurred by a fear that red and blue America were drifting irrevocably apart , I decided to venture out from my overwhelmingly Democratic neighborhood and engage Republicans where they live , work and pray . For an entire year , I embedded myself with the other side , standing in pit row at a NASCAR race , hanging out at Tea Party meetings and sitting in on Steve Bannon ’ s radio show . I found an America far different from the one depicted in the press and imagined by presidents ( “ cling to guns or religion ” ) and presidential candidates ( “ basket of deplorables ” ) alike . Stern argued that this does not justify “ the attacks from President Trump , which are terribly inappropriate coming from the head of government . At the same time , the media should acknowledge its own failings in reflecting only their part of America . You can ’ t cover America from the Acela corridor , and the media need to get out and be part of the conversations that take place in churches and community centers and town halls . ” Do not hold your breath . A Newsbusters review of TV news coverage for 2017 found 5,883 evaluative statements about President Trump or his administration from reporters , anchors or non-partisan experts and “ only about 10 percent of those comments ( 617 ) were positive , compared with 5,266 ( 90 % ) which were negative , ” much higher than in previous administrations . Confirming Trump ’ s charges , the Russia investigation was the networks ’ favorite topic , with an astonishing 20 hours , 34 minutes of coverage , or more than one-fifth of all Trump coverage last year . The good news is that our democracy is not merely not in danger but is thriving in the normal battle between our political subcultures . The difference is that Donald Trump attacks the ruling Egalitarian media/cultural establishment ’ s previously unquestionable assumptions and they do not like it one bit . They are used to telling Americans what to think and no one likes their deep-held prejudices to be exposed to public ridicule . Donald Devine is senior scholar at the Fund for American Studies , the author of America ’ s Way Back : Reclaiming Freedom , Tradition and Constitution , and was Ronald Reagan ’ s director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management during his first term .

Americans are constantly being warned that Donald Trump’s presidency means the end of American democracy — this from not simply obvious partisans but Hollywood and TV, the nation’s top journalists and commentators, the academy, mainstream think tanks, Republican and Democratic politicians and even former presidents of both political parties. To understand this fear requires reaching back to one of the great political scientists of the 20th century. His character is best exemplified by the fact he insisted that credit for his accomplishments be shared by listing his associates in alphabetical order with his name Wildavsky, Aaron Wildavsky, always unpretentiously last. His crowning glory was a book titled Culture Theory (with Richard J. Ellis and Michael Thompson elaborating on earlier ideas from Mary Douglas and Thompson) that after decades still drives much modern research. The jewel is a four-part typology of human subcultures that populate all societies, rivaling each other for adherents, prestige, resources, and power. The subcultures range along two cross-cutting continua — the importance they place on group solidarity and upon cultural conformity. The resulting four cultures are: Deferential people who value high group solidarity and strong conformity to social rules and mores; Egalitarians who rate solidarity important within their group but oppose conformity to general societal rules and restrictions; Individualists who have low tolerance for both group solidarity and social restraints; and Fatalists who demonstrate low solidarity within their group but high conformity to common social mores. These cultures derive from different views of human nature. Individualists have a highly positive view of nature as benign and so do not require support by either groups or social customs. They view their environment so positively that Wildavsky pictures each confident Individualist as a glass marble fully nested deep within a test tube where he hardly can be shaken out into nature’s dangers. The Egalitarian, on the contrary, is extremely wary of an ephemeral nature, picturing his marble-self resting uneasily at the top of an inverted test tube, always in danger of falling and so requiring a very strong group cohesion to keep things from tumbling into nature’s void. The Deferential views his marble-self balanced between two tubes protected on each side from nature’s harm but still with sufficient threat to require protection by a strong beneficial hierarchical social order where everyone follows the rules and works in their own groups to keep all safe. The Fatalist follows the rules but not because all work together in harmony but because the rules bind everyone under furtive and dangerous forces that determine one’s life with little rhyme, reason, or beneficence. The analogy is not to a tube at all but to a glass plane around which his marble can roll dangerously and capriciously in any mysterious direction at all. Individual nations have different mixes of these four types (there is a fifth but is very small) that can change in their size and composition over time. Using this model can help one understand today’s Trump phenomenon and the presumed threat to democracy. How about his winning the presidency? Using Wildavsky I predicted months before others that Trump would be a serious candidate because he represented a real constituency that was ignored by the others. Fatalists are a normally quiescent cultural group accepting their fate, alienated from politics until someone new comes offering some escape from the normal rules stacked against them by the powerful establishment forces holding them down. African-American Fatalists had been mobilized by Barack Obama and rural, blue-collar, white Fatalists were susceptible to Trump’s appeal. Egalitarians would view Trump as dangerous simply for poaching their traditional allies but his message so successfully undermined the presumptions justifying their political leadership that they responded reflexively, emotionally. In their view Trump questioned the fundamentals, the very nature of reality. He was a denier of the obvious fragility of the planet, the immanent environmental catastrophe threatening us all, and the need for all Americans to unite to save it. He questioned science and called egalitarian media fake! He threatened to abandon the crucial Paris environmental agreement and even to increase energy consumption to create more jobs, then changing regulations to then actually harm the environment and eliminate the funds needed for the crusade by cutting taxes on the rich. To win, such a person could only have stolen the election with Russians’ help, both of them plotting to destroy American democracy. Many Deferentials were also upset. Society is a careful balancing act between disputing group forces requiring a fine consensual institutional order to keep the peace. Trump threatened to upset this fine balance between the networks of society, threatening good relations between leaders and followers. His language was divisive between groups upsetting the social hierarchy and perhaps undermining the whole moral consensus. He was constantly stirring things up, not gentlemanly. Individualists were concerned too; did he really value freedom? But they liked his independent political incorrectness and thought he might give government a good shaking out — and nature is resilient enough to recover from his wild ways anyway. Well, these are generalities. Let’s start with the former presidents. As award-winning syndicated columnist and TV and radio commentator E.J. Dionne Jr. was kind enough to explain, the coinciding October 2017 speeches by George W. Bush and Barack Obama were “searing, overlapping condemnations of Trumpism without naming President Trump.” Yes, but the differences between the two types were critical. Deferential Bush was concerned that “our discourse” today was now “degraded by casual cruelty” and “turns too easily into animosity. Disagreement escalates into dehumanization,” upsetting the social order. Egalitarian Obama told David Letterman: “One of the biggest challenges we have to our democracy is the degree to which we don’t share a common baseline of facts. If you watch Fox News, you are living on a different planet than you are if you are listening to NPR.” Translation: do you not understand we are all in peril together and must all unite on common NPR facts and confront the Fox space-aliens to save our planet? In his numerous books, one-hundred news outlets and TV appearances, Dionne became a Johnny-one-note: “the central fact of our political situation” today is “that Trump is systematically sapping at our democratic capacity.” “We can try to resist being drawn into this swamp of petty invective” but this would mean “overlooking” his “ruthless attacks.” Trump’s threat to democracy and good government — which is obvious “except to the most blind partisans,” those Republicans with their “decrepit ideology” — requires equally hardnosed opposition or “our system of self-government will disappear before our eyes.” Even less combative egalitarians simply cannot help themselves. Deputy Washington Post commentary editor and Pulitzer finalist Ruth Marcus was cool enough to concede that “people like me” may disagree with Trump’s policies “but they are the natural result of having elected a Republican president.” But the good Egalitarian could not stop there. “The longer-term and greater danger is that Trump does not believe in American ideals and institutions. He does not believe in a free press or free speech; unconstrained, he would crack down on both. He does not believe in the rule of law, a Justice Department free of political interference, the separation of powers or an independent judiciary. He does not believe in the United States as a beacon and example to the world.” “Trump does not reflect who we are.” The good folks holding the beacon must come together and save the nation and the world from this horrible man. Well, that is just partisans. Harvard’s Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s new book How Democracies Die promised a more neutral academic view with four objective criteria offered to evaluate whether a democracy is being threatened by an authoritarian leader: by his rejecting the rules of the game, by denying legitimacy to opponents, by tolerating political violence, and by undermining opponents’ civil liberties. But they found Trump violating each of these even before being elected because he lashed out at Obama and Hillary Clinton, denying “the legitimacy of opponents” by labeling them “foreign agents” among other slurs. Trump does not even tell the truth and “without credible information about what our elected leaders do we cannot effectively exercise our right to vote,” with previous presidents apparently all truth-tellers — and not name-callers. The authors found that “Trump exhibited clear authoritarian instincts” in criticizing the FBI and media — only “instincts,” and apparently not held by earlier presidents? They first said Trump “rejects the Constitution” but then fell back to, even if he “did not break the hard guardrails of our constitutional democracy he has increased the likelihood that a future president will.” Since people did “not immediately realize what is happening,” even thinking they still “are living in a democracy,” the Republican Party must be “refounded” as Germany’s conservative party was after Hitler, an analysis ending-up sounding more Egalitarian-partisan than objective. On the other side of the cultural spectrum, it merely took tax cuts, and deregulation to lead Individualist voters and intellectuals to downplay Trump positions on trade and immigration and turn a blind eye to the big spending and large debt they previously thought would bring bankruptcy, cheerily hoping all will turn out right anyway. Many Deferentials came to support Trump for social conservative appointments to cabinet and court, especially the Supreme Court, while Fatalists were uncharacteristically positive and looking forward to the wall. With all the subcultures reverting to type, half of the country still thought it was the end of democracy. All Egalitarians, the Deferential groups wedded to the status quo and upset by Trump’s demeanor, and minority group Fatalists were resolutely opposed. A perhaps crucial further Deferential group remained up for grabs. Unlike the dyed-in-the-wool Democrat groups, these Deferentials were Republican, overwhelmingly upper middle class, suburban and mostly female. These really do not like his bad manners and his macho style. He is uncouth, like a bad boyfriend or spouse. He is not caring, could cut benefits to the needy, or to the not so needy. All remain deeply set within our cultural presuppositions. Former CEO of National Public Radio Ken Stern tried to break out, noticing that “most reporters and editors are liberal” — that is egalitarian — based on an old poll but also on his own experience at NPR. “When you are liberal, and everyone else around you is as well, it is easy to fall into groupthink on what stories are important, what sources are legitimate and what the narrative of the day will be.” This may seem like an unusual admission from someone who once ran NPR, but it is borne of recent experience. Spurred by a fear that red and blue America were drifting irrevocably apart, I decided to venture out from my overwhelmingly Democratic neighborhood and engage Republicans where they live, work and pray. For an entire year, I embedded myself with the other side, standing in pit row at a NASCAR race, hanging out at Tea Party meetings and sitting in on Steve Bannon’s radio show. I found an America far different from the one depicted in the press and imagined by presidents (“cling to guns or religion”) and presidential candidates (“basket of deplorables”) alike. Stern argued that this does not justify “the attacks from President Trump, which are terribly inappropriate coming from the head of government. At the same time, the media should acknowledge its own failings in reflecting only their part of America. You can’t cover America from the Acela corridor, and the media need to get out and be part of the conversations that take place in churches and community centers and town halls.” Do not hold your breath. A Newsbusters review of TV news coverage for 2017 found 5,883 evaluative statements about President Trump or his administration from reporters, anchors or non-partisan experts and “only about 10 percent of those comments (617) were positive, compared with 5,266 (90%) which were negative,” much higher than in previous administrations. Confirming Trump’s charges, the Russia investigation was the networks’ favorite topic, with an astonishing 20 hours, 34 minutes of coverage, or more than one-fifth of all Trump coverage last year. The good news is that our democracy is not merely not in danger but is thriving in the normal battle between our political subcultures. The difference is that Donald Trump attacks the ruling Egalitarian media/cultural establishment’s previously unquestionable assumptions and they do not like it one bit. They are used to telling Americans what to think and no one likes their deep-held prejudices to be exposed to public ridicule. Donald Devine is senior scholar at the Fund for American Studies, the author of America’s Way Back: Reclaiming Freedom, Tradition and Constitution, and was Ronald Reagan’s director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management during his first term.

www.spectator.org

right

79xjQmQh13YKxRm5

test

4CQV2k3JUQwCzuUf

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ted-cruz-ellen-page-religious-liberty/2015/08/21/id/671318/

Ted Cruz Grapples With Actress Ellen Page Over Religious Liberty, Gay Rights

2015-08-21

Cathy Burke

Cruz : `` Does that trouble you at all that you draw a moral equivalence between Christians in Jamaica and radical Islamic terrorists ? In ISIS they 're beheading children -- they 're not morally equivalent . Murder is murder is murder and it 's wrong , it 's wrong `` There is a difference between a community like Jamaica – they may have different standard , they may not be celebrating a gay pride parade , but they 're not murdering people – if they were murdering people it would be wrong . '' Page : `` A lot of gay people are getting killed in Jamaica . '' Cruz : `` But in Iran and ISIS , it is the governmental body that is executing them for being homosexual… '' Cruz : `` …and why does the Obama administration not stand against them ? '' Page : `` I do n't know , I would love to speak with Obama about it . '' Sen. Ted Cruz and actress Ellen Page locked horns in Iowa Friday , jousting over the issue of protecting religious liberty from gay rights activists.According to the Daily Caller , Page was on location for a Vice Media project when she asked the conservative GOP presidential candidate , `` what about the question about LGBT people being fired for being gay-trans ? `` `` Well , what we ’ re seeing right now , we ’ re seeing Bible-believing Christians being persecuted for living according to their faith , '' Cruz answered . `` You ’ re discriminating against LGBT people… Would you use that argument in segregation ? '' Page pressed.Cruz argues Christian business owners are being asked to violate their beliefs by providing services to those seeking same-sex weddings , the Wall Street Journal notes , while Page , who 's made public that she is a lesbian , counters that similar arguments once were used to deny services to racial minorities.According to the Des Moines Register , Page also asked Cruz about the persecution gays and lesbians face in other countries . And Cruz – apparently unaware he was arguing with the `` Juno '' and `` Inception '' actress – countered there was no moral equivalency between instances in Jamaica with those in the Middle East , where Islamic terrorists have persecuted Christians.The Register posted that part of the encounter : The face-off may have helped Cruz stand out from his Republican rivals , the Journal reports – allowing the Texas conservative senator to frame what he calls a conflict between religious beliefs and progressive activists .

Cruz: "Does that trouble you at all that you draw a moral equivalence between Christians in Jamaica and radical Islamic terrorists? In ISIS they're beheading children -- they're not morally equivalent. Murder is murder is murder and it's wrong, it's wrong across the board." "There is a difference between a community like Jamaica – they may have different standard, they may not be celebrating a gay pride parade, but they're not murdering people – if they were murdering people it would be wrong." Page: "A lot of gay people are getting killed in Jamaica." Cruz: "But in Iran and ISIS, it is the governmental body that is executing them for being homosexual…" Page: "Yeah, that's a whole other thing." Cruz: "…and why does the Obama administration not stand against them?" Page: "I don't know, I would love to speak with Obama about it." Cruz: "Well, great, then we're agreed on that." Sen. Ted Cruz and actress Ellen Page locked horns in Iowa Friday, jousting over the issue of protecting religious liberty from gay rights activists.According to the Daily Caller, Page was on location for a Vice Media project when she asked the conservative GOP presidential candidate, "what about the question about LGBT people being fired for being gay-trans?""Well, what we’re seeing right now, we’re seeing Bible-believing Christians being persecuted for living according to their faith," Cruz answered."You’re discriminating against LGBT people… Would you use that argument in segregation?" Page pressed.Cruz argues Christian business owners are being asked to violate their beliefs by providing services to those seeking same-sex weddings, the Wall Street Journal notes, while Page, who's made public that she is a lesbian, counters that similar arguments once were used to deny services to racial minorities.According to the Des Moines Register, Page also asked Cruz about the persecution gays and lesbians face in other countries. And Cruz – apparently unaware he was arguing with the "Juno" and "Inception" actress – countered there was no moral equivalency between instances in Jamaica with those in the Middle East, where Islamic terrorists have persecuted Christians.The Register posted that part of the encounter:The face-off may have helped Cruz stand out from his Republican rivals, the Journal reports – allowing the Texas conservative senator to frame what he calls a conflict between religious beliefs and progressive activists.

www.newsmax.com

right

4CQV2k3JUQwCzuUf

test

vK21iSqRweQLnlC0

race_and_racism

Newsmax - News

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Obama-Second-Term/2013/07/20/id/516107

Obama's Inaugural Ambitions Meet Political Reality

2013-07-20

Julie Pace

Six months ago , President Barack Obama stood on the Capitol steps and offered a soaring liberal vision for his second term . Buoyed by re-election , he said the nation must pursue without delay steps to protect children from gun violence , tackle climate change and overhaul fractured immigration laws . But the intervening months have showcased the political limits of Obama 's ambitions . The result has been an uneven and sometimes disjointed first half of what arguably could be the most important year of the remainder of his presidency . Legislative victories have been scarce , with Obama 's gun control measures vanquished on Capitol Hill , slim prospects for a grand deficit reduction deal and an uncertain future for a White House-backed immigration overhaul . Domestic entanglements and foreign policy crises also have thrown the White House off course and into a defensive crouch . Obama 's health care law is nearing a critical phase that will determine its success and a fresh budget battle is looming at the government approaches its borrowing limit . Obama 's top aides insist they came into the year clear-eyed about the potential pitfalls , particularly on Capitol Hill , where Republicans run the House . `` We always knew what the political realities were , '' said Dan Pfeiffer , Obama 's senior adviser . `` We won a big election — and we won with 51 percent of the vote . '' In an era of divided government and an equally divided nation , the White House says it is measuring second-term success in ways other than the legislative scorecard , including through executive actions . In assessing the promises fulfilled from Obama 's Jan. 21 inauguration address , his advisers point to progress on gay rights and climate change , which had prominent placements in the speech . `` We will respond to the threat of climate change , knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations , '' Obama said as he addressed the crowd sprawled across the National Mall on that chilly January day . `` Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science , but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms . '' Obama did outline an ambitious climate change agenda this month , including first-ever limits on carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants . But it 's far too early to say whether his pledges will get results . Congressional opposition also limited him to only proposals that do not require approval from lawmakers , meaning broader measures , including a cap-and-trade law , remain unobtainable . On gay issues , the expansion of rights for same-sex couples emanated from the Supreme Court , though the Obama administration did ask the justices to consider striking down a chief provision of the Defense of Marriage Act , which restricted federal benefits for in same-sex marriages . White House officials say they 're also buoyed by slow yet steady progress in the economy over the first half of the year . The unemployment rate sits at 7.6 percent , painfully high but near the lowest rate of Obama 's presidency , and consumer confidence is at one of the highest levels since he took office . But there are big questions about what more Obama can accomplish in his second term given that gridlock on Capitol Hill shows no signs of easing . While an immigration bill passed the Senate , conservative House Republicans are threatening to block the measure . Regardless of the outcome on immigration , the White House appears to have no other plans for pushing major second-term legislation . Kevin Madden , a Republican strategist who advised Mitt Romney 's 2012 presidential campaign , said that Obama , without working with Capitol Hill , will have trouble fulfilling his inaugural promises . `` For an agenda that grand and that sweeping , he really needs a reservoir of good will up on Capitol Hill , '' Madden said . `` And he 's never really had that . '' Obama has had some success in recent months in identifying a few Republican senators who can be potential partners on legislation or at least people with whom he can hold regular discussions . But the fact that the president simply talking with Republican lawmakers represents a breakthrough shows how damaged the White House 's relationship with Congress has become . Among those GOP senators is Arizona 's John McCain , who has become an important White House ally this year on immigration , deficit reduction talks , and filibuster reform . McCain , who met most recently with Obama on Wednesday , said the president has `` grown in the job '' and lost his `` degree of condescension '' that came with winning the White House and a Democratic majority in 2008 . `` This president , like every president , is looking at his legacy and how he will be viewed by historians , '' McCain said . `` And he sees that there are areas where he and I can work together on . '' McCain remains at odds with the White House on several foreign policy matters , and was a driving force in keeping alive questions about the fatal attack on Americans in Benghazi , Libya , last Sept. 11 . The persistent investigations into the attacks were among the controversies that have plagued the president since his second swearing in . The White House also has been forced to answer questions about what it knew about the Internal Revenue Service 's targeting of conservative political groups , the Justice Department 's seizure of journalists ' phone records , and the National Security Agency 's domestic spying programs . Foreign policy crises have competed for Obama 's attention , most notably U.S. intelligence assessments of Syrian chemical weapons use and the coup in Egypt , as well as troubles with Afghan President Hamid Karzai as the U.S. moves toward ending the war there . But the controversies and distractions have not had a major impact on Obama 's approval rating , though it has slipped somewhat . The Gallup daily tracking poll , which put Obama 's approval at 52 percent around the inauguration , now has the president at 46 percent approval . According to the Pew Research Center , the public 's view of Obama 's handling of the economy has improved , up from 40 percent in February to 44 percent in mid-June . But his approval rating in foreign policy , long considered to be Obama 's strength , has fallen , with Quinnipiac University polling putting him at 40 percent approval this month , down from 47 percent in May . Pfeiffer said the White House is well-aware that second term agendas can quickly be overtaken by outside events that `` can clog up Washington . '' But he dismissed the notion that Obama 's window second term opportunities will close as Washington lurches toward the 2014 elections , then another presidential campaign . `` I do n't buy that there 's some artificial date by which a president 's ability to get things done goes away , '' he said .

Six months ago, President Barack Obama stood on the Capitol steps and offered a soaring liberal vision for his second term. Buoyed by re-election, he said the nation must pursue without delay steps to protect children from gun violence, tackle climate change and overhaul fractured immigration laws. But the intervening months have showcased the political limits of Obama's ambitions. The result has been an uneven and sometimes disjointed first half of what arguably could be the most important year of the remainder of his presidency. Legislative victories have been scarce, with Obama's gun control measures vanquished on Capitol Hill, slim prospects for a grand deficit reduction deal and an uncertain future for a White House-backed immigration overhaul. Domestic entanglements and foreign policy crises also have thrown the White House off course and into a defensive crouch. Obama's health care law is nearing a critical phase that will determine its success and a fresh budget battle is looming at the government approaches its borrowing limit. Obama's top aides insist they came into the year clear-eyed about the potential pitfalls, particularly on Capitol Hill, where Republicans run the House. "We always knew what the political realities were," said Dan Pfeiffer, Obama's senior adviser. "We won a big election — and we won with 51 percent of the vote." In an era of divided government and an equally divided nation, the White House says it is measuring second-term success in ways other than the legislative scorecard, including through executive actions. In assessing the promises fulfilled from Obama's Jan. 21 inauguration address, his advisers point to progress on gay rights and climate change, which had prominent placements in the speech. "We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations," Obama said as he addressed the crowd sprawled across the National Mall on that chilly January day. "Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms." But recent progress on those issues comes with asterisks. Obama did outline an ambitious climate change agenda this month, including first-ever limits on carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. But it's far too early to say whether his pledges will get results. Congressional opposition also limited him to only proposals that do not require approval from lawmakers, meaning broader measures, including a cap-and-trade law, remain unobtainable. On gay issues, the expansion of rights for same-sex couples emanated from the Supreme Court, though the Obama administration did ask the justices to consider striking down a chief provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, which restricted federal benefits for in same-sex marriages. White House officials say they're also buoyed by slow yet steady progress in the economy over the first half of the year. The unemployment rate sits at 7.6 percent, painfully high but near the lowest rate of Obama's presidency, and consumer confidence is at one of the highest levels since he took office. But there are big questions about what more Obama can accomplish in his second term given that gridlock on Capitol Hill shows no signs of easing. While an immigration bill passed the Senate, conservative House Republicans are threatening to block the measure. Regardless of the outcome on immigration, the White House appears to have no other plans for pushing major second-term legislation. Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist who advised Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign, said that Obama, without working with Capitol Hill, will have trouble fulfilling his inaugural promises. "For an agenda that grand and that sweeping, he really needs a reservoir of good will up on Capitol Hill," Madden said. "And he's never really had that." Obama has had some success in recent months in identifying a few Republican senators who can be potential partners on legislation or at least people with whom he can hold regular discussions. But the fact that the president simply talking with Republican lawmakers represents a breakthrough shows how damaged the White House's relationship with Congress has become. Among those GOP senators is Arizona's John McCain, who has become an important White House ally this year on immigration, deficit reduction talks, and filibuster reform. McCain, who met most recently with Obama on Wednesday, said the president has "grown in the job" and lost his "degree of condescension" that came with winning the White House and a Democratic majority in 2008. "This president, like every president, is looking at his legacy and how he will be viewed by historians," McCain said. "And he sees that there are areas where he and I can work together on." McCain remains at odds with the White House on several foreign policy matters, and was a driving force in keeping alive questions about the fatal attack on Americans in Benghazi, Libya, last Sept. 11. The persistent investigations into the attacks were among the controversies that have plagued the president since his second swearing in. The White House also has been forced to answer questions about what it knew about the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative political groups, the Justice Department's seizure of journalists' phone records, and the National Security Agency's domestic spying programs. Foreign policy crises have competed for Obama's attention, most notably U.S. intelligence assessments of Syrian chemical weapons use and the coup in Egypt, as well as troubles with Afghan President Hamid Karzai as the U.S. moves toward ending the war there. But the controversies and distractions have not had a major impact on Obama's approval rating, though it has slipped somewhat. The Gallup daily tracking poll, which put Obama's approval at 52 percent around the inauguration, now has the president at 46 percent approval. According to the Pew Research Center, the public's view of Obama's handling of the economy has improved, up from 40 percent in February to 44 percent in mid-June. But his approval rating in foreign policy, long considered to be Obama's strength, has fallen, with Quinnipiac University polling putting him at 40 percent approval this month, down from 47 percent in May. Pfeiffer said the White House is well-aware that second term agendas can quickly be overtaken by outside events that "can clog up Washington." But he dismissed the notion that Obama's window second term opportunities will close as Washington lurches toward the 2014 elections, then another presidential campaign. "I don't buy that there's some artificial date by which a president's ability to get things done goes away," he said.

www.newsmax.com

right

vK21iSqRweQLnlC0

test

z0vKOauVIhauseCO

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/19/exclusive-soros-clinton-linked-teneo-among-donors-to-mccain-institute/

EXCLUSIVE: Soros, Clinton-Linked Teneo Among Donors to McCain Institute

2017-06-19

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain in 2012 turned over nearly $ 9 million in unspent funds from his failed 2008 presidential campaign to a new foundation bearing his name , the McCain Institute for International Leadership . The institute is intended to serve as a “ legacy ” for McCain and “ is dedicated to advancing human rights , dignity , democracy and freedom. ” It is a tax-exempt non-profit foundation with assets valued at $ 8.1 million and associated with Arizona State University . Conservative and liberal critics , however , believe the institute constitutes a major conflict of interest for McCain , ███ News Foundation ’ s Investigative Group has learned . McCain , a former Navy pilot who was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967 and was then a prisoner of war in the infamous Hanoi Hilton until 1973 , is a major political force in Washington , D.C . He is presently chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services . Critics worry that the institute ’ s donors and McCain ’ s personal leadership in the organization ’ s exclusive “ Sedona Forum ” bear an uncanny resemblance to the glitzy Clinton Global Initiative ( CGI ) that annually co-mingled special interests and powerful political players in alleged pay-to-play schemes . The institute has accepted contributions of as much as $ 100,000 from billionaire liberal activist-funder George Soros and from Teneo , a for-profit company co-founded by Doug Band , former President Bill Clinton ’ s “ bag man. ” Teneo has long helped enrich Clinton through lucrative speaking and business deals . And Bloomberg reported in 2016 on a $ 1 million Saudi Arabian donation to the institute , a contribution the McCain group has refused to explain publicly . In addition , the institute has taken at least $ 100,000 from a Moroccan state-run company tied to repeated charges of worker abuse and exploitation . The McCain group has also accepted at least $ 100,000 from the Pivotal Foundation , which was created by Francis Najafi who owns the Pivotal Group , a private equity and real estate firm . The Pivotal Foundation has in the last three years given $ 205,000 to the National Iranian-American Council ( NIAC ) , which has been a vocal advocate for the Iranian nuclear deal the Obama administration negotiated . The NIAC web site claims the group “ is a nonpartisan , nonprofit organization dedicated to strengthening the voice of Iranian Americans and promoting greater understanding between the American and Iranian people . ” But NIAC President Trita Parsi has long been an advocate for Iran , including demanding in May 2017 that President Donald Trump and officials in his administration “ cease questioning the integrity of a ( nuclear ) deal . ” The NIAC is “ Iran ’ s lobbyists in Washington , ” charged Aresh Salih , the Washington representative of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan . “ People inside of Iran know them as their lobbyists in Washington , D.C. , ” Salih told TheDCNF . The NIAC does not file as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act , nor does it register as a lobbyist with Congress . Yet in May 2013 , Parsi spoke to a packed Capitol Hill meeting sponsored by Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison to argue in favor of the nuclear deal . Ellison was the first Muslim elected to Congress and is also deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee . “ This is a very real conflict of interest , ” Craig Holman , a government affairs lobbyist at Public Citizen , told TheDCNF . “ This is the similar type of pattern we received with the Clinton Foundation in which foreign governments and foreign interests were throwing a lot of money in the hopes of trying to buy influence . ” Lawrence Noble , general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center , told the DCNF that accepting contributions in the name of a sitting senator like McCain raises troubling issues . “ In terms of the ethics of it , it does raise a broad question of people trying to get good will with the elected official , ” he said . “ From a personal standpoint , I ’ d rather not see these entities exist . ” Charles Ortel , a retired Wall Street investment banker and philanthropy law expert , told TheDCNF that “ high government officials such as John McCain , [ former Secretary of State ] Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama should not get involved with vehicles like these where substantial sums can be funneled over time in ways that at best , reeks of impropriety and at worse are public corruption . ” The institute ’ s donations not only suggest special pleading before the senator , but also in some instances appear to contradict McCain ’ s vision of human rights and national security . It accepted more than $ 100,000 from OCP , S.A. , a Moroccan state-owned phosphate company operating in the Western Sahara , territory which Morocco seized in 1975 . The North African country has since occupied the region by force in defiance of U.N. resolutions and legal declarations by other international bodies . Morocco has come under criticism from human rights groups that the government violates basic human rights and that its state-owned companies subject its workforce to gruesome conditions while exploiting the disputed territory ’ s natural resources . The Western Sahara holds half of the world ’ s phosphate reserves . Used to make fertilizer , phosphate is called Morocco ’ s “ white gold . ” Last week , a South African court ruled in favor of the seizure of an OCP ship charged with illegally carrying 50,000 tons of phosphate from the Western Sahara . The country ’ s independence movement , which calls the territory the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic , succeeded in convincing the court to keep the ship in port until the case is resolved . The King of Morocco was a major donor to the Clinton Foundation . Hillary Clinton personally accepted $ 12 million from the King in return for holding a CGI regional meeting in the country . OCP also was a major sponsor of the CGI meeting , and Bill Clinton was the featured speaker . The Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice has charged OCP with “ serious human rights violations , ” including exploitation of workers by not “ adequately compensating the impoverished people who live there . ” McCain has lavished effusive praise on the King of Morocco , saying in 2011 , that the country was a “ positive example to governments across the Middle East and North Africa . ” McCain and Soros reportedly became friends after the senator was exposed as a member of the “ Keating Five ” during the savings and loan ( S & L ) industry scandal during former President George H.W . Bush ’ s administration . As the S & L bank chairman , Charles Keating paid $ 1.3 million to bribe five members of Congress to interfere with government regulators on behalf of the savings bank . The experience so scarred McCain that he became a vigorous advocate of campaign finance reform and in the process reportedly became friends with Soros . McCain recently claimed no involvement with the institute , saying “ I ’ m proud that the institute is named after me , but I have nothing to do with it . ” The institute did not respond to requests for the dollar amounts of its high donors , when the donations were made and if there were strings attached to the contributions , claiming it did not have any of the information . Late Monday , the institute ’ s spokesman referred The DCNF to Arizona State University .

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain in 2012 turned over nearly $9 million in unspent funds from his failed 2008 presidential campaign to a new foundation bearing his name, the McCain Institute for International Leadership. The institute is intended to serve as a “legacy” for McCain and “is dedicated to advancing human rights, dignity, democracy and freedom.” It is a tax-exempt non-profit foundation with assets valued at $8.1 million and associated with Arizona State University. Conservative and liberal critics, however, believe the institute constitutes a major conflict of interest for McCain, The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group has learned. McCain, a former Navy pilot who was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967 and was then a prisoner of war in the infamous Hanoi Hilton until 1973, is a major political force in Washington, D.C. He is presently chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services. Critics worry that the institute’s donors and McCain’s personal leadership in the organization’s exclusive “Sedona Forum” bear an uncanny resemblance to the glitzy Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) that annually co-mingled special interests and powerful political players in alleged pay-to-play schemes. The institute has accepted contributions of as much as $100,000 from billionaire liberal activist-funder George Soros and from Teneo, a for-profit company co-founded by Doug Band, former President Bill Clinton’s “bag man.” Teneo has long helped enrich Clinton through lucrative speaking and business deals. And Bloomberg reported in 2016 on a $1 million Saudi Arabian donation to the institute, a contribution the McCain group has refused to explain publicly. In addition, the institute has taken at least $100,000 from a Moroccan state-run company tied to repeated charges of worker abuse and exploitation. The McCain group has also accepted at least $100,000 from the Pivotal Foundation, which was created by Francis Najafi who owns the Pivotal Group, a private equity and real estate firm. The Pivotal Foundation has in the last three years given $205,000 to the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), which has been a vocal advocate for the Iranian nuclear deal the Obama administration negotiated. The NIAC web site claims the group “is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to strengthening the voice of Iranian Americans and promoting greater understanding between the American and Iranian people.” But NIAC President Trita Parsi has long been an advocate for Iran, including demanding in May 2017 that President Donald Trump and officials in his administration “cease questioning the integrity of a (nuclear) deal.” The NIAC is “Iran’s lobbyists in Washington,” charged Aresh Salih, the Washington representative of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan. “People inside of Iran know them as their lobbyists in Washington, D.C.,” Salih told TheDCNF. The NIAC does not file as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, nor does it register as a lobbyist with Congress. Yet in May 2013, Parsi spoke to a packed Capitol Hill meeting sponsored by Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison to argue in favor of the nuclear deal. Ellison was the first Muslim elected to Congress and is also deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee. “This is a very real conflict of interest,” Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist at Public Citizen, told TheDCNF. “This is the similar type of pattern we received with the Clinton Foundation in which foreign governments and foreign interests were throwing a lot of money in the hopes of trying to buy influence.” Liberal consumer advocate Ralph Nader founded Public Citizen. Lawrence Noble, general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, told the DCNF that accepting contributions in the name of a sitting senator like McCain raises troubling issues. “In terms of the ethics of it, it does raise a broad question of people trying to get good will with the elected official,” he said. “From a personal standpoint, I’d rather not see these entities exist.” Charles Ortel, a retired Wall Street investment banker and philanthropy law expert, told TheDCNF that “high government officials such as John McCain, [former Secretary of State] Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama should not get involved with vehicles like these where substantial sums can be funneled over time in ways that at best, reeks of impropriety and at worse are public corruption.” The institute’s donations not only suggest special pleading before the senator, but also in some instances appear to contradict McCain’s vision of human rights and national security. It accepted more than $100,000 from OCP, S.A., a Moroccan state-owned phosphate company operating in the Western Sahara, territory which Morocco seized in 1975. The North African country has since occupied the region by force in defiance of U.N. resolutions and legal declarations by other international bodies. Morocco has come under criticism from human rights groups that the government violates basic human rights and that its state-owned companies subject its workforce to gruesome conditions while exploiting the disputed territory’s natural resources. The Western Sahara holds half of the world’s phosphate reserves. Used to make fertilizer, phosphate is called Morocco’s “white gold.” Last week, a South African court ruled in favor of the seizure of an OCP ship charged with illegally carrying 50,000 tons of phosphate from the Western Sahara. The country’s independence movement, which calls the territory the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, succeeded in convincing the court to keep the ship in port until the case is resolved. The King of Morocco was a major donor to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary Clinton personally accepted $12 million from the King in return for holding a CGI regional meeting in the country. OCP also was a major sponsor of the CGI meeting, and Bill Clinton was the featured speaker. The Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice has charged OCP with “serious human rights violations,” including exploitation of workers by not “adequately compensating the impoverished people who live there.” McCain has lavished effusive praise on the King of Morocco, saying in 2011, that the country was a “positive example to governments across the Middle East and North Africa.” McCain and Soros reportedly became friends after the senator was exposed as a member of the “Keating Five” during the savings and loan (S&L) industry scandal during former President George H.W. Bush’s administration. As the S&L bank chairman, Charles Keating paid $1.3 million to bribe five members of Congress to interfere with government regulators on behalf of the savings bank. The experience so scarred McCain that he became a vigorous advocate of campaign finance reform and in the process reportedly became friends with Soros. McCain recently claimed no involvement with the institute, saying “I’m proud that the institute is named after me, but I have nothing to do with it.” The institute did not respond to requests for the dollar amounts of its high donors, when the donations were made and if there were strings attached to the contributions, claiming it did not have any of the information. Late Monday, the institute’s spokesman referred The DCNF to Arizona State University. 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

z0vKOauVIhauseCO

test