Dennis Ross is a prior Obama and Clinton crony goes on to speak without any questioning from Shawn and then at the end Shawn speaks of Ross and his decades of experience PROPAGANDA!!!


You are here: Home / political cartoon / What Marketing Obamacare Really Looks Like [Cartoon] What Marketing Obamacare Really Looks Like [Cartoon] October 28, 2016 Pinterest  C.E. Dyer reports that the disaster that is Obamacare is about to get worse for many people enrolled in the health insurance marketplace. On Monday, the Obama administration confirmed that premiums will skyrocket for many people next year, according to the Associated Press .  The AP reported:  Before taxpayer-provided subsidies, premiums for a midlevel benchmark plan will increase an average of 25 percent across the 39 states served by the federally run online market, according to a report from the Department of Health and Human Services. Some states will see much bigger jumps, others less.  Moreover, about 1 in 5 consumers will only have plans from a single insurer to pick from, after major national carriers such as UnitedHealth Group, Humana and Aetna scaled back their roles.  In some states, the premium increases are striking. In Arizona, unsubsidized premiums for a hypothetical 27-year-old buying a benchmark "second-lowest cost silver plan" will jump by 116 percent, from $196 to $422, according to the administration report.  But HHS said if that hypothetical consumer has a fairly modest income, making $25,000 a year, the subsidies would cover $280 of the new premium, and the consumer would pay $142. Caveat: if the consumer is making $30,000 or $40,000 his or her subsidy would be significantly lower.  Larry Levitt, who follows the health care law for the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, said of the increases: "Consumers will be faced this year with not only big premium increases but also with a declining number of insurers participating, and that will lead to a tumultuous open enrollment period."  Donald Trump's campaign spokesman, Jason Miller, said in a statement on Monday: "This shows why the entire program must be repealed and replaced." Miller added, "While (Hillary) Clinton wants to expand the failed program known as Obamacare, Mr. Trump knows the only way to fix our nation's failing health care system is complete and total reform."  Reports have warned that this was coming down the pike for some time; however, HHS's confirmation ahead of open enrollment beginning Nov. 1 — one week before the election — is likely to cause major headaches for many people.  This debacle is not unexpected either — it's exactly what President Obama and Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton wanted to happen.  Obamacare was never the end goal. Rather, it was a stepping stone toward single-payer, government-run healthcare. That is a big reason why Obama wants Clinton to become president — his legacy is at stake.  Obama's legacy is largely wrapped up in Obamacare and what it leads to. Clinton tried to push this first step during her time as first lady and failed, but the conditions will be ripe for her to go even further should she be elected.  If Clinton becomes president, there's no doubt that her next step will be to move to single-payer healthcare. Obamacare is bad, there's no doubt about it, but single-payer government healthcare would be even worse.


For that Statement alone I hope someone brings UNESCO'S building DOWN with all its members in it. Please, there is someone out there.


The U.S. Senate on Tuesday, in a procedural vote, cleared the way for confirming President Donald Trump's nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be the next attorney general. By a vote of 52-47, the Republican-controlled Senate agreed to limit debate on Sessions. A final vote on confirming him to head the Justice Department, the nation's top law enforcement job, is likely sometime this week. Sessions, as is the custom for senators voting on their own nominations, cast a vote of "present."


Sarah Jessica Parker was waiting for a menu at a restaurant in a Westchester County suburb of New York, when a man in a polo shirt and shorts showed up at her table. "I'm out of your face right after this little note I made for you — check it out," he said. He handed her a small folded piece of paper and waited as Ms. Parker read it. "Aw," she said, and smiled. "Thank you! Thank you, Michael!" On "Sex and the City," Ms. Parker famously played Carrie Bradshaw, an serially dating and hotly pursuing ideal love. Perhaps because of that, Michael took the opportunity to launch into tales of his own love life, : the girlfriend who recently dumped him, the new girl who might really be something. "You're cute as a button," his note read. In spite of Ms. Parker's age (51) her 19 years of marriage to Matthew Broderick, and her three children, her public image remains closely bound up with that of Carrie, a symbol of youthful possibility, forever available, forever adorable. On Oct. 9, 12 years after the series went off the air, Ms. Parker is returning to HBO with a show whose very title — "Divorce" — suggests the bitter culmination of all that sex in the city. She plays Frances, a kind of someone long married, living (brace yourself) in the suburbs, and working as a corporate recruiter, her arty dreams subsumed by financial necessity. Her husband — though not for much longer — is Robert (Thomas Haden Church) a real estate entrepreneur down on his luck. Frances is far from a romantic: She has cheated on her husband she is a narcissistic oversharer, a accuser, a manipulator. She is also, as played by Ms. Parker, deeply real and somehow appealing. "I'm still getting to know her," Ms. Parker said. She was quick to clarify that she is no more Frances than she ever was Carrie (she and Mr. Broderick married about a week before she shot the pilot). But "Divorce," at turns moody and comic, does cover material that is meaningful to Ms. Parker, who is an executive producer of the series. For some years, she has wanted to do a show about relationships, a natural outgrowth, she said, of countless conversations she has had with friends who, like her, are in early middle age, a time when it's common for people to grapple with the choices they have made, in relationships as much as anything else. The show reflects, she said, a "certain introspection and reckoning" that is inevitable after some 15 or 20 years of marriage. "It's a really specific point in a person's life, right now, for my generation," said Ms. Parker. "It's when you start to think about relationships, the time spent, what came of it — and what do you do with where you find yourself now?" AFTER "SEX AND THE CITY," Ms. Parker did not look very hard for her next big role when people asked about another television series, "I used to say never," she told Alec Baldwin on his podcast, "Here's the Thing. " The schedule is demanding for someone raising three children (her twins, Marion and Tabitha, are now 7, and her son, James Wilkie, is 13) and she never found a show that intrigued her enough to make the family sacrifice worthwhile. "When you're at a point in your life where you can make choices, you can make a choice to say no," she said. "It's kind of nice. " She made two "Sex and the City" movies, to decidedly mixed reviews, and was nominated for a Golden Globe for her role in "The Family Stone. " Following that, one of her movies had critical success but small audiences ("Smart People," 2008) while others had less favorable reviews and even smaller audiences (see "Spinning Into Butter," 2007). Her reputation as a beloved star never flagged, but neither did she ever land on a role so strong that it put Carrie to bed for good. "It is hard to find material you really love, particularly when you've been so successful," Mr. Broderick said. "It feels like a lot of pressure. " Ms. Parker spent much of her energy in recent years leveraging her brand in the service of high culture (she is vice chair of the New York City Ballet) and her own businesses — a fragrance line and the SJP shoe collection, which she introduced in 2014 and is carried by department stores. All along, she developed television and film ideas as a producer, including, for some time, a show called "Into the Fire," which HBO passed on. It featured a host who quits her job, blows up her career and has an affair with the father of one of her children's classmates. In some of its details, "Into the Fire" sounds like "Girlfriends' Guide to Divorce," which has been renewed for a third season on Bravo, one of a number of television shows in recent years that have featured women in their late 40s or early 50s reinventing their love lives: On "Nashville," Rayna, played by Connie Britton, ends her marriage and enjoys a succession of suitors on "The Affair," Helen (Maura Tierney) is betrayed by her cheating husband but goes on to have flings of her own. "I want to save my life while I still care about it," Frances tells Robert, trying to explain why she wants a divorce it's as if some sense of imminently fading possibility propels Frances into new romance. HBO suggested that Ms. Parker meet with Sharon Horgan, the producer and of Amazon's "Catastrophe," who ultimately wrote the pilot of "Divorce. " The resulting project appealed to Ms. Parker both for its darkness and for its milieu. "So often when you see divorce in cinema or on television, it's like — 'War of the Roses'! Rich people fighting!" she said. "I wanted to tell a different story, one that I haven't really seen on television. " The bar was "quite high" for Ms. Parker's return, said Richard Plepler, HBO's chief executive, who felt this show reached that standard. "It's not a Hollywoodization of divorce," he said, "but a very authentic one, something she could sink her teeth into creatively and artistically. " Both Mr. Plepler and Ms. Parker mentioned the influence of "An Unmarried Woman," the 1978 Jill Clayburgh film that offered an unflinching look at how a flawed but charming wife handles being unexpectedly single after her husband walks out. Ms. Parker was comfortable with embracing her own character's flaws, said Paul Simms, the showrunner of "Divorce. " "I was a little surprised and pleased that she was willing to not worry about being necessarily likable," he said. "Even though she ultimately is quite likable. " Though Ms. Parker spoke of the characters in "Divorce" as middle class, it might be more accurate to say they are upper middle class in appearance, middle class in disposable income they look like a couple with fancy educations, now tenuously maintaining a gimcrack normalcy with the help of revolving credit lines and some turns of luck. If Mr. Big, Carrie's beloved, represented one '90s male icon, the finance type, Robert, with his debt and pickup truck, represents a very current countertype, a disempowered white guy baffled to find things are no longer going his way. It only slowly dawned on Ms. Parker, she said, that HBO was expecting her to play the lead in whatever show she developed about marriage midlife. She might not have felt ready to take it on, she said, were it not for the experience she had in 2013 with "The Commons of Pensacola," a play by Amanda Peet that Ms. Parker starred in, alongside Blythe Danner. "Theater demands a very specific kind of wonderful exhaustion," said Ms. Parker, "which really reminded me of all I still wanted to do — and how much I missed the feeling of not getting it, of being lost, and working in such a concentrated way. I really fell in love with acting again. " IN CONVERSATION, Ms. Parker has a big, rewarding laugh, and a habit of turning the question on the interviewer. "I'm a very curious person," she said. "When I was younger, my stepfather was always telling me to stop staring at people. " She is also a stylish writer, a talent that shows up in her emails, which are carefully crafted and sprinkled with fanciful touches. "Let me know our meeting place," she wrote, after it was settled that we would head to where "Divorce" is set, on a train leaving from Grand Central Terminal. "It's romantic to meet at the clock. " One morning, she arrived at the clock, perfectly prompt, dressed in chunky sandals and an sundress ("Vintage," she said, "I probably paid $29 for it. ") As she walked through the terminal, she moved quickly, accustomed to people stopping in their tracks, stupefied, as they recognized her. When someone tried to approach her to talk, she had a warm but effective response at the ready: "I'm so sorry, I wish I could, thank you so much, I have to catch my train!" She offered a big smile, a girlish wave, direct eye contact, somehow meeting the energy of the fan with enthusiasm of her own. From a distance, to a tourist, she might have seemed a holographic conjuring, an icon of New York there to enhance the iconic New York setting. For Ms. Parker, Grand Central Terminal evokes her ' childhood, days when her own family of eight children — then not financially stable enough to call itself middle class — briefly lived in Dobbs Ferry, which neighbors . "My older brother and I would come in, alone, for auditions," she said. That was when she was 12 at 13, she played Annie on Broadway. Soon after that, she became the beloved soul sister of high school girls everywhere, playing the brainy, Patty on CBS's "Square Pegs. " "For me, doing it was a priceless experience," Ms. Parker, all of 18, said in an interview shortly after the series ended. "But television isn't what I want. Theater and film are. " She could not have known then how much cultural currency television would come to have — or how big a role she herself would play in establishing its ascendancy. With that influence came celebrity and the kind of public scrutiny that stings, especially for a parent paparazzi and tabloid reporters are often camped outside her family's Lower Manhattan home. There have also long been tabloid rumors about the demise of her marriage, which might make the choice of a show called "Divorce" seem revealing, as if it were some subconscious confirmation of her preoccupations. That the public might think that, Ms. Parker said, suggests a misunderstanding of what really motivates her as an actor. "When people ask about the ways in which I relate to Frances, I usually say, 'I look like her, but that's it,'" she said. "It's a funny thing to ask, because all you want to do as an actor is be someone else. " Why, she added, "would you ever want to play someone like you?" Ms. Parker sounded genuinely bewildered by the persistence of tabloid interest in her marriage. "I guess it's because we just … keep staying married," she said. "Maybe that annoys them?" Mr. Broderick, she said, is "still the person I want to experience things with, I want to do new things with. " It may be a sign of the health of their current relationship that neither party feels the need to portray it as any more perfect than most that have weathered three children, two big careers and nearly two decades. Ms. Parker described marriage as a series of choices — choosing to stay, choosing to find patience in it. "It's saying, I'm going to try not to roll my eyes," she said. "It's thinking about the delight in something that's delightful to him, but that may or may not be to you. " Asked what Ms. Parker might enjoy about playing Frances, Mr. Broderick thought for a moment. "She gets to be pissed off at her husband, which I think would be fun for her," he deadpanned. But his protectiveness of Ms. Parker, as she prepared for her show's debut, was evident. "I'm always nervous," he said. "It's like watching your child walk onto the playground. You want them to be treated well. And when they're not, it's horrible to watch. " Ms. Parker seems to relish the gap between the show's plot and her own reality, the way she can experience the aftershocks of a dissolution from a safe creative distance. "Frances was never single with children, never single with a mortgage — so I think all that's going to be really interesting," she said, already musing about a second season. "How much does she want to date? How much does she really want to take her clothes off with someone?" Ms. Parker slapped her hand against her chest. "Can you imagine? I'd be like — no, we are just going to be companions. I'd be horrified!" IT WOULD HAVE BEEN an easier path, in some ways, for Ms. Parker to skip all the exposure and time constraints that come with a new show, to ride out the duration of her career nurturing her brand (and businesses) in the safe, bright afterglow of Carrie. "What do you do after you've created one of the cultural landmarks of your time — how do you follow it up?" said the actor John Benjamin Hickey, a close friend. "If she had stopped, I would have been like, yeah, I get it. But I think she has a hunger as an artist to challenge herself, and to explore a kind of complicated darkness. Her interest in the subject matter isn't tabloidy — it's existential. " Over lunch, Ms. Parker confessed that she was somewhat terrified about the show's premiere, partly for fear that her fans might be expecting something the show was not — that they would judge it not by its own merits, but by how closely it inspired the same giddy pleasures that her previous work has. "This is not Carrie in the suburbs, Carrie the commuter," she said. "And I kind of want to get ahead of that, so that there is not this giant heave of disappointment when people find the show is not … that same buoyant kind of thing. " Ms. Parker knows that she played Carrie for so long that many fans came to assume that the character simply was her — that there was no effort involved in inhabiting her so fully. "But it was definitely acting," she said. "I never lived any of those experiences in my own life. I'm not Carrie. Sometimes I feel that if I'd done my job well with 'Divorce,' it will be a reminder that, yes, she's an actor. But maybe people will start to think I'm like Frances. And then I'll have to explain how different Sarah and Frances are. " She brightened at the thought.


Saudi's threaten OPEC oil freeze over Iran row November 04, 2016 A gas flame is seen in the desert near the Khurais oilfield, Saudi Arabia June 23, 2008. REUTERS/Ali Jarekji/File Photo  Saudi Arabia has threatened to cancel the scheduled OPEC oil freeze by raising output over row with Iran. OPEC sources: Saudi Arabia threatened to raise oil output steeply to bring prices down if Iran refuses to limit its supply. According to four OPEC sources: Clash occurred at last weeks experts meeting designed to work out details before official Nov. 30 gathering. OPEC source: "The Saudis have threatened to raise their production to 11 million barrels per day and even 12 million bpd, bringing oil prices down, and to withdraw from the meeting." OPEC Source: The Saudi threat followed objections by Iran, which said it was unwilling to freeze its output. OPEC Source: Saudi threat to raise output came as a surprise even to Riyadh's Gulf OPEC allies. Non-Iranian OPEC Source: "We felt as if they (the Saudis) wanted the meeting to fail." Saudi Arabia has increased output since 2014 to record highs of around 10.5 million-10.7 million barrels per day. In September: OPEC agreed at a meeting in Algeria on modest preliminary oil output cuts in the first such deal since 2008. Iran has reported its output at 3.85 million bpd in Sep., and said they will only cap output at 12.7 percent of OPEC's total ceiling - or 4.2 million bpd. Ali Kardor, managing director of NIOC: "Working in oil industry is like operating at war fronts and we have to preserve our trenches by raising our production capacity as much as we can." Kardor: "The next OPEC meeting is near and we will never cease to recapture our quota in the organization." OPEC Secretary-General Mohammed Barkindo: I am "optimistic" a final agreement will be reached. OPEC delegate: "People can look at it from different angles. The fact that discussions are still going on is a positive one. They are going to work on it, close to the ministers' meeting."  (DUBAI/LONDON) Old disputes between Saudi Arabia and rival Iran resurfaced at a meeting of OPEC experts last week, with Riyadh threatening to raise oil output steeply to bring prices down if Tehran refuses to limit its supply, OPEC sources say.  Clashes between the two OPEC heavyweights, which are fighting proxy wars in Syria and Yemen, have become frequent in recent years.  Tensions subsided, however, in recent months after Saudi Arabia agreed to support a global oil supply limiting pact, thus raising the prospect that OPEC would take steps to boost oil prices.  But a meeting of OPEC experts last week, designed to work out details of cuts for the next OPEC ministerial gathering on Nov. 30, saw Saudis and Iranian clashing again, according to four OPEC sources who were present at the meeting and spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity.  "The Saudis have threatened to raise their production to 11 million barrels per day and even 12 million bpd, bringing oil prices down, and to withdraw from the meeting," one OPEC source who attended the meeting told Reuters.  OPEC headquarters declined to comment on discussions during the closed-door meetings last week. Saudi and Iranian OPEC delegates also declined official comments.


A senior Russian lawmaker said on Tuesday it was clear that U.S. President Donald Trump's national security adviser, Michael Flynn, had been forced to resign in an effort to damage relations between Russia and the United States. Flynn resigned late on Monday after revelations 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. "It's obvious that Flynn was forced to write the letter of resignation under a certain amount of pressure," Leonid Slutsky, head of the lower house of parliament's foreign affairs committee, was quoted as saying by the RIA news agency. "The target was Russia-U.S. relations, undermining confidence in the new U.S. administration. We'll see how the situation develops further," he said.


Debbie Dooley and a crowd of great Patriots marched in front of the CNN headquarters in Atlanta today in a show of support for President Trump and in protest against CNN s fake news. Who isn t proud of these people literally walking the walk to voice their opposition to the constant drip, drip, drip of propaganda from CNN.Debbie Dooley of Main Street Patriots told Breitbart News why they were protesting CNN today:CNN threw objective journalism out the window once Donald Trump was elected President and have begun to report DNC talking points as news. CNN can no longer claim to be a news organization that reports facts without bias, because they report innuendo with no facts as news with the intent on bringing down a democratically-elected President. They have simply become an entertainment network not to be taken seriously.Time for Trump supporters to get active and show the Democrats that we are very passionate about our support of President Trump and we will fight hard to pass his agenda, the notice of the event states on Main Street Patriots website. Bring your signs and let s show CNN that we support President Trump and call them out for becoming an arm of the DNC intent on bringing down President Trump with biased coverage and false innuendos, the invitation on Main Street Patriots Facebook page states.A TRUMP SUPPORTER ON WHY SHE S JOINING THE PROTEST: She is 100% spot on Trump supporter on why she's joining protest against Fake News CNN. She is 100% spot on. pic.twitter.com/IblSehMU52 Tennessee (@TEN_GOP) June 17, 2017 We re so happy about this! It s the outward and visible signs of protest that make a HUGE difference.


The war on women A woman goes in to give Huma Abedin a hug and it makes for a cold as ice awkward moment caught on video. Ouch! Huma Abedin is the Muslim Brotherhood connected henchman of Hillary Clinton. She s also the wife of scandalous cad Anthony Weiner. Wonder if Anthony gets the same treatment at home


Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy (Conn.) said Wednesday on MSNBC s Morning Joe that Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare are based on the GOP s hatred of Barack Obama. MSNBC contributor Eddie Glaude asked Murphy what he believes the animating commitment behind the GOP health care bill is and what it would take for him to work in a bipartisan way with Republicans to fix the country s health care system. At this point, I think it s clear the animating commitment is a hatred of Barack Obama, Murphy said. The policy has been pushed to the wayside here. They don t seem tremendously interested in actually crafting something that insures more people or reduces rates. They just want to fulfill this commitment that they made to repeal Obamacare. Murphy went on to say that he has made it very clear he wants to compromise with Republicans on health care. They want, as far as I can tell, flexibility of benefit design. They want something that has some cheaper premiums, less regulations in these exchanges. I m willing to talk to them about that, Murphy said. I m willing to give them some flexibility of benefit design if they re willing to give us some security on these exchanges that Donald Trump won t unwind them.


Iran and the United States and its negotiating partners finally reached agreement Tuesday on a deal that would curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief -- setting up a looming showdown between President Obama and Congress, where lawmakers could take issue with several provisions, including one giving Iran leverage over inspections. Speaking from the White House, Obama claimed the deal meets "every single one of the bottom lines" from a tentative agreement struck earlier this year. "Every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off," Obama said, claiming it provides for extensive inspections. "This deal is not built on trust. It is built on verification." Yet that very issue could be the primary sticking point going forward. While some members of Congress had urged comprehensive inspections of Iran's nuclear sites, the deal in hand gives Iran much leverage over that process. The agreement requires international inspectors to ask Iran's permission first, after which Iran has 14 days to decide whether to grant it. If not, the same group of nations that struck the deal would have another 10 days to make their decision about what to do next. While the international group may have final say, the set-up essentially gives Iran 24 days to drag out the process, though officials say this is not enough time to hide all evidence of illicit conduct. Already, some on Capitol Hill were warning about the implications of the deal; lawmakers will have 60 days to review and vote on the agreement. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the deal "appears to further the flawed elements of April's interim agreement." But Obama said it would be "irresponsible" to walk away and vowed to veto any attempt to crush the agreement. "No deal means a greater chance of more war in the Middle East," Obama said. Diplomats struck the deal after the latest 18-day round of intense and often fractious negotiations in Vienna, Austria blew through several self-imposed deadlines. A final meeting between the foreign ministers of Iran, the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia was held Tuesday morning. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif described the accord as "a historic moment" as he attended the final session. "We are reaching an agreement that is not perfect for anybody, but it is what we could accomplish," Zarif continued, "and it is an important achievement for all of us. Today could have been the end of hope on this issue. But now we are starting a new chapter of hope." Federica Mogherini, the European Union foreign policy chief, called it "a sign of hope for the entire world." The accord is meant to keep Iran from producing enough material for a nuclear weapon for at least 10 years and will impose new provisions for inspections of Iranian facilities, including military sites. Diplomats said Iran agreed to the continuation of a United Nations arms embargo on the country for up to five more years, though it could end earlier if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) definitively clears Iran of any current work on nuclear weapons. A similar condition was put on U.N. restrictions on the transfer of ballistic missile technology to Tehran, which could last for up to eight more years. According to officials, Iran also had agreed to a so-called "snapback" provision, under which sanctions could be reinstated if it violates the agreement. Washington had sought to maintain the ban on Iran importing and exporting weapons, concerned that an Islamic theocracy flush with cash from the nuclear deal would expand its military assistance for Syrian President Bashar Assad's government, Yemen's Houthi rebels, the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and other forces opposing America's Mideast allies such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. Iranian leaders insisted the embargo had to end as their forces combat regional scourges such as ISIS. And they got some support from China and particularly Russia, which wants to expand military cooperation and arms sales to Tehran, including the long-delayed transfer of S-300 advanced air defense systems -- a move long opposed by the United States. The last major sticking point -- which could still cause problems on Capitol Hill -- appeared to be whether international weapons inspectors would be given access to Iranian nuclear sites. The deal includes a compromise between Washington and Tehran that would allow U.N. inspectors to press for visits to Iranian military sites as part of their monitoring duties. However, access at will to any site would not necessarily be granted and even if so, could be delayed, a condition that critics of the deal are sure to seize on as possibly giving Tehran time to cover any sign of non-compliance with its commitments. Under the deal, Tehran would have the right to challenge the U.N. request and an arbitration board composed of Iran and the six world powers that negotiated with it would have to decide on the issue. Such an arrangement would still be a notable departure from assertions by top Iranian officials, including supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that their country would never allow the IAEA into such sites. Iran has argued that such visits by the IAEA would be a cover for spying on its military secrets. The IAEA also wants the access to complete its long-stymied investigation of past weapons work by Iran, and the U.S. says Iranian cooperation is needed for all economic sanctions to be lifted. IAEA chief Yukiya Amano said Tuesday his agency and Iran had signed a "roadmap" to resolve outstanding concerns. "This is a significant step forward towards clarifying outstanding issues regarding Iran's nuclear program," Amano said in a statement released Tuesday. The economic benefits for Iran are potentially massive. It stands to receive more than $100 billion in assets frozen overseas, and an end to a European oil embargo and various financial restrictions on Iranian banks. The overall nuclear deal comes after nearly a decade of international, intercontinental diplomacy that until recently was defined by failure. Breaks in the talks sometimes lasted for months, and Iran's nascent nuclear program expanded into one that Western intelligence agencies saw as only a couple of months away from weapons capacity. The U.S. and Israel both threatened possible military responses. The United States joined the negotiations in 2008, and U.S. and Iranian officials met together secretly four years later in Oman to see if diplomatic progress was possible. But the process remained essentially stalemated until summer 2013, when Hassan Rouhani was elected president and declared his country ready for serious compromise. More secret U.S.-Iranian discussions followed, culminating in a face-to-face meeting between Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif at the United Nations in September 2013 and a telephone conversation between Rouhani and Obama. That conversation marked the two countries' highest diplomatic exchange since Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution and the ensuing hostage crisis at the American embassy in Tehran. Kerry and Zarif took the lead in the negotiations. Two months later, in Geneva, Iran and the six powers announced an interim agreement that temporarily curbed Tehran's nuclear program and unfroze some Iranian assets while setting the stage for Tuesday's comprehensive accord. Protracted negotiations still lie ahead to put the agreement into practice and deep suspicion reigns on all sides about violations that could unravel the accord. And spoilers abound. In the United States, Congress has a 60-day review period during which Obama cannot make good on any concessions to the Iranians. U.S. lawmakers could hold a vote of disapproval and take further action. If Obama vetoes, Congress would need to muster a two-thirds majority to override. Iranian hardliners oppose dismantling a nuclear program the country has spent hundreds of billions of dollars developing. Khamenei, while supportive of his negotiators thus far, has issued a series of defiant red lines that may be impossible to reconcile in a deal with the West. And further afield, Israel will strongly oppose the outcome. It sees the acceptance of extensive Iranian nuclear infrastructure and continued nuclear activity as a mortal threat, and has warned that it could take military action on its own, if necessary. The deal is a "bad mistake of historic proportions," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday, adding that it would enable Iran to "continue to pursue its aggression and terror in the region." Sunni Arab rivals of Shiite Iran are none too happy, either, with Saudi Arabia in particularly issuing veiled threats to develop its own nuclear program. The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press," Sen. John McCain ( ) said President Donald Trump does not have "an overall strategy" on foreign policy. McCain said, "I support what he did and I support the bunker buster bomb, but we've got to develop a strategy. There is still not an overall strategy that he can come to congress and his advisors and say, 'ok here is how we are going to handle Syria. Here is how we are going to handle the Iraq. We have got to have a strategy and I'll give them some more time but so far that strategy is not apparent. " Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN


In this our quadrennial season of financial hope, we might wish that the major presidential candidates would reckon with one of the large and looming numbers in our lives. Maybe this particular pair of multimillionaires hears the parents and grandparents who are confounded by college price tags that seem to start at six figures. But the candidates' plans don't hold out much cause for hope. Hillary Clinton wants to make tuition for state universities free for families with less than $125, 000 in income, but her plan would require the financial help of states that may not want to chip in. Donald Trump has mentioned refinancing student loans and forcing universities to spend more from their endowments to help students. His website, however, has no formal proposals. Perhaps the debate moderators will demand more details. So what we need right now is one college savings, paying and borrowing plan to rule them all. The best one I know of — the one that visibly reduces anxiety in the faces of people I preach it to — comes from Kevin McKinley, a financial adviser in Eau Claire, Wis. And you can sum it up in about 30 words: Save a quarter of the cost over a child's first 18 years. Pay another quarter out of current income over the next four years. Borrow the rest, split among the family. Let's break them down in order, for a family who has its sights on a state university and doesn't qualify for any grants or scholarships that they would not have to repay. SAVE A QUARTER Let's say you think an undergraduate degree from a state university will cost $160, 000 in 18 years, including room and board. A quarter of that, per the McKinley plan, is $40, 000. To save that much, you'd need to put aside about $115 each month for 18 years if it earns a 5 percent annual return. Where might it earn that kind of return? In one of those 529 college savings plans that your state probably offers, perhaps in a mutual fund with a mix of stocks and bonds that gets less aggressive as your child gets closer to 18. The website savingforcollege. com is an excellent resource for anyone wanting to learn more about 529 plans. And where is that $115 supposed to come from? In his 2002 book, "Make Your Kid a Millionaire," Mr. McKinley suggested looking at the things on your credit or debit card statement and asking yourself this: Would I rather help my kid go to college or would I prefer to keep buying or doing those things on my bill that add up to the number I need to save each month? Harsh? He doesn't think so. "I don't judge what people choose to spend money on," he said. "But most people with kids going to college wish they could go back and change what they spent, because a lot of it was on things that didn't have any value in the long run. " SPEND A QUARTER This step is harder. For parents sending a child to a college right now that costs $100, 000 total, they'll need to find a bit over $500 a month to hit the number, $25, 000, that equals a quarter of the total cost. So rice and beans instead of eating out. No more vacations, or much cheaper ones. If that's not enough or you already made those changes years ago, a side job may be in order. Doing that, too? Don't forget that your child is capable of earning $6, 000 annually by working full time in the summer and part time during the school year. If your child earns that much, you're not responsible for this portion. Are there generous grandparents in the mix? This would be a good time for them to step in if they haven't already or weren't sure if they would be able to help until they had their own financial affairs sorted out. THE BORROWING Back when he wrote his book, Mr. McKinley said that he considered debt a last resort. These days, he's changed his tune. "You'd like to pay cash for your house, too, but it's just not realistic," he said. First, student loans. Though the terminology and process is (wildly, needlessly) complex, the advice is simple for anyone wanting to borrow $25, 000: Take out federal student loans from the government, not private ones that come from a bank or similar institution. The advantage of federal loans is that if your child doesn't earn much after graduation, you can enroll in a program where you'll be eligible for lower payments. Then, parent borrowing. Mr. McKinley notes that we're at a rare economic moment where three things are happening at once: Home values are rising nicely in many parts of the country, interest rates are low and lenders are a bit looser than they were in the recent past. For people with children in college now, that means that borrowing money against your home may be a good way to come up with your $25, 000 chunk. Mr. McKinley is bearish on the future of student loans and expects them to become generally less available over time. So he suggested a more aggressive way for the parents of younger children to pay for a quarter of college: Draw on home equity now while you can, put the money in certificates of deposit and treat your (often ) interest payments on the loan like an insurance policy, where you're paying a "premium" just to be sure you'll have access to the capital. After all, as we saw in 2009, banks that are loose now with home equity loans can change their minds in a heartbeat. If you do not own a home, or drawing on home equity seems too risky or needlessly expensive (or you're worried about how that money might affect any financial aid that you end up qualifying for) the federal government offers loans to parents, too. THE MANY CAVEATS Plenty of people don't make enough money to save anything for college, let alone save $500 a month while their child is in school. Others could have saved but didn't and are panicking now that the first tuition bill is close at hand. If you're in that situation, please read the two guides I wrote in 2014 for people in that spot. The McKinley plan is linear. Your financial life probably won't be, pockmarked as most of our lives are with unpaid parental leave or illness or unemployment or inopportune stock market declines or a bunch of these things all at once. But the plan is also flexible. You could borrow a bit more or save a bit more or consider a gap year between high school and college to put away additional funds. If there is more than one child, these numbers could double, and if private colleges are under consideration, they may double again or more. But at private colleges especially, paying tuition for two children at once will increase your chances of qualifying for financial aid (the kind you get after filling out the federal aid form and sometimes other application forms). Moreover, many colleges (private ones, in particular) offer a different kind of help, merit aid, to good students, even if their families don't qualify for aid. That can easily lop five figures off costs each year per student, even if it doesn't bring the private college price down to the level of a flagship state university. Which brings us to a couple of other challenges. How do you know when it's worth paying a whole lot more for one school than another? Mr. McKinley is facing this question right now with his daughter, Ellie, a high school senior with an interest in web design. She was eyeing the Rhode Island School of Design or the Pratt Institute in Brooklyn, but she can study the same things at the University of for less than a third of the retail cost. The family is leaning hard toward the cheaper option. "If you're the kind of kid who can get into the more expensive school, then you'll usually have the talent and moxie to succeed even without their education," Mr. McKinley said. There is also the bizarre unpredictability of the process. The rack rates are high, and while many people get discounts based on need or merit, you have no way of knowing which, if any, you might qualify for many years from now. You'll probably get the answers some spring day in the future and then have a few weeks, at most, to make what may be among the biggest and most consequential financial decisions of your life. So good luck with that. But don't let the absurdity of what the system has become paralyze you into doing nothing. "You don't have to come up with a quarter of a million dollars for your kid," Mr. McKinley said. "Do what you can now, and just keep building off of it. "


LIKE FROM A MOVIE, MIKE PENCE DID SOMETHING AMAZING AT A TRUMP RALLY TODAY! by IWB · October 27, 2016  Danny Gold for Liberty Writers reports, Mike Pence is honest, patriotic, and faithful. But he just took his love for the people to a whole new level. I don't recall ever seeing a politician do this.


I have had guns pointed at me, slept in a shipping container and walked past the corpses of shelling victims since the separatist insurgency in eastern Ukraine began two years ago. But I had never been blacklisted as a terrorist before. So when my name recently appeared on a "terrorist" list of journalists published by a website with close ties to the Ukrainian government, I viewed it with a mix of trepidation and sarcasm. Trepidation because it suggested powerful people in Ukraine, a democracy that aspires to the free flow of information, were going after me and others on the list for simply doing our jobs: reporting both sides of the war, including the rebel side. And sarcasm because, this being Ukraine, the list was not likely to have much credibility elsewhere. I have not, for example, had any trouble flying after appearing on what may be the world's first list of terrorist journalists. It is also not a secret that I and other reporters have reported from rebel territory our publications and broadcast outlets regularly use our names and note where we are. The list, published by a Ukrainian nationalist website called Myrotvorets, or the Peacemaker, appeared to have been born out of a simmering frustration. in Ukraine have been furious at the foreign press for some time now, arguing that any coverage of the rebels from their home base in the east played into Russia's powerful propaganda machine. Russia has portrayed residents in the breakaway regions as victims of an unjustified Ukrainian military assault by a "fascist" government in Kiev. The list is a compilation of reporters and others who applied for press passes to work in territory controlled by the Donetsk People's Republic, Ukraine's main enemy in the war in the east. Applying for accreditation from rebels, according to the website, was enough to be branded a "terrorist accomplice. " The website said it had obtained the list of names, and personal information including emails, from hackers who had stolen the rebels' data. Groups supporting journalists quickly condemned the publication of the names — and in some cases home addresses — for seeming to invite violence against reporters. A commentator living in Kiev, Oles Buzina, whose home address was publicized in a Myrotvorets post last year, was shot and killed on a street not far from his home days later. But this time, the site was publishing names and contact details for 5, 412 journalists, drivers, fixers, soundmen and translators. Not all of us can be rubbed out. Why were so many reporters accredited to cover the war in Donetsk? Because it served the media strategy of the rebels. About of the journalists and support staff on the list were Russian nationals or locals from eastern Ukraine, who might be expected to be sympathetic to the rebels. In addition, 1, 816 foreign reporters showed up over the two years and were accredited, according to the list. The ease of accrediting ensured, for example, broad coverage of stray Ukrainian artillery strikes hitting the city and sometimes killing civilians, helping discredit Ukraine's actions to win back territory. The media strategy seems right out of Russia's media playbook Western military analysts have noted Russia's savvy at what they have called "hybrid wars" that blend lethal force with aggressive (and positive) press coverage. For reporters, press passes to travel in territory were invaluable for avoiding arrest, hands or detention in a basement. To get the coveted slips of paper, journalists visited Angela, a witty woman known as the "accreditation queen. " Angela worked in a office of the separatist headquarters in central Donetsk. Reaching her space meant trekking up a dark stairwell festooned with coarse propaganda for the cause: One drawing showed President Obama's head on the body of a monkey another showed a Ukrainian politician, Arseniy P. Yatsenyuk, dressed in a Nazi uniform. With few exceptions, Angela cheerily printed out press passes for anyone who asked — other than reporters from Ukraine. Many Ukrainians remain outraged that, as they see it, the groups have been able to deftly amplify their message with the megaphone of the Western media — despite the rebels' virulently agenda. The war has now killed more than 10, 000 people. Still, Ukraine's ombudsman, Valeria Lutkovska, condemned the release of the journalists' names and urged the authorities to shut down the website for revealing personal information. President Petro O. Poroshenko on Friday called the release a "big mistake. " Western ambassadors voiced concern. In the face of criticism, the Myrotvorets website has doubled down, posting a sarcastic rejoinder. "Many journalists demanded an apology from us, and now we understand the reason for this," the site wrote on May 20, two weeks after publishing the list of "terrorist accomplices" in the media. "The staff offer their sincere apologies in regards to the list not being fresh. " It then added new names. And the interior minister, Arsen B. Avakov, appeared to endorse the leak, or at least did not condemn it. "War is like war," he wrote on Facebook. "A friend sincerely fighting is more important for me than opinions of liberals and latent separatists who think too much of themselves. "


January 2017 can t come fast enough for America, and for the rest of the world who is 100% FED UP with this freeloading, fascist loving family .For two days President Barack Obama has defied calls from Republicans to cancel his trip to South America and return home in the wake of the terror attacks in Brussels.And now it seems even his guests are sick of having him after dozens of human rights protesters took to the streets of Buenos Aires to demand he leave Argentina.But instead of departing Obama chose to carry on regardless this evening as he attended a glitzy banquet alongside wife Michelle, Argentine President Mauricio Macri and first lady Juliana Awada.The foursome were pictured arriving at the Centro Cultural Kirchner, named after Argentina s former Prime Minister and Marci s predecessor, in the country s capital this evening.The group paused for a photo opportunity on a red carpet with Obama and Marci dressed in suits and Michelle and Awada in glamorous evening dresses.From there they made their way into a leafy candlelit courtyard for champagne, where Obama was pictured clinking glasses with Marci. Meanwhile a few streets away human rights protesters were busy burning American flags and demanding Obama leave the country. The protesters accuse America of backing dictatorial regimes during the Cold War in South America, including in Argentina, and hold the U.S. responsible for the thousands who died or were disappeared under their rule.Today marks the 40th anniversary of the military coup in Argentina that ushered in one of the most oppressive dictatorships in Latin American history, which demonstrators argue makes Obama s visit particularly offensive.Earlier in the day, Obama sought to deflect criticism of his foreign travel in the wake of Belgium s terror attacks, saying the U.S. must show ISIS that it does not have power over its citizens. We are strong, our values are right. You offer nothing, except death, Obama said of ISIS.Gesturing in the direction of Argentinian President Mauricio Macri, who was standing to his left at a joint news conference this afternoon in Buenos Aires, Obama said, It is important for the United States president and the United States government to be able to work with people who are building and who are creating things. We have to make sure that we lift up and stay focused, as well, on the things that are most important to us, he said. Because we re on the right side of history.


Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein has filed a lawsuit in federal court over the recount efforts in Pennsylvania. According to the complaint filed by Stein, Pennsylvania elections are a national disgrace. Voters are forced to use vulnerable, hackable, antiquated technology banned in other states, then rely on the kindness of machines, the complaint reads. There is no paper trail. Voting machines are electoral black sites: no one permits voters or candidates to examine them. Stein filed her lawsuit on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The suit questions if votes in the Keystone State were counted accurately and alleged that electronic voting machines in the state had serious cyber security problems. In the 2016 presidential election, rife with foreign interference documented by American intelligence agencies and hacks of voter rolls in multiple states, voters deserve the truth, reads the lawsuit.Stein was forced to drop her original bid for a recount in Pennsylvania on Saturday when a judge attached a $1 million price tag after Donald Trump requested a $10 million bond. Petitioners are regular citizens of ordinary means. They cannot afford to post the $1,000,000 bond required by the court, Stein s attorney wrote in a court filing.On Sunday, Stein tweeted that she was not done yet, though.On Monday, I will escalate #Recount2016 in PA and file to demand a statewide recount on constitutional grounds. The people deserve answers. Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) December 4, 2016Recounts in Wisconsin are already underway and early Monday morning, U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith ordered recounts in Michigan to begin at noon.Trump won all three of these battleground states by narrow margins. Despite the fact that the recounts are unlikely to change the outcome of the election, Trump has fought against them vehemently, making many people wonder what the hell he is so afraid of. Trump unleashed multiple Twitter rants railing against Stein s push for recounts, and in one of these, he managed to unwittingly make the case for the recount efforts by claiming voter fraud. Sad.


2 Police Officers Turn In Badges In Support Of Standing Rock Water Protectors Nov 3, 2016 162 0  Earlier today it was reported by Redhawk at Standing Rock in North Dakota that two police officers have turned in their badges in support of the water protectors.  "There have been at least 2 reports of police officers turning in their badges acknowledging that this battle is not what they signed up for. You can see it in some of them, that they do not support the police actions. We must keep reminding them they are welcome to put down their weapons and badge and take a stand against this pipeline as well. Some are waking up." -Redhawk Hearts are opening.  With actions from militarized police continuing to be seen as extremely violent and dangerous, this news is a big win for the water protectors and for humanity as a whole. While the actions of some police officers are not appropriate, we all must continue to visualize and intend/pray that the hearts of all involved in this situation continue to open. Police must be held accountable for their actions, though we must continue to welcome them over to the side of the water protectors.  Having the police lay down their weapons and join the people is the goal. It is also a win-win solution, which is the best case scenario. So what is it that opened the hearts of these two officers?  At the time of this writing, the answer is not known but we can speculate on a few different items. Word is spreading quickly that there are 17 multi-national banks funding this pipeline and that the propaganda being spread about this deal "creating American jobs" or "helping America's economy" is being seen as just that, propaganda. The American people, as well as people of the world, know that the big banks and U.S. Government does not care for the people, but only themselves. These banks and the government showed their hand in 2008 when they were bailed out after the stock market crash, leaving the public to bear the economic and social burdens. Even the police are becoming aware of this fact that the government and banks do not care for them and see the police only as pawns in a bigger game the government wishes to control. Water is life is not just a meaningless slogan in many people's minds. It is becoming understood by more and more that water IS indeed life. If water becomes toxic, all life that depends on that water becomes toxic…including the families of these same police officers who are currently protecting the construction sites. They too would be affected by toxic water. It is innately traumatizing for humans to hurt other humans. While we have been seeing this for some time now with this situation, police officers are realizing the harm they do when they assault an unarmed, peaceful water protector. In essence, peace is wanting and needing to be established.  Take a look at what happened in Frankfurt, Germany in May of 2012. The police removed their helmets and began marching with the people who were protesting the big banks, while also safely escorting them down the streets. The world continues to awaken.  Let us all use this latest news as a big step forward towards peace and resolution of this pipeline issue. The pipeline construction needs to and must stop. With the announcement from Barack Obama yesterday that the White House is considering "re-routing" the pipeline, we must continue to demand that it's construction cease entirely. We can also view that statement as a buckling of the Establishment. Continue on, water protectors. Truth and love is spreading .  Lance Schuttler graduated from the University of Iowa with a degree in Health Science and practices health coaching through his website Orgonlight Health . You can follow the Orgonlight Health facebook page or visit the website for more information on how to receive health coaching for yourself, a family member or a friend as well as view other inspiring articles.


Donald Trump said this week if he went out on Fifth Avenue in New York and shot someone, he probably wouldn't lose any votes. He chose a pretty big someone — Fox News (whose offices are one block over from Fifth). Tune in to Thursday night's Republican debate on Fox (9 p.m. EST) in Iowa, the last one before Monday's caucuses, and you'll notice one very big elephant not in the room — Trump. The man who helped Fox to a record 24 million viewers in the first primary debate of this campaign season won't be there. He pulled out of the debate after getting into (what Trump-endorser Sarah Palin might call) a "squirmish" with Fox over its insistence on keeping anchor Megyn Kelly as a moderator. Trump thought Kelly treated him "unfairly" in the first debate. Fox didn't budge, and then mocked Trump, saying in a statement the network had "learned from a back channel" that Iran's and Russia's leaders were intent on treating Trump "unfairly" if he became president, and that Trump was planning on using "his Twitter followers to see if he should" go to Cabinet meetings. That was enough for Trump. He bailed, but upped the showmanship. He's holding his own alternative event — at the same time and just 3 miles away — a benefit for veterans. So, while Fox News hosts its debate, every other cable news network — which won't have broadcasting rights to the debate — will probably be airing the Trump event. No, this is not an "Ambien Dream," as Karl Zahn, a New Hampshire stand-up comic (and Trump supporter) wondered aloud to New Hampshire Public Radio's Josh Rogers this week of Trump's campaign. This is very much real life. Here are some questions ahead of tonight's Split-Screen "Squirmish": 1. How much does Trump talk about the debate, Fox News and the GOP? This isn't what the Republican Party wanted when it began sanctioning and limiting debates following the 2012 presidential election. And it certainly didn't expect a blow-up like this with Fox News, of all the networks. The Republican National Committee wanted to control the message and protect its candidates (and brand), but that hasn't worked out so well. Trump, as it turns out, has been a bigger force and commands a louder megaphone than anyone else in the party. Just how much will he use it Thursday night at his veterans event? 2. Who exactly will Trump's event benefit — and how much will be raised? Charity events like this aren't exactly things that can be slapped together in 24 to 48 hours very efficiently. What will the energy be like? And who exactly will the money be going to? Trump has said maybe it should go to "Wounded Warriors" (the Wounded Warrior Project — the subject of controversy over its spending habits), but the press release just said a "Special Event to Benefit Veterans Organizations." 3. What about the debate — how much will Trump come up? Trump won't even be at the debate, but he's already the dominant topic. There are two sides to this — the moderators and the candidates. You'd have to guess the moderators would have to say something about Trump's absence. (And no, there won't be an empty lectern, RNC spokesman Sean Spicer said on CNN Wednesday). And certainly a few candidates would like a free shot at Trump, especially his closest rival, Ted Cruz. The Texas senator even challenged Trump to a debate at a college in western Iowa on Saturday evening. And you know what they say about candidates who are asking for debates. (Hint: It comes as Cruz's poll numbers are slipping in the Hawkeye State.) 4. Who grabs the spotlight instead? There are still lots of storylines to play out at this debate. Cruz will now be in the center of the stage, and that means he might be the one everyone winds up going after. In earlier debates, Cruz held back. In the last debate, he showed why he was a champion college debater. But who's his foil without Trump on the stage? Others need to break through, too. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has quietly remained in third in Iowa and in the top three in New Hampshire, but his path is still hard to see. Rubio has had plenty of differences on these stages with other candidates (Cruz, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, for example). Can he show why Democrats seem to fear a Rubio nomination more than any other candidate? This has been an election dominated by the outsiders, thanks to more hard-line conservatives fed up with the system. In years past, the party has gotten that out of its system in Iowa and establishment picks have eventually emerged. This year is pointing in a different direction, but there are still others trying to be viable in that "establishment" lane: — Ohio Gov. John Kasich is the latest to have some momentum in New Hampshire. This debate may be in Iowa, but it's being broadcast to a national audience. And you can bet Kasich's target will be some 1,300 miles east. On caucus night, he'll already be in the Granite State, not Iowa. — Bush has been on his last legs for a while, but he was more relaxed in the last debate. He has certainly taken on Trump, and he'll likely do so again, even if Trump's not on the stage. — Christie had a solid performance in his last debate. He'll probably mix it up again. 6. Is Trump really the "Teflon Don" of this race? There's some risk for Trump in not going to the debate. He can look presumptuous, entitled and untouchable. Maybe he really is the "Teflon Don" of this race. It's certainly not what a typical front-runner would do. That candidate would play it safe, have a good debate and position himself to win the first two contests. But that's not Trump's style. He doesn't just play it big. He plays it HUGE. And that's what he's doing again. So, will Iowans feel snubbed? Or more precisely, will Iowans who have been supporting him to big numbers suddenly start to peel off? That's pretty unlikely. He can argue he's not snubbing Iowa; he's snubbing Fox, which in and of itself is pretty remarkable considering the role Fox plays in Republican politics and conservative circles. Some candidate might figure out a way to use Trump's absence as an opportunity. But the likelihood, again, is Trump will spin this into a win, as the other candidates are forced to participate in a game without the star player whom everyone came to see.


Richard W. Painter wrote in a New York Times an op-ed: The F.B.I.'s job is to investigate, not to influence the outcome of an election.  Such acts could also be prohibited under the Hatch Act, which bars the use of an official position to influence an election. That is why the F.B.I. presumably would keep those aspects of an investigation confidential until after the election. The usual penalty for a violation is termination of federal employment.  And that is why, on Saturday, I filed a complaint against the F.B.I. with the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates Hatch Act violations, and with the Office of Government Ethics. I have spent much of my career working on government ethics and lawyers' ethics, including two and a half years as the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, and I never thought that the F.B.I. could be dragged into a political circus surrounding one of its investigations. Until this week.  This is the second complaint to be filed against FBI Director Comey. The Democratic Coalition Against Trump has also filed a complaint against Comey for interfering in a presidential election as a federal employee.  Suspicion around Comey's actions has grown as the FBI Director is not expected to make any additional statements on this matter before the presidential election. Director Comey appears to have set himself for problems after the election as Senate Democrats are making it known that they are open to holding hearings to investigate the FBI investigation if they win back the Senate majority.  Unless Trump wins and Republicans take control of Congress, Director Comey is going to have to answer for his decisions.  As the complaints pile up, it looks like Congressional testimony may be the least of James Comey's future problems.


Donald Trump made a plea to naval officers at a ceremony recently, practically begging them to support him politically and it s landed him in hot water. According to retired Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, the move was completely amateur and grossly inexperienced. Trump had made this disgusting display while he dedicated the USS Gerald R. Ford. He completely went off message by demanding that the military audience support his extremely unpopular, unethical health care bill, which would strip health care from 22 million people and cut Medicaid drastically. In his speech, Trump subjected his audience to his truly embarrassing behavior when he said: Call those senators to make sure you get health care. This morning on MSNBC s AMJoy, Wilkerson blasted Trump for this blatantly inappropriate message at the military event. When host Joy-Ann Reid asked Wilkerson what he thought of Trump asking the troops to support his political agenda, Wilkerson issued this brutal takedown during the show: This is just another indication that this man is grossly inexperienced. He s an amateur, he doesn t know what he s doing, he doesn t know the law, he doesn t know custom, he doesn t know protocol. You don t tell your troops, as commander-in-chief, to do something political. You can watch this moment below:COL. WILKERSON on this #Trump clip: It s just another indication that this man is grossly inexperienced. #AMJoy https://t.co/1ncYcVGzVb AM Joy w/Joy Reid (@amjoyshow) July 23, 2017For a retired Army Colonel to note his own disgust with Trump s ridiculous authoritarian style of leadership is major. Trump sees nothing wrong with asking everyone to bend to his will and follow him without question or resistance, despite the fact that Trump s agenda and presidency is as unpopular as it s ever been. Colonel Wilkerson knows exactly how dangerous leaders like Trump can be, and America should listen to his words.


Under the gaze of a life-sized cardboard figure of Donald Trump, some 200 of his supporters gathered at an exclusive club near the Ritz hotel in London to celebrate Friday's inauguration of America's 45th president. Bunches of red, white and blue balloons, some of them star-shaped, adorned the walls of the Royal Over-Seas League where Trump's appearance on the balcony outside the domed U.S. Capitol was greeted with whooping and cheering. As he completed the oath, the room broke into a standing ovation complete with high-five celebrations. Later, Trump's inaugural speech was punctuated with cheers, especially his pledge to eradicate "radical Islamic terrorism", while at the end the room chorused along with Trump's trademark promise to make America great again. "The speech was great - Mr Trump just touched the most important subjects for America," said Polish-born university professor Victoria Gorska-Rabuck. "His speech was very appropriate, very uplifting and promises a lot. We hope he can deliver what he promised," she told Reuters. Businessman David Pattinson said he thought Trump would be a successful president. "I think he'll succeed in cutting government spending although I don't know whether he will be successful in getting rid of the establishment," he said. "I wasn't surprised when he won, I was satisfied," he added. "I was expecting him to win. It was the same with Brexit in how the polls got it wrong."


Center-left presidential candidate Alejandro Guillier conceded the Chilean presidency to billionaire conservative Sebastian Pinera on Sunday, as Chile followed other South American nations making a political turn to the right. With 96.31 percent of votes counted in the world s top copper producer, former president and market favorite Pinera had won 54.57 percent of ballots, according to electoral agency Servel. Guillier had 45.43 percent. Guillier recognized a harsh defeat but urged Pinera to continue with outgoing center-left President Michelle Bachelet s reforms.


Breitbart News is the #45th most trafficked website in the United Sates, according to rankings from Amazon's analytics company, Alexa. com. [With over two billion pageviews generated in 2016 and 45 million unique monthly visitors, Breitbart News has now surpassed Fox News (#47) Huffington Post (#50) Washington Post (#53) and Buzzfeed (#64) in traffic. "The numbers speak for themselves," said Breitbart News President and CEO Larry Solov. "Our 2017 global expansion strategy is hands down the most aggressive growth initiative in the history of the company. We're making major capital investments to execute a series of new offerings — one of which Breitbart will announce this week. " One driver of the company's explosive traffic trajectory has been its dominance across social media. Breitbart has the number one political Facebook and Twitter pages in the world, according to analytics giant NewsWhip. Yet unlike many competitors, says Breitbart News Alex Marlow, the company's primary traffic is not disproportionately beholden to social media it comes from destination traffic. "Establishment media — the same folks who laughed off Donald Trump — are mystified by what makes Breitbart the powerhouse we've become," said Marlow. "We've built an authentic, community where people come to hang out to join in the conversation that's taking place 24 hours a day. " Marlow added: "It's a beautiful, loud, intensely savvy 45 community where we read reporting devoid of establishment spin and then discuss, debate, and share what it all means with the world. " When Breitbart relaunched its website in 2012, the publisher generated roughly 12 million pageviews a month. Today, Breitbart receives more pageviews in a single month than it previously did in an entire year. That trend is likely to continue globally. With bureaus in London, Jerusalem, Washington, California, and Texas, Breitbart is in the process of establishing news bureaus in France and Germany.


As we are watching names being floated as part of Donald Trump s cabinet, it seems our greatest nightmares are beginning to unfold. The names being bandied about include Rudy Giuliani, who s never met a young black man he didn t think was a criminal, Jamie Dimon, the head of JPMorgan Chase and of crashing the economy fame, a Goldman Sachs exec, Sarah Palin and now, a puppy hater. Yes, a puppy hater.According to Politico, the top name for the Secretary of the Interior (the person in charge of the national parks and other public lands) is an oilman named Forrest Lucas. The San Francisco Gate also notes that other contenders include Sarah Palin, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and Donald Trump Jr., who loves to trophy hunt.All of those picks would be disastrous for the environment, but Lucas is in a league of his own. He s the 74-year-old founder of Lucas Oil Products. He s also hated by animal rights activists. The victims of his financial attacks include the Humane Society, The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. He s also a fan of puppy mills.He has defended puppy mills, circuses, animal agriculture and trophy hunting. A nonprofit that he founded and bankrolled produced the feature film The Dog Lover, which portrays dog breeders and puppy mills as victims of animal-rights agencies who aren t REALLY interested in animal welfare. A review of the movie on Roger Ebert s website called it shamelessly manipulative and a pretty bald piece of anti-SPCA and/or PETA propaganda. This is what the Humane Society says about Lucas:In 2010, Forrest Lucas spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to bankroll the opposition to Proposition B in Missouri, which voters approved to set common-sense standards for the care of dogs in large-scale commercial breeding operations (their statement against Prop B can be found here). Lucas then supported an effort in the Missouri legislature to weaken and repeal parts of the voter-approved measure, before it even had a chance to take effect.In 2012, Forrest Lucas spent more than a quarter-million dollars opposing Measure 5 in North Dakota, which sought to establish felony-level penalties for malicious cruelty to dogs, cats and horses.In 2013, Protect the Harvest lobbied against a local ordinance in Harrison County, Indiana, to promote the spaying and neutering of pets and help reduce pet overpopulation, and in Crawford County, Indiana, to provide adequate shelter for dogs and protect them from the elements.Trump has made his views on regulation very clear. Trump, to our knowledge, has never had a pet. That may or may not be a big deal to you, but he once posted a press release that complained about regulations that protect the safety of dog food.It s becoming increasingly clear that Donald Trump only cares about protecting his fortune and the fortunes of his ilk. He won t care if people lose health insurance or if seniors lose Social Security. He won t care if the nation loses its precious public lands or if the environment goes to hell. Trump ran for president for Trump. Humans, dogs, plants and other animals can get screwed.


White House spokesman Sean Spicer said on Thursday he believed the House of Representatives was still on track to hold a vote on Thursday night on healthcare legislation backed by President Donald Trump. Spicer, at his daily news briefing, said Trump's meeting with House Republican conservatives who make up the "Freedom Caucus" was a "very positive step" and that Trump continues to build support for the legislation. "I expect it to climb hour by hour," Spicer said of support for the Republican healthcare effort. He said drawing conservative support while not alienating moderate lawmakers remained part of a "balancing act."


One of Donald Trump's sons appeared along with a white supremacist while giving an interview on a conservative radio show, adding to concerns that the front-runner in the battle to be the Republican candidate in November's presidential election is willing to accept support from extremist supporters. Donald Trump Jr., who is actively campaigning for his father, gave an interview on Tuesday on "Liberty Roundtable," a conservative Utah-based radio show hosted by Sam Bushman. During the show he was questioned by James Edwards, another radio host whose show "The Political Cesspool" is described by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a leading U.S. civil rights group, as "racist and anti-Semitic." During the interview, conducted over the telephone, Trump Jr. talked about what a good father Donald Trump was and how his campaign is changing the Republican Party. "It's not a campaign anymore, it's a movement," he told his interviewers. (here) Edwards said on his blog on Tuesday he would rebroadcast the 20-minute interview on Saturday on "The Political Cesspool." here The show, founded in 2005 and syndicated by Bushman's Liberty News Radio organization, has featured such extremists as former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and Holocaust denier Willis Carto. Edwards also said on his blog he had attended a Memphis rally for the billionaire candidate as a credentialed media member last Saturday. The Trump campaign, asked about an interview in the presence of the Tennessee-based Edwards, denied any knowledge of it. The campaign also said it did not know about Edwards' personal views. "The campaign provided media credentials to everyone that requested access to the event on Saturday in Memphis. There were close to 200 reporters in attendance and we do not personally vet each individual. The campaign had no knowledge of his personal views and strongly condemns them. "Donald Trump Jr. was not in attendance and although he served as a surrogate for his father on several radio programs over the past week, to his knowledge and that of the campaign, he did not participate in an interview with this individual," campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks said in an email. Edwards, in an email, directed questions about the interview to Bushman, but said in a statement: "My show, The Political Cesspool, promotes a proud, paleoconservative Christian worldview, and we reject media descriptions of our work as "white supremacist," "pro-slavery" and other such scare words. "As I clearly wrote in yesterday's article, in no way should anyone interpret our press credentialing and subsequent interview with Donald Trump, Jr. as any kind of endorsement by the Trump campaign." Donald Trump won a majority of the states holding nominating contests on Super Tuesday, accelerating his march to the Republican nomination. He has promised to build a wall on the Mexican border, temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States and block Syrian refugees because they might be militants, all policies popular with some U.S. right-wing groups. Republican leaders in the U.S. Congress on Tuesday condemned white supremacist groups after Trump earlier failed to disavow support for former Klan leader Duke, but the leaders declined further comment on Trump's White House bid. House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan said any Republican nominee must reject any group "built on bigotry" while Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Senate Republicans condemned groups such as the Klan and "everything they stand for." (Reporting by Eric Walsh; Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore) This article was funded in part by SAP. It was independently created by the Reuters editorial staff. SAP had no editorial involvement in its creation or production.


Get short URL 0 8 0 0 A parliamentary inquiry reports that there are four Ku Klux Klan-affiliated groups currently operating in Germany. © AP Photo/ Markus Schreiber Strangers in Their Homeland: Germans Leaving Germany En Masse Due to Migrants While the groups have very low membership, they are suspected of committing at least 68 crimes in Germany since 2001. Their members also include at least two police officers, though it remains unclear whether they are still on the force. "The low membership numbers cannot discount the danger that emanates from such organizations," Left Party politician Monika Renner told the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper.  Germany is currently seeing a surge in hate crimes following the acceptance of an estimated one million refugees last year. The Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV), Germany's intelligence agency, recorded 990 hate crimes in 2014, and 1,408 in 2015.  The BfV also recorded 75 arson attacks on refugee centers in 2015. There were just five such attacks in 2014. © AFP 2016/ Sven Hoppe "One thing is clear – a state under the rule of law can never accept racist violence. We need to do everything we can to quickly catch the perpetrators and rigorously punish them," German Justice Minister Heiko Maas stated. Amnesty International has stated that their researchers observed an 87 percent increase in hate crimes between 2013-2015. "With hate crimes on the rise in Germany, long-standing and well-documented shortcomings in the response of law enforcement agencies to racist violence must be addressed," Marco Perolini, Amnesty International's European Union researcher, stated . "There are many factors that point to the existence of institutional racism with German law enforcement agencies. This question needs to asked, and it needs to be answered… This is not a time for complacency, but for law enforcement agencies to take a long, hard look in the mirror."  The nation has also seen a rise in sexual assault, theft, and rape, especially by people with refugee status. There has been a noticeable uptick since the mass attacks on New Year's Eve in Cologne. ...