An NBC News report citing "military sources" claims Donald Trump and senior military officials are prepared to launch a preemptive conventional strike against North Korea if the country carries out another nuclear weapons test. [Military sources told NBC News that the U. S. has positioned two Tomahawk missiles in the Korean peninsula approximately 300 miles from where North Korea will carry out its next nuclear test. The preparations come amid rising tensions in the region, with North Korea this week promising a "big event" as the country prepares to celebrate the "Day of the Sun," the birthday of communist dictator and "eternal leader" Kim . Analysts believe that the country is "primed and ready" to carry out a nuclear test based on satellite images but that they would not be capable of enacting a nuclear attack. Nevertheless, the country's state broadcasters declared the country "would hit the U. S. first" with nuclear weapons at any sign of aggression or provocation. Speaking on Wednesday, Donald Trump remained secretive about his plans to handle North Korea, although he declared he was sending "an armada" into the region. Trump has repeatedly argued that China is failing to meet its responsibilities in neutralizing the North Korean threat. He does not appear to consider Chinese cooperation indispensable, however, adding that America would "solve the problem without them. " North Korea is looking for trouble. If China decides to help, that would be great. If not, we will solve the problem without them! U. S. A. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 11, 2017, On Tuesday, China turned back North Korean cargo ships and deployed 150, 000 troops to the North Korean border in a bid to control tensions. Reports from South Korean media also claimed that Seal Team 6, the Navy Seal squad who assassinated Osama were simulating drills in which they would take out the North Korean leader Kim . Although the Pentagon would not confirm the reports, they said that "ground, air, naval and special operations" are carrying out "several joint and combined field training operations" with up to 17, 000 troops. You can follow Ben Kew on Facebook, on Twitter at @ben_kew, or email him at bkew@breitbart. com.


Stephen K. Bannon has read the book three times. He still keeps a copy of it — one that's creased and copiously underlined — in a library with the rest of his favorites at his father's house in Richmond, Va. The book, "The Fourth Turning," a 1997 work by two amateur historians, Neil Howe and William Strauss, lays out a theory that American history unfurls in predictable, cycles of prosperity and catastrophe. And it foresees catastrophe right around the corner. The book delineates history into four seasonal cycles, or "turnings": growth, maturation, decay and destruction. It is the kind of wild, provocative idea that Mr. Bannon loves. But it is also just the kind of thinking that his opponents see as evidence that he is too Machiavellian and idiosyncratic for the job of President Trump's chief strategist. The basis of his worldview — which has been described as everything from Leninist to an extremist fringe movement associated with white nationalism — is still shrouded in mystery and conjecture. But by his own telling, much of the foundation for his political beliefs can be found in the book, which predicts that America is hurtling toward a crisis on par with the American Revolution, the Civil War and the Great Depression. And the grim future that the book foresees helps explain the underpinnings of the president's conservative, nationalist "America First" agenda, one that Mr. Bannon has played a large role in shaping. "I don't think there's any doubt that the world is in the beginning state of a crisis that it can't avoid," Mr. Bannon said in a recent interview, before Mr. Trump removed him from the National Security Council and started contemplating a broader White House that could further marginalize him. But Mr. Bannon, choosing his words carefully, allowed that while he did not believe a cataclysm like global war was inevitable, failing to prepare as if one might happen would be foolish. "Everything President Trump is doing — all of it — is to get ahead of or stop any potential crisis," Mr. Bannon added. But those who question Mr. Trump and Mr. Bannon's motives say the central premise of "The Fourth Turning," with its religious subtext and dark premonitions, is a convenient excuse to sow fear and justify extreme action. Many academic historians dismiss the book as about as scientific as astrology or a Nostradamus text. And many will find reason for alarm in its conclusion that the coming crisis will demand loyalty and conformity from citizens. It also leads to unavoidable questions about war and whether Mr. Bannon, who has recommended the book to countless friends and made a film about it in 2010, is resigned to catastrophic global conflict. He says he is not. And he remains unconvinced that the United States can effectively intervene in overseas conflicts like the one unfolding in Syria. As one of the voices in the administration who expressed skepticism about a military strike in response to the Assad regime's chemical attack on its own citizens, Mr. Bannon insists he is no warmonger. In the interview, Mr. Bannon rattled off a list of White House policies that he said fit with the larger goal of strengthening the country for whatever calamity might await just over the horizon. They included starting the process of building a wall on the southern border, barring foreigners from seven predominantly Muslim nations, and taking steps that he said were meant "to empower the secretary of defense, the C. I. A. to step up the war" against radical Islam. "I think it's very simple: You've got to take care of the country," Mr. Bannon said. Ultimately, he added, America could reclaim its position as a keeper of peace and stability throughout the world. "America has to be strong — economically strong and militarily strong. And a strong America could be ultimately a provider of Pax Americana. " But to those who see Mr. Trump as someone who instigates crises, rather than defuses them, the knowledge that his senior strategist is an evangelist for a theory that forecasts the destruction of society as we know it is alarming. "If you frame everything as a crisis, then the right response to crisis is action, not deliberation," said Alexander Livingston, an assistant professor of political theory at Cornell who has written critically about "The Fourth Turning" and Mr. Bannon. "It puts the people who say 'hold on' in a position of failing to see the crisis but also of being responsible for the crisis. " In their book, Mr. Howe and Mr. Strauss note the roughly intervals between catalytic events in American history like the Declaration of Independence (1776) the attack on Fort Sumter (1861) and the bombing of Pearl Harbor (1941). They predicted the next crisis would begin around 2005 and reach its climax sometime before 2025. "History is seasonal, and winter is coming," they warn. Precipitating each fourth turning, the authors wrote, is a breakdown of the existing civic order and the institutions that prop it up. Mr. Bannon, who has said the Trump administration will see to the "deconstruction of the administrative state," believes these institutions are already crumbling, and he seems more than happy to pilot the wrecking ball that demolishes them entirely. In an interview, Mr. Howe recalls getting an email about 10 years ago from Mr. Bannon, whom he had never heard of at the time, asking if he would participate in a film about the book. "We kind of blew him off," Mr. Howe, who is now a demographer at the investment firm Hedgeye Risk Management, said recently. Mr. Howe, who eventually agreed to be interviewed for the film, said that Mr. Bannon seemed to have no qualms about the destruction part of the cycle. "There is something beneficial about the creative destruction that comes with a fourth turning," Mr. Howe said. "There has to be a period in which we tear down everything that is no longer functional. " Mr. Bannon's suspicion of powerful institutions and the men and women who run them might seem at odds with his personal conservatism. He is a Catholic, a former Navy officer and a traditionalist in many ways. But Peter Schweizer, an author and frequent collaborator with Mr. Bannon on films and books, said Mr. Bannon believes the nation's elites arrogantly underestimate their own role in creating crises and then overestimate their ability to solve them. "I do think the reason this theory is so powerful in Steve's mind is it kind of goes to the heart of his problem with elites," Mr. Schweizer said. "He does have a skeptical view of the limitations of human intellect. This notion that a few smart guys know how to quote unquote run a global economy is just laughable to him. " In the 2010 film, "Generation Zero," which was produced by Citizens United, whose films often attack favorite conservative targets like the Clintons, the screen flashes with foreboding imagery: a mushroom cloud from an atomic bomb, a shark fin skimming above the water, a guillotine blade falling. The film's thesis is that the financial collapse of 2009 was the beginning of the modern fourth turning. But Mr. Bannon sees not just a financial crisis unfolding. A deeper cultural crisis — selfishness, excessive political correctness and a lack of civic responsibility — has infected the country's political and economic institutions, which must be purged. Today Mr. Bannon is much more prudent about tossing out predictions of imminent catastrophe and conflict. But some who spoke with him for the film said he was not always so reticent. "If we were in an international crisis that might lead to a major war, I don't think that would frighten him at all," said David Kaiser, a former professor at the Naval War College and a historian who subscribes to the Strauss and Howe theories. "I wouldn't go so far as to say Bannon wants it," Mr. Kaiser added. "But I think it's a possibility he willingly accepts it. " Mr. Bannon insisted that was not his view. "You're not inexorably pulled into this," he said. But it seemed undeniable to him that the book got a lot right about the general direction that America is headed. "In the 'Fourth Turning' theory you've got a country that believes it's off course," he said. " of Americans now think we're on the wrong track. That's an extraordinary number. " He added, "Certainly they feel the country is in some sort of crisis. "


Amy Schumer is set to return to the big screen this weekend for the first time since 2015's Trainwreck with the kidnap caper Snatched, alongside veteran actress Goldie Hawn, but negative early reviews from critics could threaten to spoil crucial and dampen the film's Mother's Day weekend prospects. [Snatched doesn't hit theaters until Friday, May 12, but already reviewers from the New York Times, the Hollywood Reporter and IndieWire have derided the film as "lazy," "uninspired" and "wildly scattershot. " The film stars Schumer as Emily Middleton, who is dumped by her boyfriend just before a planned exotic vacation to Ecuador. While Middleton persuades her mother (Goldie Hawn, in her first film appearance in 15 years) to join her on the trip, the two get more than they bargained for as they try to survive after being kidnapped in the jungle. In his review of the film, the New York Times' A. O. Scott calls the film "lazy, sloppy and witless," and says Hawn in particular is "cruelly and inexplicably" denied the ability to be as funny as she can be. "Snatched is one of those movies that subscribes to a dubious homeopathic theory of cultural insensitivity by which the acknowledgment of offensiveness is supposed to prevent anyone from taking offense," Scott wrote. "The idea is that if you use variations on the phrase 'That's racist!' as a punch line a few times, nothing else you say or do could possibly be racist. Including, say, populating your movie with thugs with funny accents and killing a few of them for cheap laughs. " But perhaps the most harsh criticism of the film comes from IndieWire's Kate Erbland, who calls it "criminally unfunny. " Like Scott, Erbland says Snatched commits the "unforgivable sin" of not allowing Hawn to "inhabit her stature as a great comedic performer. " "One character calls [Schumer's character] 'garbage' (and makes her repeat the insult) while another tells her she'll be safe from sex trafficking because she's just not pretty enough, but even these attempts to add some meat to the undercooked film fall flat," Erbland wrote, giving the film a D grade. "Pairing up talented comedians like Hawn and Schumer with a wacky plotline to match should spell comedy gold, but Snatched is about as cheap and disposable as a tourist trap tchotchke. " The Village Voice's Melissa Anderson was similarly down on the film, accusing it of trading in "offhand xenophobia" and "soft racism" for its depiction of two white main characters unable to cope in a foreign country. "[Hawn's] performance here, however understandable, suggests she may have regretted the decision to end her " Anderson wrote. Meanwhile, Variety's Owen Glieberman and the Hollywood Reporter's Jon Frosch gave the movie slightly better marks, though Glieberman wrote that the film's " jokes are like firecrackers with damp fuses. " "Still, in the apocalyptically bleak landscape of the mainstream studio comedy, the mere sight of Schumer and Hawn just doing their thing is almost pleasing enough to get a pass. Almost," writes THR's Frosch. Snatched Wanda Sykes, Joan Cusack, Ike Barinholtz, Randall Park, Tom Bateman, and Christopher Meloni. Jonathan Levine (The Wackness) directed off of a script by writer Katie Dippold (The Heat, Ghostbusters). The film hits theaters May 12. Follow Daniel Nussbaum on Twitter: @dznussbaum


Update: A federal jury has unanimously sentenced Dylann S. Roof to die. The white supremacist showed no remorse for killing nine members of a black church in South Carolina. Read more » • Mr. Roof, a white supremacist with no known ties to any organized group, was convicted of the assault on Dec. 15 by the same federal jury. • Mr. Roof's guilt was never in question in the trial, and the jury deliberated for about three hours before assessing the death penalty. • Judge Richard M. Gergel has scheduled a formal sentencing hearing for Wednesday at 9:30 a. m. "We want to express our sympathy to all of the families who were so grievously hurt by Dylann Roof's actions. Today's sentencing decision means that this case will not be over for a very long time. We are sorry that, despite our best efforts, the legal proceedings have shed so little light on the reasons for this tragedy. " "We are Dylann Roof's family. We will always love Dylann. We will struggle as long as we live to understand why he committed this horrible attack, which caused so much pain to so many good people. We wish to express the grief we feel for the victims of his crimes, and our sympathy to the many families he has hurt. We continue to pray for the Emanuel A. M. E. families and the Charleston community. " "No verdict can bring back the nine we lost that day at Mother Emanuel. And no verdict can heal the wounds of the five church members who survived the attack or the souls of those who lost loved ones to Roof's callous hand. But we hope that the completion of the prosecution provides the people of Charleston — and the people of our nation — with a measure of closure. " On the evening of Wednesday, June 17, 2015, Mr. Roof, a white man, walked into the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S. C. and asked for the pastor, the Rev. Clementa C. Pinckney. Mr. Roof was directed to a Bible study session, where he sat down next to the pastor, and for nearly an hour, listened and took part in the discussion. Mr. Roof then pulled out a . Glock semiautomatic pistol, loaded with bullets, and according to witnesses, told the minister and parishioners, "You are raping our women and taking over our country. " He shot and killed nine people, including Mr. Pinckney, before fleeing the church. He shot each victim multiple times, reloading his gun several times. Mr. Roof told investigators and friends that he had hoped to start a race war. He complained of what he saw as black corruption and takeover of the United States and what he said was an epidemic of crime. He owned a website that included an essay on his belief in the danger and inferiority of blacks and the value of segregation. In the essay, Mr. Roof, a dropout with few friends and no steady work, also gave his reasons for the attack: "We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me. " The gunman could not have chosen a target more laden with symbolism about the nation's tortured racial history, and he apparently knew it, singling out the church for that reason. Emanuel A. M. E. lies in the historic heart of Charleston, the capital of the slave trade in the United States, the cradle of the Confederacy and the place where the first shots of the Civil War were fired. The church, known as Mother Emanuel, occupies a place of pride in southern black history it is one of the oldest black congregations in the South, dating back two centuries. Many people were shaken because the shooting happened in a place of sanctuary and because of who the victims were: nine people who were described as gentle and deeply religious. Three of them were over age 70, and four were pastors. At Mr. Roof's first court appearance a few days later, victims' family members stunned and moved millions of Americans by speaking of forgiveness and redemption, rather than anger and vengeance. Black churches have been frequent targets of racist attacks for generations, and for people old enough to remember, the shooting carried reminders of the 1963 church bombing in Birmingham, Ala. that killed four black girls. One of the Charleston dead, Mr. Pinckney, 41, was also a Democratic state senator and a leader of South Carolina's black community whose warmth won him friends even among political adversaries. At his funeral, President Obama gave the eulogy, an impassioned plea to recognize and oppose prejudice, saying, "For too long, we've been blind to the way past injustices continue to shape the present. " After decades of debate, a Confederate battle flag was removed from the grounds of South Carolina's state Capitol with remarkable swiftness, lowered for good less than a month after the shooting, following an emotional debate in the Legislature. In previous fights over the flag, white conservatives defended it staunchly, but this time, conservative Republicans like Gov. Nikki Haley, Senator Lindsey Graham and State Senator Paul Thurmond — son of the United States senator and onetime segregationist champion Strom Thurmond — publicly opposed the flag, sealing its fate. But calls for stricter gun controls, including tighter background checks for buying weapons, fell flat. Under federal law, Mr. Roof's record of drug abuse might have barred him from buying the gun he used, but the balky background check system failed to produce the needed information within three days, so he was able to go ahead with the purchase. Mr. Roof confessed to investigators soon after he was arrested, and more recently, he offered to plead guilty in return for a sentence of life in prison. But federal prosecutors decided to go to trial and seek the death penalty. At his trial last month, his lawyers conceded that he had committed the attack. A jury found him guilty of all 33 counts against him, including hate crimes resulting in death. The case then moved to the penalty phase, to determine whether Mr. Roof should be executed. (If he had not been sentenced to die, he could have still faced capital punishment in state court.) Acting as his own lawyer in the penalty phase, Mr. Roof declined to present any defense, and he refused any argument or evidence suggesting mental illness. In a journal he kept before the shooting, he had written: "I am morally opposed to psychology. It is a Jewish invention. " The vast majority of capital sentences and executions stem from state courts, not federal. Of about 2, 900 people on death rows in the United States, just 68 face sentences meted out by federal courts, including six by military courts. The federal inmates under death sentences include Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the brothers who carried out the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013 and Nidal Hasan, who committed the Fort Hood shooting in 2009. When Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was executed in 2001, he was the first federal inmate put to death in 38 years. There have been just two federal executions since then — in 2001 and 2003. It would be hard to find another crime where the toll was as high, the victims were as sympathetic, the premeditation was as evident and the defendant's guilt was as . But Mr. Roof's case has prompted a debate over whether he should be put to death. Some commentators and editorial boards have argued that a crime of this magnitude cries out for execution. Even some with doubts about how the death penalty is used say that if capital punishment is to continue, Mr. Roof warrants it. Death penalty opponents agree that if any defendant deserves the ultimate punishment, it is Mr. Roof, but they insist that the case against capital punishment should still outweigh the anger and revulsion over any particular case. They argue that its use has been wildly inconsistent and even arbitrary, and exonerations of convicted inmates show that the risk of putting an innocent person to death is high. A twist in this case is that a common argument against the death penalty is that it is more likely to be used when the victims are white and the accused are black — the reverse of the circumstances in the Charleston shooting. Another is that even some family members of those who were murdered have spoken out against executing Mr. Roof. Much less common than it used to be. States carried out 20 executions last year, the lowest figure in 25 years. Courts handed down just 30 new death sentences, down from more than 300 in 1996, the lowest figure since the early 1970s.


Does anyone else see a little crazy in this woman? Elizabeth Warren is Hillary Clinton s new best friend and possible VP choice but we think that would be a total disaster for Clinton. Yikes!


Lawmakers on Tuesday called for more information after reports that President Donald Trump asked then-FBI Director James Comey to drop an investigation of former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn. The White House said a memo written by Comey after he met with Trump in February was not an accurate portrayal of the conversation. Details of the memo were first reported by The New York Times and were confirmed by a Reuters source. Last week, the Republican president fired Comey, who had been leading an investigation into the Trump 2016 presidential campaign's possible collusion with Russia to influence the election outcome. Flynn resigned in February after disclosures that he had discussed U.S. sanctions on Russia with the Russian ambassador to the United States before Trump took office and misled Vice President Mike Pence about the conversations. Media reports of the Comey memo prompted members of Congress to renew calls for an independent investigation into the Trump campaign's possible connections to Russia and for Comey to testify before Congress. Here are reactions from Capitol Hill: "@GOPoversight is going to get the Comey memo, if it exists. I need to see it sooner rather than later. I have my subpoena pen ready." - Republican Representative Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on Twitter. He later sent the Federal Bureau of Investigation a letter asking for all memos, notes and recordings between Comey and Trump by May 24. "What we're seeing ... is an obstruction of justice case unfolding in real time. And I'm still stunned that more of my Republican colleagues are not standing strong and speaking out." - Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal to CNN "I have to say yes simply because obstruction of justice is such a serious offense. And I say it with sadness and reluctance." - Independent Senator Angus King, asked on CNN if Congress was getting close to impeachment proceedings "We're a long ways from a conviction - the fact that we simply have a headline in The New York Times." - Republican Representative Trey Gowdy on Fox News "We need to have all the facts and it is appropriate for the House Oversight Committee to request this memo." - AshLee Strong, spokeswoman for Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan, in a statement "I don't want to read a memo. I want to hear it from him (Comey)." - Republican Senator Lindsey Graham in an MSNBC interview "This is an explosive allegation and it appears like a textbook case of criminal obstruction of justice. We need to hear testimony immediately from Director Comey - in public. ... We also obviously need to get Director Comey's memos immediately, as well as all associated records, including any audio tapes, and notes, if they exist." - Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings in a statement "If true, this is yet another disturbing allegation that the president may have engaged in some interference or obstruction of the investigation. I think we know enough now. There's been enough alleged publicly to want to bring the director back to testify, ideally in open session, either before our committee or the Judiciary Committee." - Democratic Representative Adam Schiff to reporters "Country must have answers. It is clear former FBI Director Comey should testify before Congress." - Republican Representative Frank LoBiondo on Twitter "If these reports are true, the president's brazen attempt to shut down the FBI's investigation of Michael Flynn is an assault on the rule of law that is fundamental to our democracy. At best, President Trump has committed a grave abuse of executive power. At worst, he has obstructed justice." - Democratic Representative Nancy Pelosi in a statement "I'm shocked and surprised by this development and would like to discuss it with Chairman Grassley and look forward to doing so. The Judiciary Committee is the appropriate place to hold a hearing and get to the bottom of exactly what was said and by whom." - Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein in a statement "The stories of the last week raise serious questions about whether the president respects the independence of the FBI and law enforcement authorities. It is vital that Congress obtain these memos and hear public testimony from former Director Comey. ... The American people deserve answers about President Trump's conduct." - Democratic Senator Bob Casey in a statement


Government officials in the Philippines have confirmed that some terrorists fighting with the Maute group and Abu Sayyaf, both Islamic State affiliates, are foreigners who traveled to the country to help the jihadists establish themselves. ["What is happening in Mindanao is no longer a rebellion of Filipino citizens. It has transmogrified into an invasion by foreign terrorists who heeded the clarion call of [the Islamic State]," Solicitor General Jose Calida told reporters on Friday. The southern island of Mindanao, home to President Rodrigo Duterte, erupted in violence this week when Maute group terrorists ambushed police attempting to arrest Isnilon Hapilon, the head of Abu Sayyaf. Maute terrorists beheaded the police chief of Marawi city, freed over 100 terrorists from local prisons, and have raised the Islamic State flag over Marawi. Duterte imposed martial law over all of Mindanao and urged civilians to flee Marawi where the Philippine military has begun to conduct airstrikes. Brig. Gen. Restituto Padilla, a spokesman for the Philippine Armed Forces, confirmed that at least six of the 12 jihadists killed in operations so far are not Philippine citizens, but Indonesians and Malaysians. "There is a certain information that we received which confirmed the killing of 12 members of this group and half that are foreign terrorists — Malaysians, Indonesians, and one other," he noted. Duterte himself spoke on Friday, warning, "you can say that the ISIS is here already. " Duterte also noted the importance of illegal drug smuggling to jihadist operations, telling reports that the brothers who founded the Maute group were "policemen in Manila who got enamored with the money of shabu [methamphetamine]. They returned here and established one of the biggest factories of shabu in Lanao del Sur," where Marawi is located. Duterte won the presidency last year on a campaign to eradicate drug crime and has since launched an expansive national trafficking operation that many in Europe have criticized for allegedly not taking the safety of civilians into consideration. Duterte's imposition of martial law allows police to search, seize, and arrest without warrants and grants police the ability to censor press that may be releasing sensitive information. Duterte has told police to "spare no one" fighting them and has assured terrorists, "you will die" if confronting officers. The president has also repeatedly warned police not to abuse these powers to avoid losing the support of the people and emboldening the jihadists. Duterte has warned for months that the Philippines, despite boasting a Christian population of over 90 percent and a 5 percent Muslim population, would become an ISIS target. "Some parts of the islands of Mindanao, there are white people. I suppose they are Arabs, and they are here as missionaries," Duterte warned in November. "They are not armed, but they are here for indoctrination, that's what I'm afraid of. " Duterte has also confessed to having "cousins" in the Islamic State, as his family hails from the Muslim regions of the south. Duterte promised his armed forces "the weapons and the equipment and we have the air assets to help you. " "I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel to look for money to see you through," he promised. "I'll give you all you need. Just wait for the new firearms. " Duterte has reached out to allies for such aid, and it appears to be working. On Thursday, the Russian government requested the Philippines send Moscow a "shopping list of defense equipment" they need to fight both jihadists and drug criminals. "The response of the Russian Federation through President (Vladimir) Putin was very, very generous. So they said, well, we have the framework in place through our agreements to cooperate," Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Alan Cayetano said on Wednesday. "It's nothing new for the Russian Federation to lend a helping hand to countries that are their friends," he added. Cayetano added that the police and military were "suffering" due to outdated medical equipment use. "They're getting hurt. They don't have the best hospital equipment. Sometimes, the Abu Sayyaf have better equipment than they do," he lamented. Duterte began the week in Moscow, on a trip in which he was scheduled to receive an honorary degree from one of Moscow's best universities and meet with Putin personally. Duterte arrived back in Mindanao on Tuesday following the botched raid on Hapilon's hideout, however, excusing himself due to the national security emergency. Follow Frances Martel on Facebook and Twitter.


Newt Gingrich has been one of Donald Trump s most vocal cheerleaders, but in a new book, he threw his President under the bus by revealing the real reason Trump ran for President, and it s far worse than you think. Trump clearly thinks the presidency is a toy that he could buy because it s more fun than buying a yacht. His response was priceless, Gingrich writes in Understanding Trump, in an excerpt published by ABC News on Sunday. After a moment of thought, he said, $70 [million] to 80 million: that would be a yacht. This would be a lot more fun than a yacht! He also noted how Trump ran his campaign like a corporation ahead of schedule and under budget. Describing a phone conversation he had with Trump after the South Carolina primary in February 2016, Gingrich said the presidential candidate said he was indeed under budget. At the tail end of our conversation, he jokingly said, By the way, I know you said I needed to spend $80 million, but I ve only spent $30 million. I feel kind of bad, Gingrich quoted Trump, who won the South Carolina primary, as having said.Source: MarketWatchThat explains a lot. It explains why Trump is woefully unprepared to be president. It also explains why he seems to think the office is his ticket to getting even richer.Trump doesn t read. He doesn t pay attention to National Security Briefings unless his name is plastered all over the briefings, preferably with pictures.Nearly every meeting he s had with a world leader has been a disaster. He s offended all of our allies and he s helped accomplish the Russian goal of destabilizing the country. He also has the most corrupt presidency in history.While Trump might be having fun after spending less than he might have spent on a yacht, it s clear his presidency comes at the expense of the American people and of our reputation as the world s largest superpower. In other words, he s playing a very scary game and he simply doesn t care.


U.S. Senate Republicans have reached a tentative budget deal that could allow tax reform legislation to eliminate as much as $1.5 trillion in revenues over 10 years through tax cuts, raising the odds that their planned tax overhaul would expand the federal deficit. Two members of the Senate Budget Committee, Republicans Pat Toomey and Bob Corker, announced the formal agreement late on Tuesday, but their joint news release did not provide dollar figures for revenue reduction or tax cuts. The prospective tax cuts are part of closed-door talks among 12 Senate Budget Committee Republicans who are drafting a fiscal 2018 budget measure needed to help the 100-member Senate pass a tax overhaul with as few as 51 Republicans votes and prevent Democrats from blocking the legislation. The U.S. economy is in a steady expansion and stock markets are rising. But the tax cuts being weighed by congressional Republicans, with encouragement from President Donald Trump, are on a scale normally reserved for times of economic hardship and intended to drive annual economic growth above 3 percent. Trump campaigned last year on a promise of comprehensive tax reform. But Republicans have made little tangible progress toward that ambitious goal so far. Toomey told reporters he is confident that Republicans will agree to a budget resolution that foresees a deficit in the first decade. He said, however, that talks have not settled definitively on $1.5 trillion. "I'd like to see a bigger number," said Toomey, who argues that tax cuts would increase economic growth. In their joint news release, Toomey and Corker said they agreed on a budget resolution that would use a standard analysis of the impact of the tax cuts on the deficit. Some Republicans like Toomey have pushed for a "dynamic" model, which tends to assume an increased economic stimulus effect from tax cuts, resulting in smaller projected increases to the deficit. Senator John Thune, a member of the Senate Republican leadership team, said he expected the agreement to provide maximum flexibility to craft a tax overhaul capable of driving economic growth and ultimately raising worker wages. But looming in the background is Washington's steady flow of red ink that adds every year to the $20 trillion national debt, a target of outrage not long ago for Republican "fiscal hawks." In recent weeks, some fiscal hawks have expressed a willingness to consider deficit financing for tax reform but many at levels well below $500 billion. Toomey's comments suggest Senate Republicans may be looking to deficit spending as a way to cut taxes on businesses and individuals while avoiding hard decisions that would be needed to raise taxes elsewhere or eliminate popular tax breaks. If adopted by Congress in a budget resolution, the $1.5 trillion figure would set a ceiling on how much revenue tax reform could eliminate over 10 years. Analysts and Democrats have warned that higher deficits resulting from tax cuts would eventually overwhelm economic growth at a time when U.S. interest rates are set to rise. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, whose panel would use the budget figure in crafting a tax reform bill, told reporters he was not sure that revenue losses of $1.5 trillion were needed for tax reform. Senator Ron Wyden, the Senate Finance Committee's top Democrat, dismissed the development as a distraction from the more important question of how Republican tax reform would ultimately benefit the wealthy. "It looks to me like yet another trial balloon," Wyden said. Republicans have been unable to agree on how to pay for tax cuts and other proposed tax changes, aside from arguing that some lost revenue would be clawed back from the buoyant economic growth they believe tax reform will deliver. "There's no way you're going to be able to do tax cuts that pay for themselves," said Louisiana Senator John Kennedy, another budget committee Republican. "But I think most people would concede that cutting taxes does stimulate the economy."


Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:35 UTC © UPI.com Successful eurobond sale in September, credit upgrade by Fitch, and sharp improvement in World Bank Ease of Doing Business ranking, all confirm effectiveness of Russian government's economic policies, amidst strengthening recovery. As economic recovery in Russia continues to gain hold, Russia has received authoritative endorsement both for its successful macroeconomic policies and for its rapidly improving business conditions. The US credit rating agency Fitch on 14th October 2016 upgraded Russia's rating from BBB- (negative) to BBB- (stable). Normally I pay no attention to ratings decisions by US credit rating agencies, which have been proved repeatedly wrong, and which in Russia's case are blatantly politicised. Back in 2015, during the worst period of the recession, I pointed out how obviously and completely wrong the decisions of the US credit rating agencies to downgrade Russia's credit rating at that time were. The market clearly agrees with me. Fitch's Russia rating is only just investment grade, whilst those of S&P and Moody's actually give Russia a junk rating. In spite of this - and as I predicted - Russia's last eurobond issue in September was six times oversubscribed, with almost the entirety of the issue on this occasion sold to US investors . Even the Western financial media has been finally forced to admit that Russia's latest eurobond issue was a success . If I refer to Fitch's latest upgrade of Russia's rating, it is not because I agree with Fitch's rating of Russia (I don't) but because of what Fitch has to say about Russia's economic policy "Russia has implemented a coherent and credible policy response to the sharp fall in oil prices. A flexible exchange rate, inflation targeting, fiscal consolidation and financial sector support have allowed the economy to adjust and domestic confidence to return gradually. The strength and quality of the policy response stands out relative to those of other oil producers similarly affected by the oil price shock. (bold italics added) In other words Russia has responded to the oil price fall intelligently and successfully - more so than have the other oil producers. In his State of the Union address of 20th January 2015 US President Obama famously gloated "today, it is America that stands strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated with its economy in tatters." Judging by the success of its latest eurobond issue, and the credit upgrade Russia has just been given by Fitch, neither the market nor even Fitch agree with him. Meanwhile Russia's World Bank Ease of Doing Business ranking continues its rapid rise. In 2011 Russia's ranking was 123 in the survey out of 183. By 2014 it had risen to 62 out of 189, by 2015 to 51 out of 189, and in this year's survey it has risen again to 40 out of 190. When I discussed last year's survey I made the point that the dramatic improvement in Russia's World Bank Ease of Doing Business ranking is simply incompatible with Russia being the corrupt kleptocracy of the West's imagination "In corrupt kleptocratic oligarchies courts do not function efficiently, contracts are not performed and enforced, rights of minority shareholders are not protected, and people are not able to register their property easily and do not pay their taxes." Comment: Putin's record for fighting corruption is world-class but the Western media will never tell you I also pointed out that the rapid improvement of Russia's World Bank Ease of Doing Business ranking proves that the claim that Russia is not "reforming" its economy is quite simply wrong. Russia is not only continuously reforming its economy, but it is doing so successfully " the demand for more and more "reforms" simply ignores the fact that reforms are in fact being carried out. Anyone who reads through the World Bank's annual surveys will see that they are all about "reforms". It is precisely because Russia is carrying out "reforms" that its ranking is rising so fast. To be clear, modernising the court system, introducing a new bankruptcy law, simplifying procedures for connecting to the electricity supply, and passing laws on registering property and on administering bankruptcy, are reforms. They may lack the drama of breaking up Gazprom, but academic research, historical experience and the World Bank all say the same thing: it is these sort of unexciting reforms that in the end are the ones that make a difference and which produce results. In other words Russia is reforming, and it is doing so successfully, in a methodical and purposeful way. Doing so requires hard work and unremitting attention to detail. The Russian authorities deserve credit for successfully doing it, not the criticism for doing nothing that they normally get." I also made an extended point about what Russia's ranking in the World Bank Ease of Doing Business survey says about the overall level of Russia's society and economy. The continued advance in Russia's ranking to 40th in the world shows that this point remains valid, so I reproduce it here in full "The second point is that if one looks at what sort of countries now outrank Russia in the survey, it turns out that they are - broadly speaking - the three Asian industrial giants: Japan, Taiwan and South Korea, the two Asian city states of Hong Kong and Singapore, and the traditional and well established industrialised societies of the West: the US, the three rich countries of the British commonwealth (Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and most (though not all) the states of the EU - in sum what was once called "the first world". If one removes the one indicator where Russia scores especially badly, Trading Across Borders - for which there are special reasons (see above) - Russia becomes even more clearly aligned with these "first world" countries rather than with those countries that make up what used to be called "the third world". The Russian government's target is to achieve 20th place in the World Bank's ease of doing business survey by 2018. That may be too optimistic, though it is worth pointing out that the target for this year was 50th, which Russia only missed by one place. If Russia does achieve a ranking of 20th in the world by 2018 then it will be right in the middle of the "first world" group of countries rather than just outside it. At that point it will also have one of the best business climates in the world. Even if Russia does not achieve 20th position by 2018, the pace of improvement in the rankings is so fast it suggests Russia will break in fully in terms of quality of its business climate into the list of "first world" countries before long." Inevitably, as Russia's position in the World Bank Ease of Doing Business survey has rapidly improved, some commentators both in the West and Russia have cast doubt on the survey, even though its methodology is rigorous (originating apparently with Harvard University) and even though it is based on thorough field work. Needless to say these are the same commentators who regularly cited the survey when Russia's ranking in it was poor. There is in fact no reason to think the rapid rise in Russia's position in the survey does not reflect actual business conditions. As I said in my discussion of last year's survey, its results were anecdotally confirmed to me in a meeting I had with a group of local businessmen in Perm. A far more authoritative person has now come forward and said the same thing. This is German Gref, the single individual who is perhaps best informed about conditions for businesses in Russia because he is the CEO of Sberbank, Russia's biggest bank, which is the national (as opposed to local) bank that small businesses in Russia are most likely to look to for credit. Gref stands politically at the farthest liberal end of the spectrum of Russia's political and economic establishment, and he is far from shy about criticising the government, which he does frequently. Yet in a meeting with Putin on 4th August 2016 he confirmed the improvement in business conditions in Russia "I think that the environment that we will have in place by the end of 2016, when all of the legal amendments take effect, will mean that Russia will be offering one of the most interesting and technologically convenient environments for small businesses. " (bold italics added) Because of the extremely poor relations between the West and Russia, Russia's economy and its economic management are continuously and relentlessly criticised in a way which plays well to Western prejudice but which grossly distorts understanding of the country and its government. Russia's highly conservative macroeconomic policies emphasising tight budget discipline (the federal budget deficit at the peak of the recession was 3% of GDP, roughly the same as that of the US and below that of Britain during their 'recoveries', with the Russian government planning to cut the deficit by 1% of GDP over each coming year), low taxes (income tax is levied at a flat rate of 13%), high real interest rates (currently around 4% above inflation), open financial markets, low debt (government debt in Russia is 17.7% of GDP compared to 104% in the US, 229% in Japan, 89% in Britain, 96% in France and 71% in Germany), low external debt (roughly 20% of Russia's GDP, compared to 114% of the US's, 570% of Britain's, 220% of France's, 145% of Germany's and 60% of Japan's) and floating exchange rate, have in reality enabled Russia - as Fitch says - to adjust rapidly and very successfully to the fall in oil prices. At the same time the rapid improvement in business conditions shown by the rapid rise of Russia's ranking in the World Bank Ease of Doing Business survey shows that Russia is also working hard and successfully at getting its microeconomic conditions right. In other words the people who run Russia's economy know their job and by and large they do it well. That does not mean they are infallible. In my opinion interest rates are far too high, with the 4% inflation target for next year in danger of becoming a fetish. However compared to the appalling mismanagement one sees elsewhere, far from being the collapsing kleptocratic empire of Western fancy, Russia looks like an island of stability and good sense.


Wednesday on MSNBC, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani defended Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and Breitbart News against network host Stephanie Ruhle's charges of racism. Partial transcript as follows: RUHLE: I've also never seen the hate and the racism out of so many people who are saying we're going to— GIULIANI: There's no racism. RUHLE: You don't think Breitbart News — GIULIANI: Breitbart News is not running for office. RUHLE: But Steven Bannon is the architect of Donald Trump's campaign. What do you believe Breitbart represents? GIULIANI: Nobody runs Donald Trump's campaign but Donald Trump. For all the stuff you're throwing around, racist, the last thing in the world Donald Trump is a racist. I've known him for 28 years. The man likes white people, he likes black people, he likes Hispanic people, he plays golf with them. He opened up the first club in Palm Beach that allowed Jewish people, Italian people like me who couldn't get into those clubs. RUHLE: Can you say that Steven Bannon doesn't run his campaign? GIULIANI: Donald Trump runs Donald Trump's campaign. RUHLE: What is he doing paying Steven Bannon? GIULIANI: There are a lot of people who do different things.


Email  Meditation is some pretty awesome stuff, and the practice is finding its way into more and more lives every day. Now a program at Cedar Creek Middle School in Portland, ME is proving that meditation can have a major impact. By meditating just 15 minutes a day, nearly all of the kids in the program have seen lower stress levels and higher test scores, and three of them have gone absolutely insane.  What a remarkable result!  The program, called Mindful Kids, encourages students to sit silently in a darkened classroom for 15 minutes a day and listen to white noise. Six weeks in, the effects were already striking: Most of the students had noticeably improved behavior and were more engaged in their schoolwork, and three of them had pulled out all of their hair and created their own language that they speak through their nostrils.  "It's astounding," said Colin Creedman, the teacher who started the program. "We expected the meditation to cause some improvement, but we didn't plan on it having such a big impact. 'C' students became 'A' students. There have been no fights. Three of them started worshipping a Bunsen burner as their god. And they're much more focused in class. Anyone who's skeptical of the effectiveness of meditation really needs to meet these kids."  The students in the program have noticed some big differences, too. "I feel more calm," said 11-year-old Melissa Hogseth. "Not just during the meditation, but throughout the day. I think it's great for kids to meditate."  Ten-year-old Jason Woodward says he also has benefited from meditating: "My blood has become pure mercury. I can absorb shadows now. Meditation has helped me focus my energy into a beam that can cut glass and, soon, flesh and bone."  Unbelievable! The brain is an amazing thing, and these kids prove that meditation can unlock its full potential and sometimes make it go batshit insane. Way to go, Cedar Creek Middle School!


U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday suggested that the United States and Russia lay to rest the controversy over Moscow's computer hacking of Democratic Party computers, saying, "We ought to get on with our lives." Trump has cast doubt on the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian hackers took information from Democratic Party computers and individuals and posted it online to help Trump win the election. The Obama administration plans to announce on Thursday a series of retaliatory measures against Russia for hacking into U.S. political institutions and individuals and leaking information, two U.S. officials said on Wednesday. Asked by reporters if the United States should sanction Russia, Trump replied: "I think we ought to get on with our lives. I think that computers have complicated lives very greatly. The whole age of computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what's going on." Trump made his remarks at Mar-a-Lago, his seaside Florida resort where he is spending the Christmas and New Year's holidays while also interviewing candidates for administration jobs. Trump said he was not familiar with remarks earlier on Wednesday by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who said Russia and President Vladimir Putin should expect tough sanctions for the cyber attacks. "We have speed. We have a lot of other things but I'm not sure you have the kind of security that you need. But I have not spoken with the senators and I certainly will be over a period of time," he said.


President Donald Trump has tapped a longtime legal adviser to serve as his private attorney while a special counsel investigates whether his campaign worked with Russia in last year's election, a source familiar with the decision told Reuters Tuesday. Fox Business Network and ABC first reported that Trump hired Marc Kasowitz, a New York-based trial lawyer known as a tenacious litigator, to represent him in a Justice Department investigation headed by former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Robert Mueller. The appointment of a private attorney may indicate that Trump is seriously considering the impact the federal investigation could have on him personally and that he may wish to protect himself should others in his administration turn against him. The source said Kasowitz is expected to bring other lawyers on to work as a team to protect Trump. Other candidates for the job, including Brendan Sullivan and Robert Giuffra, withdrew their names from consideration, the source said. "He can be aggressive - he's got that in him for sure," said John Quinn of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, who has worked with and opposite Kasowitz. "He also can be smooth as silk, respectful and deferential." Kasowitz and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters. Kasowitz has represented Trump for more than 15 years but he is not known as a criminal defense lawyer. During last year's presidential campaign, Kasowitz threatened to sue the New York Times if it did not retract a story about women who accused Trump of touching them inappropriately. The Times did not retract the story. He also assisted in the defense of fraud claims against Trump University, a series of real-estate seminars. After the election, Trump settled the claims for $25 million. Trump has looked to Kasowitz's firm to fill positions in his administration. He has described former Senator Joseph Lieberman, a senior counsel at the firm, as a top candidate to serve as FBI director and is considering Edward McNally, a white-collar defense lawyer at the firm, as the next U.S. attorney in Manhattan. A former partner at the firm, David Friedman, was chosen by Trump as U.S. ambassador to Israel. Kasowitz also represents OJSC Sberbank of Russia, the country's largest bank, which is being accused in a U.S. federal court of conspiring with granite company executives and others to raid the assets of a competitor. The outside counsel would be separate from the White House Counsel's Office, led by Donald McGahn. Mueller was appointed as special counsel by the Justice Department last week to investigate the Trump campaign's possible ties to Russia. Several congressional committees and the FBI are also investigating the matter. U.S. intelligence agencies concluded in January that Moscow tried to sway the November vote in Trump's favor. Russia has denied involvement, and Trump has denied any collusion between his campaign and Russia. Controversy has engulfed Trump since he fired FBI Director James Comey two weeks ago as Comey oversaw an investigation into possible collusion between his presidential campaign and Russia.


You may remember Greg Gianforte, the Republican who won Montana s only Congressional seat in May even after assaulting reporter Ben Jacobs of the Guardian. He disputed the charge at first, then audio came out that clearly depicted him body-slamming the journalist after Jacobs asked a series of uncomfortable questions.Gianforte pled guilty to the charge back in June, although it had no bearing on the outcome of his post-assault election. Presumably, the voters of Montana thought Jacobs had it coming, or perhaps they re so committed to their political party that even an assault charge won t deter them from voting for a GOP candidate.At the time, the Tea Party lawmaker protested the judge s order that he be booked and fingerprinted, as well as have his photo taken for a mug shot. His lawyers argued that the judge didn t have the authority to order the proceedings since he was never actually handcuffed and arrested formally a feat he pulled off by coincidentally being the candidate the local Sheriff had made political donations to during his campaign.Now, despite his legal team s argument that he was exempt because he was only charged with a misdemeanor, a judge has ordered that Gianforte turn himself in by September 15th for booking on the charge. If the congressman doesn t comply, the judge said, he will be held in contempt of court.Although Gianforte has paid his fines, apologized to Jacobs, and donated $50,000 to the Committee to Protect Journalists, he has yet to complete his community service. There is no word whether he has followed through on the anger management classes he was ordered to attend.Practically speaking, a mugshot should worry the congressman when it comes time for reelection. Campaign ads could use it freely, as they are public record. But the question remains whether Gianforte, who raised nearly $120,000 in donations after admitting to the assault, has anything to worry about at all with the voters of Montana.


President Trump is lashing out against "fake news" in what is quite possibly the greatest course ever publicly taught in America. [Also, there is Mr. Trump's relentless interaction with the press. And I don't just mean the big guys. I mean the little local guys from Poughkeepsie, piped into the White House briefing room for awkward questions asked by disemboweled local anchors. At the end of the day, Mr. Trump is still not done. So he turns to Twitter to unleash yet more unfiltered news awesomeness onto the American media landscape. Welcome to the Age of Raw Journalism. Truly, a new dawn in American media. Drink fully from it, for the flowing bounty has never been like this ever before, and who knows if and when it will ever end. It is the confluence of instant information, manic technologies and a political figure who has the strength, fearlessness and stamina to keep it going around the clock. So let's check in with the professionals, the folks who stand to benefit the most from this most generous newsmaker. "This is how the muzzling starts," New York Times media drip Jim Rutenberg warned ominously, "not with a boot on your neck, but with the fear of one that runs so deep that you muzzle yourself. " Not sure exactly what that means, but I checked twice to make sure I copied it correctly. "Maybe it's the story you decide against doing because it's liable to provoke a president to put the power of his office behind his attempt to destroy your reputation by falsely calling your journalism 'fake.' "Maybe it's the line you hold back from your script or your article because it could trigger a federal leak investigation into you and your sources (so, yeah, jail). " All of that is from an actual report by Mr. Rutenberg in the newspaper that is now, according to the president, "failing. " Everywhere you turn today, reporters are gasping that the First Amendment is somehow under assault by Mr. Trump. White House reporters say they are under siege during daily briefings with Sean Spicer insulting them, rudely answering questions and assaulting them with the actual White House podium. OK, that last one I made up, but it was from the first funny skit "Saturday Night Live" has come up with in decades. But let's seriously consider how Mr. Trump is handling the press. He gave a press briefing in the White House last Thursday. He walked in and began by "mentioning" the name of his new nominee for labor secretary. And then he turned the whole thing over to reporters. All modern presidents have opened such briefings with a list of handpicked reporters they would call on to ensure they only got the type of questions they wanted. Nobody in the doormat press corps ever complains about that. Donald Trump threw the gates wide open. If he walked in with a list, he tossed it aside by the time he got going. He was up there pointing to random reporters and pitting them against one another, at times barking like a tobacco auctioneer. He took any and all questions. He was tough, he was funny, he was belligerent. But he was always engaging. Mr. Trump's immediate predecessor was famous for taking eight questions and bloviating at length and droning on long enough on each question that he would stretch it out to 50 minutes. He never wavered, of course, from his list of approved questioners. In Mr. Trump's freewheeling press conference, he answered questions from two dozen reporters, more than 40 questions total if you include . And the entire thing was riveting and revealing and supremely watchable. How is this an affront to the First Amendment? Katy Tur, another journalistic lion over on the MSNBC television channel, was recently interviewing a Republican in Congress. "As we know, there's since 2000 been a couple dozen suspicious deaths of journalists in Russia who came out against the government there," Ms. Tur said. "Donald Trump has made no secret about going after journalists and his distaste for any news that doesn't agree with him here. Do you find that this is a dangerous path he is heading down?" So Donald Trump likes to mix it up with reporters and challenge them? So next step is he's going to start killing them? OK, I am not in the least bit concerned about the First Amendment in America with Mr. Trump in the White House. But we are seriously on the precipice of doom if fragile dopes like Katy Tur are our last line of defense. • Charles Hurt can be reached at churt@washingtontimes. com follow him on Twitter via @charleshurt.


21st Century Wire says It was an awkward fit of nerves when Donald met Angela During an interview in October 2015, when asked about Chancellor Merkel s open door refugee policy, Trump famously replied, I always thought Merkel was, like, this great leader What she s done in Germany is insane, before adding, They re going to have riots in Germany. This was followed by a number of other disparaging remarks, including the obligatory Twitter rant from then candidate Trump:I told you @TIME Magazine would never pick me as person of the year despite being the big favorite They picked person who is ruining Germany Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 9, 2015It didn t end there either. In March 2016, when commenting on the Cologne New Year s Eve sexual assaults, Trump proceeded to blame Merkel. The German people are going to riot. The German people are going to end up overthrowing this woman [Angela Merkel]. I don t know what the hell she is thinking. With so much bad water under the bridge, it s no wonder how at their press conference the normally bolshy Trump continued to appear sheepish in Merkel s presence a far cry from the campaign trail Vaudeville atmosphere.It s the difference between campaigning and governing READ MORE TRUMP NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Trump FilesSUPPORT 21WIRE SUBSCRIBE & BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


During an interview on CNN Sunday morning, Jake Tapper pressed Donald Trump hard asking for some shred of evidence that the presumptive Republican frontrunner s claims regarding the Iraq War are true.Trump attempted to position himself against Hillary Clinton s vote in favor of the Iraq War: I have a very strong temperament, but I have a temperament that s totally under control. And [Hillary Clinton] mentions that I ll bring us into war. She s the one that wanted to go into Iraq. She raised her hand. She didn t know what the hell she was doing. She raised her hand. I said, I don t want to go into Iraq. Iraq is going to destabilize the Middle East, and I was 100 percent right, Trump told Tapper.Now, this might actually be a legitimate talking point if this were a normal election and Trump wasn t Trump. However, that is not at all the case. That s why Tapper decided to call out Trump s statement that he was against the Iraq War before it started.Here is a transcript of the exchange:JAKE TAPPER: Can I just say one point on that, I have looked so long and hard for any evidence TRUMP: I ll give it to you. 2004, they had newspaper articles.TAPPER: Right, but the war started in 2003.TRUMP: It did, but you know what, you look at I did an interview with Howard [Stern], and that interview was the first time I was ever asked the question. Don t forget I was an entrepreneur. I m a real estate person.TAPPER: But didn t you say to Howard that you thought it was a good idea?TRUMP: This was before the war started, long before the war started and it was a very, like, I don t know. First, nobody ever asked me the question, when you re do what I did nobody was talking about a lot of the questions that you ask me today, and I was I sort of like, well, I don t know, maybe, I don t know. By the time that started, I was totally against it, and from 2004 on, there s a lot of proof of that, because, as you know, there was articles in magazines, there was a lot of articles.TAPPER: Yeah. A year after the war started.TRUMP: No, no, but I was against it from before it started. And if you go back and look at that interview, and I ll get it for you if you want, but that interview was substantially before the war started. It was the first time I was ever asked the question. And even that, it wasn t like, oh yeah, we should go in. It was a very, like yeah, maybe.TAPPER: The only thing I would say, and then we don t have to belabor this point, is if there is evidence of you being against the war strongly before the war actually started, I would love to see that.TRUMP: OK, but I think there is evidence.TAPPER: I just haven t seen it.TRUMP: I think there is evidence. I haven t been asked that question before. Nobody said that to me before. I think there is evidence, I ll see if I can get it. But I will say, from the beginning of 2004, I mean I ve had articles, and I mean there are magazines TAPPER: 2004 no question.TRUMP: I was against the war a long time ago and it destabilized the Middle East, and that s exactly what I said was going to happen.While the political theater of watching Trump try to back up one of his claims without there being any actual evidence to back his claims is always entertaining, Trump accidently exposed a huge weakness of his in the interview. No one cares what Trump has had to say about anything before this election cycle. His greatest achievement in the political realm until now was his fanning of the flames that was the birther conspiracy theory.No one cared in 2013 what Trump had to say about the Iraq War then. Trump has alleged that the reason that there isn t any evidence of his disapproval of the Iraq War was because no one asked him about it. Who would ask the Trump of 2003 his opinion on any matter of seriousness? He was reality television star. He didn t matter.That being said, if Trump did actually have such strong feelings against the Iraq War, why didn t he bring it up. Trump had the money and social capital to launch a campaign against the Iraq invasion that could have possibly have had an actual impact.Yet he didn t. That s because Trump is a selfish opportunist and taking a stand at the right time in history is not in his nature.You can watch the interview below.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5dC2l8j6UUFeatured image from video screenshot


Twisted reasoning is all that comes from Pelosi these days especially when in 2006 most prominent Democrats voted to build a barrier at the border.Fred Davis and John Ladd are two Arizona ranchers who were guests on Fox and Friends this morning. As ranchers who are living and making a living on our US-Mexico border, they had a very different story to tell viewers. While laughing at claims made by Democrat House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, Ladd and Davis talked about how ridiculous her claims were and what the benefits of a real wall on our borders would mean to the actual residents living in the nightmare of illegal immigration.John Ladd was asked if he ever invited Pelosi to the border and he responded to Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy by saying, Yes, but she never responded.


55 King World News  As we kick off the third week of trading in November, today James Turk spoke with King World News about why what Donald Trump faces is very different from what Ronald Reagan face, but here is the good news…  James Turk: " Congratulations to Mr Trump. If his presidency is as remarkable as his election, Eric, he could go down in history as a great president. I expect that a lot of things will change because of Trump. That's what voters want… Sponsored  I've seen polls showing that 70% or more of the electorate believes the country is headed in the wrong direction. A result like that cuts across party lines.  The last time I felt like this about the potential for major systemic change was when Reagan became president in 1981. Coincidentally, a lot of people back then were shocked that Reagan would be president, just like the shock we are seeing today with Trump's victory. I hope that with his performance that Trump confounds his cynics just like Reagan did.  With Reagan the coming systemic changes were pretty obvious because Paul Volcker had already been appointed as Fed chairman and had unsettled the markets by increasing interest rates. That signaled a major inflationary cycle was ending.  The Reagan presidency began a new disinflationary cycle, which lasted until Bush No. 2 took office. Annual increases in monetary debasement once again became measurable, and the gold price began rising in response.  I am not convinced at this time that we are at the end of any cycle, but I nevertheless expect circumstances will indeed be different going forward. My thinking is that the present cycle of monetary debasement is not going to end or even just abate as occurred with Reagan.  The change I expect is the trend of purchasing power erosion will accelerate. Trump of course could change that trend. He is so far making the right statements. Lower taxes and less regulation will indeed improve the economy. A stronger economy will increase tax revenues, which will be needed to fund the infrastructure spending that Trump is promising.  But so far he seems to be ignoring a key issue. The federal government's debt has become so big it is now unmanageable. To illustrate my point, let's take Trump at his word that he is going to control government spending so it doesn't increase the deficit, even though he is going to increase spending for defense and infrastructure. Let's assume that the increased spending in these two areas is covered by higher tax revenue from economic growth, and is therefore neutral to the deficit.  But what if interest rates rise to a more normal 5% as some are predicting?  Let's assume Mr Trump saves money by completely eliminating the Departments of Commerce, Education, Housing and Labor. Then he also eliminates the Environmental Protection Agency, and throws in some other savings by completely eliminating International Assistance Programs, NASA and the National Science Foundation.  Add it all up and Trump saves about $200 billion each year. That's about equal to the additional annual interest expense on the $20 trillion federal government debt if rates rise 1%. So if interest rates rise to 5%, the federal deficits are going to soar. To fund those deficits, the Federal Reserve is going to have to do a lot of money printing, which of course will debase the dollar by eroding its purchasing power.  The important point is that if the Fed hikes rates, then rising interest rates will borrow even more just to pay interest on its debt, which creates a vicious cycle that will ultimately destroy the dollar. But if interest rates stay low, the Fed destroys savers and capitalism because it is eliminating the incentive to save any national currency, which lowers the demand for that currency and in this way too the Fed ultimately destroys the dollar.  So in either scenario, the dollar is toast, but there is a solution…This will be continued tomorrow in part two of James Turk's powerful interview. In the meantime, for those who are interested in hearing more about the gold market and the Trump shocker, KWN has just released gold, more. and you can listen to this extraordinary interview Legend Art Cashin On A Trump Presidency, The New World Order, Gold, Brexit, The Great Depression And Why We Will See Panic


A U.S. judge on Thursday handed a victory to congressional Republicans who challenged President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law, ruling that his administration overstepped its constitutional powers relating to government spending. U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, based in Washington, ruled that the administration cannot spend billions of dollars in federal funds to provide subsidies under the law known as Obamacare to private insurers without the approval of Congress. At issue in the case, brought by the Republican-led House of Representatives, are reimbursements to insurance companies to compensate them for reductions that the law requires them to make to customers' out-of-pocket medical payments. The ruling will not have an immediate effect on the law because the judge put the decision on hold pending an expected appeal by the administration. But it adds to uncertainty over the future of Obama's signature domestic policy achievement ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential and congressional elections, including whether enough health insurers will continue to participate in the program. Insurers have sustained losses from their Obamacare business, saying they have not attracted enough healthy customers to offset the costs of sicker members. Two of the largest players, UnitedHealth Group and Humana Inc, had already said they would not offer plans in many markets next year. "If you're going to lose more money, why participate?" asked Steve Halper, an analyst with FBR Capital Markets. Shares in hospital operators such as Community Health Systems Inc fell sharply, while insurer stocks including Aetna Inc, which plans to remain in at least 15 Obamacare markets next year, also declined. In court papers, the administration had warned that a court victory for the House Republicans would lead to a spike in insurance premiums for Americans and force the government to pay more in tax credits to insurance policy-holders. As part of an appeal, the administration is likely to press its argument that the House lacks legal standing to sue. "This suit represents the first time in our nation's history that Congress has been permitted to sue the executive branch over a disagreement about how to interpret a statute," White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters. "It's unfortunate that Republicans have resorted to a taxpayer-funded lawsuit to re-fight a political fight that they keep losing," Earnest added. "They've been losing this fight for six years, and they'll lose it again." Conservatives have mounted a series of legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act since it was passed by Congress in 2010 over unified Republican opposition. Collyer was appointed to the bench by Republican former President George W. Bush. The law has helped bring insurance coverage to millions of Americans who previously had none, subsidizing the cost of insurance through tax credits. In addition, the federal government helped defray consumers' out-of-pocket costs. The House Republicans argued that the administration's action violated the U.S. Constitution because it is the legislative branch, not the executive branch, that authorizes government spending. "BIG win for the Constitution," House Speaker Paul Ryan wrote on Twitter. Jonathan Turley, the lawyer who spearheaded the lawsuit, in a blog post called the ruling "a resounding victory not just for Congress but for our constitutional system as a whole." The appeals court in Washington may be more receptive to the administration's arguments, in part because seven of its 11 active judges are Democratic-appointees, including four picked by Obama. The case focuses on a cost-sharing provision of Obamacare that requires insurers to reduce deductibles and co-pays. Insurers are supposed to be reimbursed for these costs by the federal government. Cost-sharing is determined by the income of the policyholder and is a mechanism for reducing healthcare costs for lower-income households. The Obama administration has interpreted the provision as a type of federal spending that does not need to be explicitly authorized by Congress. The House Republicans who filed the challenge disagreed. Collyer ruled that the cost-sharing provisions cannot be funded through the same permanent appropriation that covers tax credits made available under the law. The judge rejected the administration's contention that the appropriation should be viewed as permanent because the alternative interpretation would lead to "absurd economic, fiscal and healthcare policy results." The U.S. Supreme Court in June 2015, in a ruling authored by Bush-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts, rejected a conservative challenge that could have gutted Obamacare, upholding nationwide tax subsidies crucial to the law. Roberts also wrote a major 2012 ruling preserving Obamacare.


An explosion overnight in the southern Swedish town of Helsingborg caused extensive damage to the entrance of a police station, authorities said on Wednesday. Nobody was injured in the explosion, which occurred shortly after midnight local time and also shattered windows in a neighboring building, police said in a statement. It is unclear what caused the detonation, police said. Police said they were carrying out checks in the Helsingborg area but had not made any arrests. Gang-related violent crime in southern Sweden has been in the spotlight in recent years with several shootings in the region.


Bill Still's 5-minute report :  No colleague I know of, nor I, have objectively verifiable factual information on a possible "white hat" recapture of lawful government. That said, what is easy to document and prove: When Americans are told an election is defined by touching a computer screen without a countable receipt that can be verified, they are being told a criminal lie to allow election fraud . This is self-evident, but Princeton , Stanford , and the President of the American Statistical Association are among the leaders pointing to the obvious (and here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here ). Again, no professional would/can argue an election is legitimate when there is nothing for anyone to count. President Kennedy , Martin King , Robert Kennedy (and here ), and dozens of others were assassinated by the .01% "Deep State." The evidence is overwhelming in each case. The US is a literal rogue state empire led by neocolonial looting liars. The history is uncontested and taught to anyone taking comprehensive courses. If anyone has any refutations of this professional academic factual claim for any of this easy-to-read and documented content , please provide it. US ongoing lie-started and Orwellian-illegal Wars of Aggression require all US military and government to refuse all war orders because there are no lawful orders for obviously unlawful wars. Officers are required to arrest those who issue obviously unlawful orders. And again, those of us working for this area of justice are aware of zero attempts to refute this with, "War law states (a, b, c), so the wars are legal because (d, e, f)." All we receive is easy-to-reveal bullshit . And, duh, corporate media are criminally complicit through constant lies of omission and commission to "cover" all these crimes. Historic tragic-comic empire is only possible through such straight-face lying, making our Emperor's New Clothes analogy perfectly chosen. The top three benefits each of monetary reform and public banking total ~$1,000,000 for the average American household, and would be received nearly instantly. Please read that twice. Now look to verify for yourself . More on the $2 billion Clinton Foundation giving just 10% of their money to charity. The categories of crime include: Wars of Aggression (the worst crime a nation can commit). Likely treason for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths. Crimes Against Humanity for ongoing intentional policy of poverty that's killed over 400 million human beings just since 1995 (~75% children; more deaths than from all wars in Earth's recorded history).  US military, law enforcement, and all with Oaths to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, face an endgame choice: Demand arrests , with those with lawful authority to enact it. An arrest is the lawful action to stop apparent crimes , with the most serious crimes documented here meaning the most serious need for arrests. Watch the US escalate its rogue state crimes that annually kill millions, harm billions, and loot trillions.  In just 90 seconds , former US Marine Ken O'Keefe powerfully states how you may choose to voice "very obvious solutions": arrest the criminal leaders (video starts at 20:51, then finishes this episode of Cross Talk ): Solutions worth literal tens of trillions to 'We the People':  Again: The top three benefits each of monetary reform and public banking total ~$1,000,000 for the average American household, and would be received nearly instantly. Please read that twice. Now look to verify for yourself . We can quantify the end of the lie-started and illegal Wars of Aggression quickly into the trillions, and that said, it's worth a lot more than what we quantify. Truth : a world in which education is expressed in its full potential to only and always begin with good-faith effort for objective, comprehensive, and verifiable data.  **  Note: I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History, with all economics factual claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008 among Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion board , public audiences of these articles , and international conferences (and here ). I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for the benefit of all Earth's inhabitants.  **  Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics. He worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen's lobby, RESULTS , for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at  Note: Examiner.com has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers), so some links in my previous work are blocked. If you'd like to search for those articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. Or, go to http://archive.org/web/ , p aste the expired link into the box, click "Browse history," then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive. I'll update as "hobby time" allows; including my earliest work from 2009 to 2011 (blocked author pages: here , here ).  This entry was posted in General . Bookmark the permalink . Not Guilty: The Power of Nullification to Counteract Government Tyranny → MyWikiDisQus  If Mr.Trump is elected president, he must purge the federal government of the militarists who have usurped the federal republic in the "soft coup d'etat" that was perpetrated by them on September 11, 2001. He must be aggressive, firm, and not deterred by any rancor that may rise from legal challenges, the corporate media, civil rights groups and foreign State lobbyists who have a vested interest in the neoconservative polity. He must do what Recep Erdogan did in Turkey but on a larger scale, with the panache that only the "Donald" can pull off, American style. He must charge them all with endangering the national and economic security of the United States.  He must open a federal investigation of the coverup of the 9/11 commission perpetrated by the Clinton and Bush (Bush 41 and Bush 43) regimes and restore the U.S.Department of Justice's reputation as the standard bearer for equal justice under the rule of law. No person is exempt, not a member of the U.S. Congress former or incumbent, member of the United States Military active or retired, Wall Street financier, corporate CEO including the national media or lobbyists for a foreign State. The pursuit of these persons will be ongoing, thorough, and not be restricted by any statute of limitations.  All the illegal wars in foreign lands made in the name of the American people will be reconciled by trial and recompense made to the victims from the assets confiscated by all the accused and their conspirators who are found guilty.  Trump must claim the title of American Paladin, a council member of the new global trust that lays the foundation for peace and well being in the 21st century. Donate


In 1832, during a performance of "Richard III" at the Bowery Theater in Manhattan, 300 boisterous audience members joined the cast onstage to participate in the final sword fight and the slaying of the tyrannical King Richard. According to a newspaper account, "the audience mingled with the soldiers and raced across the stage" and during the last duel "made a ring around the combatants to see fair play, and kept them at it for nearly a quarter of an hour. " In today's theater, where audience members are admonished to unwrap their candy in advance to avoid making a sound, such a scene is hard to fathom in the theater, it was of a piece (although on the rowdy side of the spectrum) with standard audience behavior. Attending the theater before 1850 or so in the United States was far more akin to attending a football game today than to attending contemporary theater. The audience was expected to make some noise, and as the scene at "Richard III" shows, it exercised the right to influence what happened on the stage as well — not just by buying tickets, but also by speaking up and acting out. People attended the theater to be seen and to be heard. They went to make themselves visible as the "people" of a democratic nation, and they went to debate, enact and imagine political issues concerning class relations, immigration, federalism, Indian policy and the future shape of the nation. [ Wherever we fall on the political spectrum, we're going to see our desires and fears reflected in theater ] The vitality of early theater and its history as a place for spirited debate came to mind when Donald J. Trump admonished the cast of "Hamilton" on Twitter for addressing Vice Mike Pence at the theater. The cast and creators of "Hamilton" have conjured a wildly popular multiracial version of the early United States on the Broadway stage, revising a longstanding image of the white founding fathers in ways that make visible the racial diversity of the nation at its origins and today. And in their recent address, they have also brought us back to a theater in which politics extends off the stage and into the audience. But while the "Hamilton" cast spoke directly to the audience from the stage, the audience has historically spoken back as well, and in ways that few are aware of today. Far more so than the voting booth (which restricted who could vote not only on the basis of race and gender, but also on the basis of wealth, meaning only half of white men were eligible to vote in 1800) the theater itself was a place where people of many different classes, races and religions — including Native Americans, Jews, Muslims, whites and immigrant Irishmen — appeared onstage and often in the audience as well. In the early 19th century, "Bowery B'hoys" in New York City attended the theater in droves and recited Shakespeare by heart — correcting actors when they missed a line. And although it was officially illegal for (free or enslaved) to attend the theater in late Charleston, S. C. I have found newspaper evidence that significant numbers of regularly attended and were considered an important component of the audience by the performers onstage. Actors addressed the audience, and the audience spoke back: In theaters from Baltimore to Boston, attendees routinely insisted that musicians repeat the songs they loved multiple times, castigated actors who missed lines and questioned casting decisions. Newspaper accounts of theater performance in the 19th century often refer to actors as continuing a play "in dumb show": This describes a moment when the actors continue to perform without being heard because crowd noise has drowned out the sound of any lines pronounced by the actors. The audience frequently felt free to substitute its own voice for that of the script being spoken onstage. Theatergoers understood themselves to be part of the performance rather than passive observers of actions occurring onstage. In 1801, Washington Irving wrote of attending the theater in New York City, where he was assaulted by apples, nuts and gingerbread thrown from the "gallery gods" — the people sitting in the cheap seats at the top of balcony — onto the heads of those in the audience below. Irving was "a little irritated at being saluted aside of my head with a rotten pippin" but brushed it off because the assault was not aimed at him in particular. It was, he concluded, the right of the working class to make its presence known to the elite. This was not just unruly behavior. It was democratic performance in action. As one American critic wrote in 1805, "The public, in the final resort, govern the stage. " Actors and theater managers were held accountable to a vocal public — a public that did not vote merely with its feet but with eggs, rotten apples, peanut shells, pumpkins and even, according to one account, the occasional sheep carcass that was tossed onstage. Debate was allowed — between sections of the audience and between the audience and the actors — because the audience was understood to be a reflection of a diverse public, a public that had space to cheer, jeer, sing and debate together. The theater is no longer that space for the most part, audiences now sit in the dark and assume the role of private consumers, not that of representatives of the people. And tickets to the theater — especially in the case of a Broadway megahit like "Hamilton" — are so expensive that the sort of class contention played out upon Irving's head would no longer be imaginable only the wealthy can pay the full price of admission. But when Brandon Victor Dixon, a "Hamilton" cast member, urged Mr. Pence to embrace an inclusive version of the American people, he brought the theater of the founding period vividly to life. Speaking on behalf of his fellow actors and the show's creators, he crossed the line between actor and audience, not to harass Mr. Pence, but to use the public space of theater to debate the ideal nature of that public, just as audience members routinely did in the days when Hamilton himself attended the theater. This is the longstanding and perhaps too rarely used promise of live theater — a promise realized in dialogue and debate over the collective creation of a community through living presence and theatrical representation. Mr. Trump has called upon the cast to apologize, but in doing so, he is closing a democratic opening — an open stage where people have historically found a place for their voices to be heard in counterpoint and chorus, even when their voices did not count at the ballot box. Far from demanding an apology, we might want to thank the cast of "Hamilton" for reminding us of the history of public debate and live, messy democracy in the theater and for reminding us that theater and performance are powerful resources for embodying and imagining community together.


U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday assailed what he said were illegal and "criminal" leaks from U.S. intelligence agencies in the controversy over contacts with Russian officials that forced his national security adviser Michael Flynn to resign. Speaking at a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump called Flynn a "wonderful man" and added: "I think it's very, very unfair what's happened to General Flynn, the way he was treated, and the documents and papers that were illegally, I stress that, illegally leaked."


Thank goodness someone is closing down the free-for all that s been happening with immigration for way too long! Did you know we let 50k diversity lottery winners come to America every year just because some government bureaucrat decided we needed more diversity. Oy vey! This lottery has gotten to be scam whereby favored people are given preference to immigrate. It needs to end NOW!Sen. Tom Cotton and Georgia Sen. David Perdue have started taking steps to crack down on legal immigration, a focus shared by the Trump administration. They ll formally propose legislation on the matter as soon as today. The details:1.Eliminates multiple avenues for U.S. citizens and permanent residents to sponsor family members for green cards. Chain migration is out of control! It means a family comes and then is allowed to bring other family members increasing the immigration numbers tremendously! This must end!2. Gets rid of the diversity visa lottery, which allots 50k visas per year for citizens of countries with low levels of immigration to the U.S.3. Restricts the number of refugees allowed into the country to 50k annually similar to rates outlined in Trump s travel ban. We believe 50k is still way too high! 4. If approved, the number of legal immigrants allowed into the U.S. under the bill would plummet by 40% in the first year and by 50% over the next 10 years, according to Cotton s aides.


Protesters campaigning against Sharia Law were met with a number of on Saturday, as rallies took place in 28 cities across America. [The rallies, which were organized by the national security organization ACT! for America, attracted strong support in cities such as Phoenix, Chicago, Austin, Atlanta, New York, Boston, and Seattle. Sharia is the law of Islam, which governs how Muslims pray, eat, establish families, and all aspects of a Muslim's life. The rules of sharia come from Quranic commandments and the hadiths, a collection of sayings of Muhammad. Sharia significantly restricts the freedom of women and allows for extreme punishments for violations such as adultery, blasphemy, and apostasy. Sharia is the basis of laws in Islamic countries, both Sunni and Shia. A press release from the ACT! for America website reads: This is a march against Sharia law and for human rights. Our nation is built on the freedom of religion — a pillar of our democracy — which we must always respect, protect, and honor. However many aspects of Sharia law run contrary to basic human rights and are completely incompatible with our laws and our democratic values. However, many marches were disrupted by who accused participants of "Islamaphobia" and stoking hatred against Muslims. #MuslimsAreWelcomedHere being chanted pic. twitter. — Dan Renzetti (@DanRenzetti) June 10, 2017, In Seattle, protesters could be heard singing: "No hate, no fear, Muslims are welcome here," as footage showed the two groups involved in a physical altercation. ANTIFA JUST BEATDOWN A TRUMP SUPPORTER. HUGE WILD BRAWL. BATTLE IN SEATTLE! !!! pic. twitter. — Mike Bivins (@itsmikebivins) June 10, 2017, In New York, protesters attempted to drown out the chanting of the march by sounding air horns and banging pots and pans. Video footage from the event showed protesters launch urine towards Canadian conservative journalist Lauren Southern. Here's the moment #antifa threw pee at Lauren Southern as I was trying to interview her pic. twitter. — Alex Rubinstein (@RealAlexRubi) June 10, 2017, "Out of nowhere liquid was splashed onto my face from one of the masked individuals in the crowd. It got all in my eyes and over my face and totally reeked. The first two seconds were a little horrifying because I wasn't sure if it was an acid attack," Southern told Breitbart News. Several people were arrested after fights broke out at the Minnesota State Capitol in St. Paul, although nobody was injured, according to local reports. Fights break out during "anti sharia" march, counterprotest at Minnesota State Capitol https: . Photos: @floresliz12 pic. twitter. — Star Tribune (@StarTribune) June 10, 2017, According to Reuters, there was a heavy police presence at the Pennsylvania state capitol in Harrisburg, as barricades and police mounted on horses separated two groups of approximately 60 protesters. were reportedly "dressed in black masks and hoods" and could be heard chanting, "No Trump, no KKK, no Fascist USA. '" On Friday, 129 national and local organizations signed a letter urging city mayors to condemn the marches, emphasizing the fact they take place during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. You can follow Ben Kew on Facebook, on Twitter at @ben_kew, or email him at bkew@breitbart. com, This article has been edited since publication.


After Netflix CEO Reed Hastings dismissed net neutrality as an issue that was only important to "the Netflix of ten years ago" at a conference two weeks ago, the company's Twitter account sent out a tweet claiming they would "never outgrow" the cause. [The tweet linked to BattleForTheNet. com, a site dedicated to a "Day of Action" on July 12th where multiple companies will protest against efforts by the FCC to roll back their current rulings on neutrality online. Netflix will never outgrow the fight for #NetNeutrality. Everyone deserves an open Internet. https: . — Netflix US (@netflix) June 15, 2017, Netflix joins the already growing list of companies and groups that are part of the effort, including Amazon, Reddit, Etsy, Kickstart, and GitHub. This is in contrast to the comments made by Hastings at Recode's Code Conference last month. Hastings claimed that Netflix is too big a company to bother with issues like net neutrality that wouldn't greatly affect them anymore: It's not our primary battle at this point. Other people it is, and that's an important thing, and we're supportive through the industry association, but I think you're right that we don't have the special vulnerability to it. We had to carry the water when we were growing up and we were small. Now other companies need to be on that leading edge. Jack Hadfield is a student at the University of Warwick and a regular contributor to Breitbart Tech. You can like his page on Facebook and follow him on Twitter @ToryBastard_ or on Gab @JH.