Indonesia s foreign minister is due to meet Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi on Monday to discuss delivering humanitarian aid to members of Myanmar s Rohingya minority, as Indonesian protesters urged their government to take a tougher line. Dozens of Indonesians protested outside the Myanmar embassy in Jakarta on Monday, calling for a cut in diplomatic ties with Myanmar over violence against its Rohingya Muslim minority. Aid agencies estimate that about 90,000 Rohingya have fled from Myanmar into neighboring Bangladesh since violence erupted in the north of Rakhine state last week. We will discuss in detail Indonesia s proposal on how Indonesia can give humanitarian aid to Rakhine state, Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi said in a video statement from the Myanmar city of Yangon. She is also scheduled to travel to Bangladesh to urge authorities there to protect fleeing Rohingya refugees. In a sign of mounting public anger in Jakarta, a petrol bomb was thrown at the Myanmar embassy on Sunday, causing a small fire. The protests follow demonstrations in Malaysia and condemnation from world leaders such as President Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, who on Friday said the violence against Muslims amounted to genocide. The Rohingya are denied citizenship in Myanmar and regarded as illegal immigrants, despite claiming roots that date back centuries. Bangladesh is also growing increasingly hostile to Rohingya, more than 400,000 of whom live in the poor South Asian country after fleeing Myanmar since the early 1990s. Indonesia is home to the world s largest population of Muslims. Its government has been actively involved in providing aid for Myanmar to develop Rakhine state and protect the rights of the Rohingya, alongside the majority Buddhist community. Ifah Rohma, an activist from a Jakarta-based organization called Muslim Friends of Rohingya, said many Indonesians as fellow Muslims were concerned about the fate of Rohingya. Indonesia should not be engaging in soft diplomacy, Rohma said outside the Myanmar embassy, which was surrounded by heavy security and barbed wire. Now is the time to cut ties, recall our ambassador and expel their ambassador, she said. Myanmar says its security forces are fighting a legitimate campaign against terrorists responsible for a string of attacks on police posts and the army since last October.


Investors in financial markets, and those predicting faster economic growth in 2017, would do well to remember the famous words that William McChesney Martin Jr. the former Federal Reserve chairman, uttered way back in 1955: The Fed's job is to remove the punch bowl just as the party gets going. Donald J. Trump's promises to cut taxes and regulation and to increase spending on infrastructure and defense have convinced many that a sugar high in the near term will goose the economy. But Fed officials say the economy is already expanding at something close to its maximum sustainable pace, meaning faster growth would drive inflation toward unwelcome levels. To avoid overheating, the Fed could respond by raising interest rates more quickly. The more Mr. Trump stimulates growth, the faster the Fed is likely to increase rates. "I guess I would argue that I think people have gotten a bit ahead of themselves about what a Trump presidency would mean," said Lewis Alexander, chief United States economist at Nomura. "If we have a big stimulus, the logical thing for the Fed to do is to raise rates faster. There isn't a whole heck of a lot of scope to just let the economy run under those circumstances. There's a big question about whether fiscal stimulus under Trump just leads to higher interest rates. " Underscoring that question, the Fed is expected to raise its benchmark rate on Wednesday for the first time since last December in light of new economic data. The rate sits in a range of 0. 25 percent to 0. 5 percent, a low level intended to stimulate economic growth by encouraging borrowing and . Analysts predict the Fed will shift the range upward by a quarter of a percentage point, modestly reducing those incentives. The rate increase is widely regarded as a foregone conclusion. The odds, derived from asset prices, topped 95 percent Monday, according to the CME Group. The looming question is how quickly the Fed will continue to raise rates in 2017. Economic forecasts always require large assumptions, but that is particularly true in the present case because Mr. Trump has provided relatively few details about his plans. Perhaps the most accurate thing that can be said about Mr. Trump's victory is that it has increased the uncertainty of the economic outlook. "At this juncture, it is premature to reach firm conclusions about what will likely occur," William C. Dudley, president of the New York Fed, said in a recent speech. During his campaign, Mr. Trump predicted 4 percent annual growth, and his actions since Election Day point to a goal of job creation. "Our No. 1 priority is going to be the economy, get back to 3 to 4 percent growth," Steven Mnuchin, Mr. Trump's pick to serve as Treasury secretary, said last month. Many economists regard such growth predictions as fanciful the economy has been mired in an extended period of slow growth and the reasons, including an aging population and a dearth of innovation, are unlikely to change quickly. Some think Mr. Trump is more likely to push the economy into recession than to catalyze a new boom. Even if Mr. Trump is right, however, the Fed does not want 4 percent growth. The central bank's outlook has become increasingly gloomy. Officials estimated in September that annual growth of 1. 8 percent was the maximum sustainable pace, and they predicted growth would not exceed 2 percent in the next three years. They will update those forecasts Wednesday, but large shifts are unlikely. Fed officials also are increasingly convinced that steady job growth has substantially eliminated the backlog of people seeking work. The unemployment rate fell to 4. 6 percent in November, a level the Fed regards as healthy. For years, Fed officials urged Congress to increase fiscal spending. Now, Mr. Trump is promising to do just that — and the Fed has concluded that it is too late. Stanley Fischer, the Fed's vice chairman, said last month the Fed might still benefit from fiscal stimulus because it could raise rates more quickly. That would increase the Fed's ability to respond to future downturns by reducing interest rates. But such gains would come at real cost: A fiscal stimulus would increase the federal government's debt burden, which already is at a high level by historical standards, reducing the room for a fiscal response to a future downturn. Janet L. Yellen, the Fed's chairwoman, urged Congress last month to be mindful that the government is already on the hook for more spending as baby boomers age into retirement. "With the . D. P. ratio at around 77 percent, there's not a lot of fiscal space, should a shock to the economy occur, an adverse shock, that did require fiscal stimulus," she said. The tension between fiscal and monetary policy is likely to unfold in slow motion. Mr. Trump has promised to press for rapid changes in government policy, but Congress is not built for speed. A similar effort to cut taxes at the beginning of the George W. Bush administration, for example, was signed into law on June 7, 2001. The impact of new cuts, and any increase in infrastructure spending that Mr. Trump can persuade dubious Republicans to embrace, would be felt mostly in future years. Mark M. Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, predicted that tax cuts, regulatory rollbacks and spending would fuel faster growth in the first half of Mr. Trump's term. But he said that the Fed's rate increases, and restrictions on trade and immigration, would gradually begin to take a larger toll. By the end, Mr. Zandi predicted, the American economy would be "unnervingly close" to recession. "The Fed and markets in general will ultimately wash out any benefit," Mr. Zandi said Monday. "The economy under President Trump ultimately will be diminished. " Other economists are more optimistic, predicting that the stimulus will not be fully offset by Fed policy. Mr. Dudley appeared to endorse this view in his recent speech, suggesting that the rise in financial markets was "broadly appropriate. " Some of Mr. Trump's proposals also could increase the economy's potential growth rate, for example by improving infrastructure or encouraging corporate investment. On the other hand, the Fed's march toward higher rates may be amplified by the bond market. Rates are already rising, and investors concerned about inflation and larger federal deficits are likely to generate persistent upward pressure. Those effects are already visible. Stock prices have climbed since Mr. Trump's surprising victory, increasing the wealth of shareholders. But borrowing costs also climbed. The average rate on a mortgage loan was 4. 13 percent last week, according to Freddie Mac, up from 3. 54 percent just before the election.


In a stunning example of just how morally bankrupt right-wing media has become in the Age of Trump, Breitbart the conservative website often described as Trump s de facto propaganda wing wrote a lavish piece praising Melania Trump for her high fashion outfits while accompanying her husband on his first overseas trip.Who cares, right? Why would anyone have a problem with what the first lady is wearing on a trip?Well, Breitbart, the very same website, seems to albeit only when it s the African-American wife of America s first African-American president. Here s the sneering way they covered Michelle Obama s decision to wear a $3,200 dress on the former president s visit with the pope.Politico reports that First Lady Michelle Obama, looking lovely and classy, greeted Pope Francis Tuesday while wearing a $2,290 dress. While the Obamas are not Catholics, this is still a finger-in-the-eye to a White House guest who frequently speaks out to wild Democrat applause about the evils of excessive capitalism.And adding to the absurd critique:According to WorldVision, you can feed a child for just $35 a month. Michelle Obama s dress would feed over 80 children for that month. This choice obviously is contrary to the values of Pope Francis. But the Obamas religious values come from elsewhere, a divisive and disturbing place, not a charitable or unifying one.Almost beyond parody.Flash forward to this weekend. Melania was treated to a photo spread, with Brietbart praising her outfits, including an expensive custom-made creation from fashion designer Dolce & Gabbana.In a visit to meet Pope Francis, Melania worked with Dolce & Gabbana, again, on a stunning custom-made, black coat-dress that showed off a beautiful round collar, framing the First Lady s face. The look was paired with a black lace Mantilla and black Manolo Blahnik stilettos, sticking to the Vatican dress code.The next day, Melania would don a dress that cost $51,000. Conservatives didn t bat an eye.Let s crunch those numbers through Breitbart s bullshit calculator:According to WorldVision, you can feed a child for just $35 a month. Melania Trump s dress would feed over 1400 children for a month. But then the Trump s religious values come from elsewhere, a divisive and disturbing place, not a charitable one. (This comparison, however tongue-in-cheek, is actually unfair in more ways than one, the Obamas actually do have a history of charitable giving. Trump is famous for not donating to charity. A truly divisive and disturbing worldview, if there ever was one.)As the above passages exemplify, Breitbart loved to apply ridiculous, nonsense standards to the Obamas that they would never dream of holding the Trump family up to. The website once run by anti-Semite Steve Bannon and which has a section devoted to black crime has some pretty obvious, bigoted reasons for hating the Obamas. It s egregious but not particularly surprising then that they would find the white first lady s opulence charming while finding the black first lady s show of class distressing.


The Arab League on Tuesday condemned the killing of Yemeni ex-president Ali Abdullah Saleh saying his death threatened to cause an explosion in the Gulf country s security situation, Egypt s MENA state news agency reported. The Arab League s general secretariat also condemned the Houthi movement which killed Saleh as a terrorist organization , demanding that the international community view it as such. All means must be used to rid the Yemeni people of this nightmare, it said, referring to the Houthis.


Email  Chambers County Clerk Heather Hawthorne announced that all early voting in the county was once again on the iVotronic machines after one day of early voting using paper ballots. The emergency usage of paper ballots took place on Tuesday, October 25 while a software problem was being resolved. The vendor corrected the problem and reinstalled the corrected configuration in time for all ballots the next day, according to Hawthorne in a press release on October 27.  The situation was recounted by ABC 12 News: An error in the voting machine programming by Election Systems & Software (ES&S) caused votes for one statewide court of appeals race not to be entered when a voter tried to vote straight ticket in either party according to a release from Chambers County.  Chambers County, Texas, is a small county, having only 13 precincts and only four early-voting locations. County Clerk Heather Hawthorne told The New American 1,801 ballots were cast before switching to the paper ballots. Some of those 1,801 voters were warned to double check their ballots due to the software glitch. Because Chambers County is a Republican stronghold, the Republican candidate will be more adversely affected than the Democratic candidate by unintended under-votes. The question is how many unintended under-votes were there for these candidates and how close will that contest be?  There was a similar ballot problem in 2010 in Travis County, Texas, although the 2010 error was made on the paper ballots. A number of military absentee voters who were bona fide Texas residents were accidentally sent ballots for federal overseas voters. The ballots for federal overseas voters did not include local contests, such as ones for the Texas House of Representatives, and it was impossible to vote for that contest using the ballots provided. Republican Dan Neil lost by 16 votes. The final vote total was Donna Howard (D) 25,026, Dan Neil (R) 25,010 and Ben Easton (L) 1,518. Neil challenged the election total for a number of reasons, in addition to the ballot format, but the Texas Legislature, even though it was supposedly solidly Republican, seated Howard even though a very common practice in such close elections is to seat neither candidate, pay both candidates, and give both candidates equal access to the building and caucuses while the dispute is resolved or a new election is called.  In this case in Chambers County, the affected contest is a judicial contest. Hopefully, it will not be as close as the House District 48 race in 2010.  The voters who were affected by the Chambers County computer glitch were fortunate the errors were obvious enough for voters to notice and bring to the attention of the election officials. How many errors go undetected because they are not obvious to the voters or the election processes are not transparent? Errors such as this serve as a reminder of how important it is that voting have a paper trail and be a transparent process with plenty of paper documentation in case it becomes necessary to reconstruct precinct vote totals or other vital election records. Please review our Comment Policy before posting a comment  Thank you for joining the discussion at The New American. We value our readers and encourage their participation, but in order to ensure a positive experience for our readership, we have a few guidelines for commenting on articles. If your post does not follow our policy, it will be deleted.  No profanity, racial slurs, direct threats, or threatening language.  No product advertisements.  Please post comments in English.  Please keep your comments on topic with the article. If you wish to comment on another subject, you may search for a relevant article and join or start a discussion there.


With Iran calibrating how to deal with President Trump, its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, caustically thanked the new American leader on Tuesday for revealing "the true face" of the United States. "We are thankful to this newcomer," Ayatollah Khamenei told Iranian Air Force commanders, according to a report posted on his official website. Iranian officials had been showing caution since Mr. Trump took office last month. Despite expressing anger at his policies and comments, even have taken care not to provoke the new American president. But on Tuesday, it became seemingly apparent to Iran's leaders that Mr. Trump is not easily ignored. After Ayatollah Khamenei spoke out sarcastically about Mr. Trump, others expressed worries. Iran's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said in an interview with a local newspaper that he expected "difficult times ahead" for Iran, now that Mr. Trump was in charge. Iran's president, Hassan Rouhani, defended the nuclear agreement between his country and six world powers, including the United States, by saying that the deal was " " for all. But Mr. Trump — who has described the nuclear agreement as "really, really bad" but has not made any moves to alter it — disparaged Iran again on Twitter, this time in a defense against criticism that he is too close to Russia and its leader, President Vladimir V. Putin. Mr. Trump wondered how President Barack Obama could have made a nuclear agreement with Iran, a country Mr. Trump described as "#1 in terror. " Mr. Trump seemed to be summarizing comments by his defense secretary, Jim Mattis, who on Sunday called Iran the "biggest sponsor of state terrorism. " Many Iranians have expressed astonishment and ridicule at such assertions, pointing to terrorist groups that despise Iran and the West. First Al Qaeda, responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and more recently the Islamic State, which has been killing thousands in the Middle East and is responsible for committing and inspiring attacks in Europe and the United States. "Trump is trying to corner Iran, to make us bow before the U. S. and change our behavior, or face confrontation," said Nader Karimi Joni, a political activist close to Mr. Rouhani's government. Mr. Trump included Iran on a list of seven predominantly Muslim countries whose citizens have been barred from entering the United States under an executive order that has been blocked, for now, in the American court system. Mr. Trump's national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, warned Tehran last week that it had been put "on notice" after an Iranian missile test. Washington imposed new economic sanctions on 25 people and entities after the missile launch, which Mr. Flynn said had violated a 2015 United Nations Security Council resolution approved after the United States and other world powers reached an agreement with Iran on its nuclear program. Iran has asserted that its missile tests do not violate that resolution and fall within its rights to . In another possible move against Iran, Mr. Trump's advisers are debating an order intended to designate its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization, according to current and former officials in the United States briefed on the deliberations. For Ayatollah Khamenei, Mr. Trump's ascent appears to have vindicated many suspicions harbored by the Iranian leader, who has said many times that the United States cannot be trusted. "He has proven what we have been saying for more than 30 years — we would always speak about the political, economic, moral and social corruption in the U. S. administration — this man revealed it during the election campaign and since then," Ayatollah Khamenei said, according to a translated text of the speech. Hamidreza Taraghi, a political analyst close to Iran's leaders, said Mr. Trump's "threatening and ranting" style reflected a miscalculation of Iran's power. "He will soon realize Iran will not be intimidated," Mr. Taraghi said. The history of animosity between both countries is long and deep. Several American administrations, including Mr. Obama's, have argued for years that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, because of its support for the Lebanese Hezbollah movement and the Palestinian groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which the United States regards as terrorist organizations. Iran has also been held responsible by the United States for several terror attacks, most decades ago. One of them, of course, was the seizure of 54 members of the American Embassy staff in Tehran for 444 days during the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Iran also has been accused of involvement in a 1983 bomb attack at a Marines barracks in Lebanon, where 241 service personnel died. In 2003, a federal judge ruled that Hezbollah carried out the attack at the behest of Iran. Several judges have ordered Iran to pay billions of dollars in damages. Iran denies the accusations. Iran has pressed several claims against the United States. Iran holds the United States responsible for having supported Saddam Hussein with intelligence, funds and weapons after he attacked Iran in 1980, dragging both countries into a war where thousands of Iranians and Iraqis died. In 1988, an American naval vessel, the Vincennes, shot down an Iran Air commercial plane, flying over the Persian Gulf to Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. All 290 people aboard died. Iran called the attack deliberate and the United States called it a mistake. Under a settlement at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the United States offered no apologies and was ordered to pay around $60 million in damages to families of the victims. Some of Mr. Trump's top aides apparently view Iran and its clerical leaders as a leading source of evil. During his inaugural speech, Mr. Trump vowed to "unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate from the face of the Earth. " At the time, many thought he meant the Islamic State, but in books and speeches both Mr. Flynn and Mr. Mattis said Iran was radically Islamic and described the country as the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East. In a Twitter post on Friday, Mr. Trump said: "Iran is playing with fire — they don't appreciate how 'kind' President Obama was to them. Not me!" Ayatollah Khamenei responded to Mr. Trump's Friday posting in biting fashion with his own remarks on Twitter. "Iran should've appreciated Obama!" he wrote, adding, using the Arabic acronym for the Islamic State: "How come? Appreciate him for #DAESH, war in Iraq Syria or public support for 2009 unrest?" In a post, he said that Iranians would hold a rally on Friday, the 38th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, to show "their position toward threats. "


President Obama plans to propose raising $320 billion over the next 10 years in new taxes targeting wealthy individuals and big financial institutions to pay for new programs designed to help lower- and middle-income families, senior administration officials said Saturday. In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, Obama will propose raising the capital gains and dividend tax rates to 28 percent for high earners; imposing a fee on the liabilities of about 100 big financial institutions; and greatly broadening the amount of inherited money subject to taxes. Obama will also seek to boost private retirement savings by requiring employers without 401(k) plans to make it easier for full-time and part-time workers to save in individual retirement accounts, which could assist as many as 30 million people. The administration would provide small employers tax credits to cover costs. Senior administration officials said that the package would highlight the president's desire to boost taxes on the nation's wealthy households and help lower- and middle-class families. New tax credits would help those in need of child care and households with two earners, they said, while other proposals — such as covering community college tuition — would help students. The moves would "eliminate the biggest tax loopholes and use the savings to let the middle class get ahead," said one of the senior administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity during a conference call with reporters to describe the plan before the president's speech. This person also said that 99 percent of the impact of the tax increases would fall on the top 1 percent of earners. The ambitious — and controversial — proposals demonstrate the White House's increasing confidence about the trajectory of the U.S. economy. For the past year and a half, it has debated how much it could trumpet the recovery when so many Americans have not felt any change in their own economic outlook. But the plan drew immediate fire from Republican — and could face criticism from some Democrats — who have in the past increased the amount of money exempt from inheritance taxes they branded "death taxes." Most Republicans have long opposed increases in capital gains rates, and many favor eliminating the tax altogether. "This is not a serious proposal," wrote Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) in an e-mail late Saturday. "We lift families up and grow the economy with a simpler, flatter tax code, not big tax increases to pay for more Washington spending." "Slapping American small businesses, savers, and investors with more tax hikes only negates the benefits of the tax policies that have been successful in helping to expand the economy, promote savings, and create jobs," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said in a statement Saturday night. "The president needs to stop listening to his liberal allies who want to raise taxes at all costs and start working with Congress to fix our broken tax code." The administration tried to head off some of that attack by asserting that elements of the package resembled proposals endorsed by Republicans. Officials also said that the capital gains tax rate was 28 percent during President Ronald Reagan's terms in office. The Obama administration would also seek to limit the impact of the tax increases by saying the higher capital gains and dividend rates would apply only to couples earning more than $500,000 a year. Officials said that the relatively low capital gains tax rate with a top rate of 20 percent has enabled the 400 highest-earning taxpayers — with $139 million or more of income — to pay an average rate of 17 percent when the top income tax rate is 35 percent. The proposal to impose a 7 basis point fee on financial institutions with assets of more than $50 billion will also run smack into opposition from big banks and insurance companies. The administration compared the fee with a proposal by former House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) for an excise tax on large financial institutions. And last week, the House Budget Committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), proposed a 0.1 percent surcharge on financial market transactions. One of the senior administration officials Saturday said that the goal of the proposed fee from the White House was to discourage big financial institutions from excessive borrowing. He said that despite banking revisions after the 2008-2009 financial crisis, highly leveraged financial institutions "still pose risks to the broader economy," adding that "this fee is designed to make that activity more costly." The economic recovery has freed the president to push for more ambitious domestic policies, many designed to help those in the poor and middle class who are still lagging behind. In the past week alone, Obama has announced new proposals on paid sick leave, free community college tuition and expanded broadband access. And while he might have trouble pushing those through the GOP-controlled Congress, Obama could still end up defining key issues for the elections in 2016. "The battle for the next American agenda is already on," said Donald A. Baer, chief executive of Burson-Marsteller and formerly chief speechwriter for President Bill Clinton. "There's this effort to define a new growth and share agenda — growth but not only growth alone, and sharing the growth but not just sharing the wealth." He said Obama's college and broadband access are examples of proposals that could add to growth and give poor and middle-class people the tools to increase their share in it. But Obama has to balance his rhetoric — between optimism and caution — by talking up the strong recovery while acknowledging that wage growth remains weak. "There's always been a tension between things are in fact getting better and people are not feeling great," said Wade Randlett, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and major Democratic donor. "One is economic fact, and the other is polling, which always catches up over time." Now the president is so comfortable with the idea of talking up the economic recovery that his advisers have branded it — "America's resurgence" — and made it a regular talking point in Obama's stump speeches and weekly radio addresses. And it is likely to be a centerpiece of the State of the Union address. In bragging about performance, Obama administration officials point to factors including the best streak of job growth since the 1990s, a recovery in the housing market and healthier balance sheets for households, companies and the federal government. And they have contrasted that performance with the anemic economies of Europe and Japan as evidence that the United States has regained its global economic dominance in what Obama has called a "breakthrough year for America." But wages have been a stubborn reminder of the recovery's shortcomings. In November, average hourly private-sector nominal wages inched up 6 cents, but in December, they fell 5 cents. After adjusting for inflation, wages for the entire year crawled up 0.7 percent, a modest amount in an economic recovery. It is a point that has been featured prominently in comments by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has emerged as a leader of the Democratic Party's liberal wing. "I'm feeling better about the economy, but I don't think we have in place a set of policies that will assure that this recovery will be either sustained or fully inclusive," said Lawrence H. Summers, a former top adviser to Obama, former Treasury secretary and now a professor at Harvard University. "That's why I think more needs to be done." The White House typically aims its messages directly at the middle class, but, partly in response to Warren, Obama administration officials are more comfortable talking about how some of its proposals benefit poorer Americans. "We're on offense on minimum wage and the environment," Randlett said. "That's the kind you only do when you have the leash of good economics."


China s ruling Communist Party enshrined President Xi Jinping s political thought into its constitution on Tuesday, putting him in the same company as the founder of modern China, Mao Zedong, and cementing his power ahead of a second five-year term. A key Xi ally, top corruption fighter Wang Qishan, will not be on the new Politburo Standing Committee, the apex of power in China, to be revealed on Wednesday as he was not among those named on Tuesday to the 204-member Central Committee. Whether or not the powerful Wang would remain on the Standing Committee, which currently has seven members, despite being beyond the customary retirement age of 69, had been among the key questions to be answered at the week-long party congress, which ended on Tuesday. Wang could still assume another senior role over the next few months. As expected, the party unanimously passed an amendment to include Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era as one of its guiding principles. The party will announce its new Standing Committee, headed by Xi, at around midday (0400 GMT) on Wednesday, culminating a twice-a-decade leadership reshuffle. As expected, the amended constitution affirmed that Xi s signature fight against corruption, which has ensnared more than 1.3 million officials, will continue. Unexpectedly, Xi s Belt and Road initiative, an ambitious program to build infrastructure linking China with its neighbors and beyond, was also included in the party constitution. Also included was a commitment to supply-side industrial reforms, and giving play to the decisive role of market forces in resource allocation, a commitment Xi had made early in his first terms that many investors say he has failed to deliver on. The party exercises overall leadership over all areas of endeavor in every part of the country, the party said in a statement reflecting Xi s ongoing efforts to strengthen the party and its place in contemporary Chinese society. If no clear successor to Xi is named to the new Politburo Standing Committee, it will further fuel speculation that Xi may look to retain power beyond the customary second five-year term. This is about further erasing any distinction between Xi Jinping and the party, said Jude Blanchette, who studies the party at The Conference Board s China Center for Economics and Business in Beijing, referring to Xi s thought getting into the constitution. Add on to this having supply-side structural reform and One Belt One Road written into this, which were Xi s signature policies, this makes questioning or non-compliance with those tantamount to betrayal of the party. Xu Hongcai, deputy chief economist at the China Centre for International Economic Exchanges, a Beijing think-tank, said party control was needed to push through the market reforms key to restructuring the world s second-largest economy. To build a market economic system in such a big country, it s impossible without the leadership of the party, he said. Others have argued that the two are contradictory. When you put supply-side reform and market playing a decisive role in the same document, then that just shows they have to almost choose one, said Alex Wolf, Senior Emerging Markets Economist with Aberdeen Standard Investments in Hong Kong. China s blue-chip shares climbed to a 26-month high on Tuesday, led by infrastructure and property stocks, as Xi wrapped up a congress that began with his three-and-a half hour speech envisioning a more prosperous, confident China. The yuan strengthened against the dollar. Xi rapidly consolidated power after assuming party leadership in late 2012 and then the presidency the next year. The party gave Xi the title of core leader a year ago, a significant strengthening of his position. Whether Xi was able to have his name crowned in the party constitution had been seen as a key measure of his power, elevating him to a level of previous leaders exemplified by Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory. No other leader since Mao has had an eponymous ideology included in the document while in office. Deng s name was added after his death in 1997. A list of 133 committee members for the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection released on Tuesday included Zhao Leji, who heads the party s Organisation Department, a strong sign that he will take over from Wang as anti-corruption chief. China s top banking regulator, Guo Shuqing, and veteran banker Jiang Chaoliang, front runners to succeed Zhou Xiaochuan as central bank governor, both made it to the Central Committee. The constitutional amendment, along with Xi s work report and a work report of the graft watchdog to the congress, were passed by a show of hands. When Xi next asked for any no votes or abstentions for the amendment or two work reports, the sound of none echoed throughout the chamber, as officials shouted out from different sides of the hall.


MELBOURNE, Australia — The sibling rivalry, at least on the tennis tour, started right here at the Australian Open for the Williams sisters. It was 1998, and older sister Venus beat younger sister Serena, (4) in a match that — as intrusive as it felt to watch — surely drew more attention than any match in history between a pair of Australian Open debutantes. The fascination in their dynamic and their futures was there from the start in Melbourne Park, known then as Flinders Park when it had only one stadium with a retractable roof instead of three. A picture of Venus consoling Serena after the match was on the front page of The New York Times. Though it would be tempting to label their Australian Open final on Saturday as a moment and to speculate that it might be their last meeting at this late a stage of a Grand Slam tournament, it seems best to resist the temptation. The Williams sisters have taught us a lot about the limits of conventional tennis wisdom through the years. And so, even if 19 years have passed and Serena is now 35 and Venus 36, it is wise to avoid fencing them in again after they have run roughshod over so many other preconceptions. "I watched Venus today celebrating after she won the semifinal like she was a girl, and it made you want to cry for joy just watching her," said Marion Bartoli, a former Wimbledon champion. "Such a powerful image, and it makes you think about all those questions she was getting: 'When are you retiring? Have you thought about retiring? How much longer?' "You must let the champions decide when the right moment comes. " The Williamses are both great champions, even if Serena is clearly the greater player with her 22 Grand Slam singles titles and her long run at No. 1, a spot she can reclaim from Angelique Kerber with a win Saturday. Serena has been the most prolific Grand Slam winner after age 30 in tennis history, and she is back in rare form again after another extended break at the end of 2016. She disconnected completely from the game and physical training initially and had to push hard to get back in shape in November and December. It worked. She has not dropped a set here despite a challenging draw, nor has she even been pushed to a tiebreaker. Newly engaged to the American technology entrepreneur Alexis Ohanian, who has watched her matches from the players box, and seemingly refreshed, Serena deserves to be the favorite to win her 23rd major singles title and break her tie with Steffi Graf for the highest total in the Open era. In this tournament, Serena has beaten two former members of the top 10 — Belinda Bencic and Lucie Safarova — and one current member, the No. 9 seed Johanna Konta. Venus's draw has been soft by comparison, devoid of top 10 players — past or present — and including only one seeded player: No. 24 Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova. On Thursday, she had to scrap and come back to win, (3) against the powerful unseeded American CoCo Vandeweghe, while Serena cruised past the unseeded Croat Mirjana . Serena, who already holds a edge over her sister, could be the fresher player, too, on Saturday. But the psychology remains complex and the fallout unpredictable, even after all these years. "When I'm playing on the court with her, I think I'm playing the best competitor in the game," Venus said. "I don't think I'm chump change either, you know. I can compete against any odds. No matter what, I can get out there, and I compete. " They have not played since the 2015 United States Open, when Serena won, in a quarterfinal in which Venus attacked, often successfully, from the start but had no answer in the end for Serena's ultimate weapon: her first serve. It was an intense match in which the big crowd in Arthur Ashe Stadium seemed more reflective than fully engaged one in which Serena's celebration was understandably subdued with her sister across the net, even if their matches are no longer the awkward, constricted affairs of their early years. Saturday's final in Melbourne could be intriguing on multiple levels, in part because of the Australian public. Venus is viewed here, as elsewhere, as a sympathetic figure: the older sister who has handled the younger's greater tennis success unselfishly and with dignity. And though both sisters have had to cope with major health problems and family tragedy, with the murder of their half sister Yetunde Price in 2003, Venus is the one whose tennis fortunes dipped more dramatically. A Grand Slam singles champion and a former No. 1, she did not advance past the third round in any major event in singles from late 2011 to the end of the 2014 season. She was a major star reduced to a minor role, largely because of an autoimmune disorder — Sjogren's syndrome, diagnosed in 2011 — that sapped her strength and endurance. When Russian hackers breached the World Agency's databases last fall, it was revealed that Venus had needed 13 exemptions for drugs in recent years. The retirement questions to which Bartoli referred started during that period. But Venus's ability to cope with her condition has improved, and after rejoining the top 10 in 2015, she reached the semifinals at Wimbledon last year and then the final here. "She never even thought of the word retire," said David Witt, her coach and hitting partner of 10 years. "I just think when she got diagnosed, it was a step back, a shock. She's learned a lot about how to deal with it and her body, how to eat, how to manage it. "There are days she can't work as hard as she wants to work. Some days it's maybe not smart to do it because it will then hurt you for two or three more days. Where she is now in her career, she has to listen to her body, and I don't think she really needs to go out and hit balls for two hours. " Witt said there were no more sessions in the or in time off tour: just one session in the morning and then gym work, primarily sprints, core strengthening and flexibility. "It took her years and years to realize that stretching is important and can keep you healthier," he said. "The more flexible you are, you're not going to strain or pull anything. I've been with her 10 years, and I think it took seven years to get her to stretch. She likes to do a lot of dancing, and that consists of a lot of stretching and being flexible, so I think that's helped. " Her dance skills were in evidence Thursday as she pirouetted after beating Vandeweghe, but what will linger longest in memory were her screams of delight at having conquered an inspired young opponent in a semifinal. It was a moment she described as "just joy. " "You could really see the happiness on her face," Serena said. "I've been there when she was down and out of it, and back and in it. I've been there for all those moments, so I just really was oh so happy. " As visceral as her reaction on court was, she was nothing but considered in the interview room. "I think why people love sport so much is because you see everything in a line," Venus said. "In that moment, there is no . There's no retake. There is no . It's triumph and disaster witnessed in real time. "This is why people live and die for sport, because you can't fake it. You can't. It's either you do it or you don't. People relate to the champion. They also relate to the person who didn't win, because we all have those moments in our life. " This will be Venus's first major singles final since she lost to Serena in straight sets in the 2009 Wimbledon final, and her first match against Serena in Melbourne since the 2003 final when Serena won her fourth Grand Slam title in a row, having defeated Venus in all four finals. "It's just amazing," said Rennae Stubbs, the Australian star who first met the sisters before they joined the tour. "They came onto the scene at age 15 and 16 with the beads and the hair and the exuberance, and here they are: mature, remarkable young women at 35 and 36. No matter what anyone says to me, their story from start to finish is the greatest sports story ever. " And if the Williamses have taught us anything along the way, it is that the story is not finished until they say it is.


Europe's Battle: Nationalists vs. Elites October 26, 2016  On both sides of the Atlantic, a battle is underway between largely discredited "elites" and sometimes disreputable "nationalists," a conflict over un-kept promises about the future and unsettling memories of the past, writes Andrew Spannaus.  By Andrew Spannaus  In recent years "nationalism" has become a bad word in Europe, a synonym of closure, racism and wars. Over the past 20-25 years European elites have instead embraced a concept of globalization based on a world without economic, physical and social borders.  This view assumes the gradual affirmation of a set of shared values internationally, consisting of human rights and economic freedom, that however much the remaining closed, autocratic regimes may try, will inevitably become the standard for the entire world. Flag of the European Union.  It is essentially the argument put forward by Francis Fukuyama in "The End of History:" liberal democracy and free markets have won the ideological war, and represent the culmination of human evolution.  The political events of 2016 are upending this view of the globalization of human rights and economic liberalism. The American electorate has supported a series of outsiders – most notably Donald Trump, who has run his campaign in direct opposition to the U.S. political and financial class, invoking economic protectionism and a stronger national identity.  Against expectations, the population of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, marking an irreparable break in the supposedly inevitable process of European unification. And across Europe support is growing for more extreme, anti-system political forces, that threaten not only to withdraw from the common currency – the Euro – but also to seal the borders in response to economic and security threats associated with immigration.  Establishment's Failure  It is no exaggeration to speak of the failure of the entire transatlantic political establishment. Since the 1970s, Western economies have undergone a post-industrial transformation that has favored short-term gain over long-term investment. The notion of economic freedom has translated principally into support for deregulation and speculative finance. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is welcomed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the Federal Chancellery in Berlin, Germany, on April 14, 2011. [State Department photo/ Public Domain Central Banks have made unlimited resources available to the financial sector while large areas of the real economy struggle to survive, feeding discontent among the population. It is true that new economic sectors have arisen, along with widespread changes made possible by technologies that were inconceivable until a few years ago, but the overall effect has been to hollow out the middle class and create large-scale income equality. In Europe, the principal vehicle of this process has been the economic policy of the European Union. From the implementation of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, European nations have been stuck in a monetary straitjacket, that prevents governments from taking effective economic action. In the name of market principles, liberalization has been implemented that favors large financial interests while lowering standards of living for the middle class.  Countries are constitutionally required to move towards a balanced budget, with the European Commission and the European Central Bank essentially having veto power over national policies. This has translated into harsh austerity, including the massive budget cuts and tax increases inflicted on countries such as Greece, Spain and Italy in recent years.  Despite paying lip service to the need for change, the economic and political elites have refused to abandon this approach, that not only ignores the suffering of the population, but actually makes the problem worse. In fact the austerity causes a drop in economy activity and thus exacerbates budget problems, leading to a vicious cycle that Europe seems unable to stop.  A Big Backlash  The resulting backlash is calling into question the process of European integration as a whole, provoking a strenuous defense by the elite of institutions that are said to have guaranteed "50 years of peace" after the Second World War. The run-down PIX Theatre sign reads "Vote Trump" on Main Street in Sleepy Eye, Minnesota. July 15, 2016. (Photo by Tony Webster Flickr)  It is true, of course, that there are some benefits to E.U. integration, and that nobody wants to return to a situation of conflict among the member states. But the current policies are quite different than the fruitful cooperation that existed until the 1990s, when the financial elite began its move to exert supranational control.  Now, the failed economic policies of the past 20 years are no longer sustainable. Governments are forced to negotiate over .1 percent of the budget deficit with the bureaucracy in Brussels, while the need for public and private investment runs in the trillions.  The pro-finance, anti-production policies must change not for ideological reasons or to serve some specific interest group; they must change because there is no other choice. People are revolting against a political class that does not respond adequately to widespread economic and social discontent. In times of economic distress the population becomes more vulnerable to demagogues, raising the risk of dangerous outcomes, as seen with Fascism and Nazism in the 1920s and 1930s.  Currently, there are unprepared and unpredictable political forces with growing support across Europe, that in some cases represent a threat to the democratic rights and values that the European Union aims to promote. Defending the orthodoxy of E.U. policy against popular movements that target failed economic policies, will only further damage precisely those values on which Europe is said to stand.  What to Do  At this point Europe needs a return to measures that promote productive investment and innovation, rather than cut social welfare programs and encourage further deregulation. Refugees from Mideast wars camped along rail lines in Greece.  There are two potential directions: a wholesale change in the policies of the E.U. institutions, without modifying their essential structure, or a step back from the process of cancellation of national sovereignty.  The first option seems unrealistic, for various reasons. These include the constitutional nature of many economic and budget constraints, and the stubbornness demonstrated by the European ruling class in recent years; a class that, despite numerous alarm bells, does not at all seem ready to abandon an elitist view of globalization.  The response to the Brexit vote is a glaring example. Representatives of the E.U. institutions lashed out with arrogance and bitterness, essentially accusing half of the British population of being ignorant, racist and isolationist. It's a comforting excuse based on partial truths, that avoids reflection on Europe's own mistakes.  At this point a return of decision-making power to national governments is becoming inevitable: not in order to stop international cooperation, or to reject shared values, but because the model pursued by the supranational institutions and their allies in the financial world has failed, and risks producing both serious internal conflicts, and unacceptable strategic failures in an increasingly complex world.  Andrew Spannaus is a freelance journalist and strategic analyst based in Milan, Italy. He is the founder of Transatlantico.info, that provides news, analysis and consulting to Italian institutions and businesses. His book on the U.S. elections Perchè vince Trump (Why Trump is Winning) was published in June 2016.


Country: South Korea In October 2016, the Presidential Advisory Council on Democratic and Peaceful Unification of Korea suggested to the President of the Republic of Korea returning US tactical nuclear weapons to the country. The report entitled "The policy of promotion of the second plan on Korean reunification" states that the search for opportunities to place US tactical nuclear weapons in the Republic of Korea and the permanent basing of American strategic forces may serve as a pressure tool both on the DPRK, and on China to toughen sanctions in respect of Pyongyang. The placement of US tactical nuclear weapons in the Republic of Korea is justified in the report by the following example – SS-series ballistic missiles were placed in the territory of the former USSR that were targeted on Europe, in response to this, the USA placed Pershing II – the American medium-range ballistic missiles of mobile basing – in Europe. Earlier, on September 12, 2016, 31 representatives of the Saenuri governing party signed a statement, which proposed that the Parliament discuss launching an independent South Korean nuclear program. The same former leader of the parliamentary group Won Yoo-chul, who is one of the major proponents of the idea to publicly discuss the issue of nuclear weapons in the South, has announced that the Republic of Korea should consider any protection measures from the provocative acts of the North, including nuclear weapons for the purposes of self-defense. Won Yoo-chul believes that American strategic nuclear weapons should be placed in the South in the short-term in order to achieve nuclear balance with the North. However, in the long-term, the South should create its own nuclear potential exceeding that of North Korea at least two times. According to Chung Mong-joon, member of South Korea's Parliament, as the Rubicon in terms of the peninsula denuclearization has been crossed, the Republic of Korea needs the nuclear weapons. The statement also emphasizes the fact that this is not an opinion of just a few members of Parliament. The day before, on September 11, the leader of the Saenuri governing party Lee Jung-hyun announced to journalists that the adoption of strict measures was required. He said that "in the current situation this is the topic of discussion to focus on; yet it is the issue that has been always avoided." It goes without saying that the opposition called such a proposal unrealistic and potentially leading to increased conflict. The speaker of the Democratic Party of Korea Yoon Kwang-suk has called the proposal unspeakable. The Republic of Korea government also opposes the placement of the nuclear weapons in the country as it contradicts the denuclearization principle on the Korean peninsula. Meanwhile, the JoongAng Ilbo newspaper, one of the three leading conservative publications, surveyed 16 experts on security and international relations. They are divided into three groups: nine of them support denuclearization, four of them approve of the idea of obtaining the nuclear weapons for the purposes of self-defense or the placement of US tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea, and the remaining three experts propose using nuclear weapons against the North. Moreover, this division clearly correlates with their liberal or conservative outlook. Academics have noted that the South Korean bomb will go against the non-proliferation system, which may lead to a split in the international community. The Republic of Korea will have to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which will result in international sanctions and the termination of the Cooperation Agreement with the USA on nuclear power engineering. Thus, Seoul will lose access to enriched uranium, which will lead to disruption in the energy sector. In addition, it will send the wrong signal to the DPRK that nuclear weapons might be accepted by the international community. The nuclear armament of Seoul will mean a recognition of Pyongyang's nuclear status and it will completely bury the prospects for the peninsula's denuclearization. That is why some experts have proposed relying on the US nuclear "umbrella", stating that Washington is unlikely to allow Seoul to obtain its own nuclear weapons, and any countermeasures may affect the country's economic situation. Another position suggests using the nuclear program as part of a bargaining strategy in order to reach the "zero option" and to eliminate nuclear weapons in both the North and the South. Those who support the proposal of the Saenuri Deputies consider the independent nuclear program to be a well-minded response. The USA withdrew tactical nuclear weapons from the Korean peninsula in 1991, and the majority of its nuclear torpedoes and mines were destroyed. It will be difficult to place American tactical nuclear weapons again. Moreover, "we should not entrust the destiny of our nation in foreign hands." Is there any guarantee that the USA will join the nuclear war for our sake in the changing international environment? What is the public opinion on this issue? An opinion poll conducted by the Gallup Korea agency among 1,010 people showed that 58% of the respondents supported the idea of South Korea obtaining its own nuclear weapons. 34% of the respondents spoke out against it: most of them young people. The remaining 7% refused to answer or said they could not give a definite answer. Relying on the containment model that currently exists between India and Pakistan, supporters of the Seoul bomb suppose that the current technological level will mean a bomb can be made in 8-12 months . However, according to a statement made by an official of the US National Security Council Jon Wolfsthal on September 21, 2016, neither the independent program nor the placement of the US tactical nuclear weapons would boost the security of the Republic of Korea . The USA is able to attack its enemies from any part of the world, and all its potential opponents are aware of this. Therefore, he does not believe that these actions will play an additional role in dissuading the DPRK from turning to a military solution. Neither the USA nor the Republic of Korea is interested in the South Korean nuclear program. In the author's opinion, the entire fact of bringing this issue for the public discussion is indicative, as South Korean nuclear weapons would truly cause great harm to the non-proliferation system. Konstantin Asmolov, Ph.D. in History, Chief Research Fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of Far Eastern Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine " New Eastern Outlook ".


Shred the political playbook. The 2016 campaign will be remembered as the year in which the conventional wisdom was anything but wise. Most political pundits have been wrong. And almost every assumption about presidential campaigns since the birth of modern politics in 1960, with the first televised debate and widespread use of TV advertising, has been debunked. Our political catechism has been upended. Consider the following: When the Supreme Court ruled in the 2010 Citizens United case that corporations were people and therefore could spend unlimited amounts of money – without disclosure, in some instances – on political campaigns, Democrats and other critics warned that democracy was now for sale and that the candidate who raised the most money would invariably prevail over less well-funded contenders. Enter Jeb Bush, the Republican Party's "inevitable" nominee, who raised over $130 million for his campaign and Super Pac even before he formally declared. Eight months later, exit Jeb!, the "low-energy" candidate who, having spent the vast majority of the money he had raised, quit the race, dragging his exclamation point behind him. Donald Trump, by contrast, may be wealthy – just how rich remains in dispute – but he has spent less overall than any other candidate and, because of the nonstop coverage his slurs and antics have received, virtually nothing on TV advertising. Ted Cruz was supposed to win all the early GOP contests because of his heavy investment in his "ground game." But, with the exception of Iowa – which he first visited in 2008, only months after being elected a first-term senator from Texas – organization, like money, has meant little this year. Cruz won Iowa thanks to a large evangelical turnout after Trump skipped what turned out to be a critical debate days before the nation's first caucus, but he has steadily faded ever since. Polls suggest that Trump won in Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina with the most modest of campaign ground organizations because of his powerful slogan of American revitalization; because he is seen as a consummate political outsider, a blunt businessman who says what ordinary people think, a problem-solver and anti-politician; and because of his celebrity status and tempestuous rallies, complete with the by now almost ritualistic ejection of a protester. While Trump has repeatedly flown to primary states in his private jet, he rarely spends a night outside his baronial residence on Fifth Avenue. Apparently not this year. Almost no establishment politician endorsed Trump during the first two primaries. The only other celebrity politician who rallied to Trump's side was Sarah Palin, whose rambling, incoherent 45-minute endorsement prior to the Iowa caucus, if anything, may have cost him votes there. Marco Rubio, the candidate who has garnered the most endorsements, has yet to win a primary and is unlikely to do so, despite his growing support from a still reeling Republican "establishment." 4. You can't run against the media. Trump has mocked this political platitude, repeatedly. If anything, one of the bumptious billionaire's most reliable applause lines is his frequent declaration that the media are "terrible," "among the most dishonest groups of people" he's ever met. Apparently his rivals have gotten the message. During the debate in Houston last Thursday, every candidate except John Kasich, who is running a poor fifth except in his home state of Ohio, attacked the press. Quite the contrary. In 2016, given America's deep political polarization, no candidate seems able to win without high negatives. The nation's bitter frustration seems to require candidates to make increasingly stark, even extreme, appeals. The GOP field has no shortage of candidates with high positive ratings, especially Ben Carson and Marco Rubio, neither of whom has carried a single state primary or caucus. On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders has far higher favorability ratings than Hillary Clinton, who in poll after poll is widely viewed by potential voters of most ages, ethnicities and genders as "untrustworthy" and perhaps even "dishonest." Yet Clinton got 73.5 percent of the Democratic vote in South Carolina on Saturday. Many Trump critics continue to assert that he will ultimately stumble, because no candidate can win his party's nomination or be elected to the nation's highest office without substantial political experience. While the 2008 election of a junior senator from Illinois whose resume featured only a brief stint as a community organizer began to challenge that political bromide, the crucial primaries on March 1 and March 15 will be the ultimate referee. Given the pundits' predictive record so far, a degree of humility is in order. Trump, once the "unthinkable," may soon become "inevitable." For better or worse, the 2016 race is anything but politics as usual. Judith Miller, a Fox News contributor, is an award-winning writer and author, and an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute. The author of several books, her latest is "The Story: A Reporter's Journey" (Simon & Schuster, April 7, 2015) now available in paperback. Follow her on Twitter @JMFreeSpeech. Douglas E. Schoen has served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton. He has more than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. He is also a Fox News contributor and co-host of "Fox News Insiders" Sundays on Fox News Channel at 7 pm ET. He is the author of 13 books. His latest is "Putin's Master Plan" (Encounter Books, September 27, 2016). Follow Doug on Twitter @DouglasESchoen.


Silvio Berlusconi s center-right coalition has a narrow lead over the anti-establishment 5-Star Movement in Sicilian regional elections held on Sunday, according to exit polls, with the center-left a distant third. The election to pick a new regional governor on the Mediterranean island is widely seen as a test of trends across Italy ahead of parliamentary elections due by next May. RAI state television said Nello Musumeci, backed by center-right parties, including former Prime Minister Berlusconi s Forza Italia (Go Italy!), would win between 35 percent and 39 percent of the vote. The 5-Star s Giancarlo Cancelleri was seen taking between 33-37 percent. Another exit poll for private broadcaster La 7 put Musumeci on 36-40 percent and Cancelleri on 34-38 percent. The center-left s candidate Fabrizio Micari, backed by the ruling Democratic Party, was seen almost 20 points behind the frontrunner in both polls, followed by Claudio Fava, the candidate of a cluster of left-wing parties. The vote count will not begin until Monday at 8 a.m (0700 GMT) with the full result expected later that day.


U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said on Thursday he would accept the result of the Nov. 8 election - "if I win" - fueling Republican concerns his stance would make it harder for his party to maintain control of Congress. His refusal to commit to accepting the election outcome was the standout remark of the third and final 2016 presidential debate between Trump and Democratic rival Hillary Clinton on Wednesday night. It ratcheted up Trump's allegations the election was being rigged against him, and became the latest flashpoint in an unusually acrimonious race three weeks before voters go to the polls. Clinton called the comment "horrifying." President Barack Obama blasted Trump on Thursday at a rally in Miami Gardens, Florida, for Clinton and U.S. Representative Patrick Murphy, who is trying to unseat Republican Senator Marco Rubio, a Trump supporter. "That is dangerous. Because when you try to sow the seeds of doubt in people's minds about the legitimacy of the elections, that undermines our democracy. Then you're doing the work of our adversaries for them," Obama said. Trump modified his comment at a rally in Ohio on Thursday, but did not back off. "I would like to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supporters and to all of the people of the United States, that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election - if I win," he said. He added he would accept "a clear election result," but reserved the right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result. With Trump trailing in opinion polls, the focus ahead of the Nov. 8 vote is shifting to whether Republicans can keep their narrow majority in the Senate or even their larger advantage in the House of Representatives. Senator John McCain of Arizona, who lost the 2008 presidential election to Obama, said accepting the election result was "the American way." "I didn't like the outcome of the 2008 election. But I had a duty to concede, and I did so without reluctance," McCain, who has opened a poll lead in his Senate re-election race, said in a statement. "A concession isn't just an exercise in graciousness. It is an act of respect for the will of the American people, a respect that is every American leader's first responsibility." McCain has withdrawn his support for Trump. Asked on Wednesday night if he would commit to a peaceful transition of power, Trump, a businessman-turned-politician, replied: "What I'm saying is that I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense. OK?" Trump's statement, the most provocative in a debate that repeatedly descended into rancor, made headlines across the country and raised questions about his commitment to a peaceful transition of power, a cornerstone of American democracy. Clinton accused Trump of being Russian President Vladimir Putin's puppet. Trump called Clinton a "nasty woman" and a criminal who should be barred from running. They did not exchange the customary handshake when the debate ended. On Thursday night the two candidates appeared together at a formal charity dinner in New York and shook hands there after giving speeches intended to roast each other. "Just before taking the dais, Hillary accidentally bumped into me, and she very civilly said, 'pardon me,'" Trump joked. "And I very politely replied, let me talk to you about that after I get into office." Trump has said Clinton should be imprisoned for her email practices as secretary of state. Clinton spoke after Trump at the dinner, which she joked was remarkable in itself. "I didn't think he'd be ok with a peaceful transition of power," she said. That show of humor was not the norm, however. Democrats jumped to ask Republican candidates whether they agreed with Trump, who is making his first run for public office against Clinton, a former senator and first lady. "Do you agree with Donald Trump to question the results of the election?" the Nevada Democratic Party asked in a release targeting Republican Joe Heck. Heck is in a tight race with Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto for retiring Democratic leader Harry Reid's Senate seat. Trump's comments did not worry his supporters. Marion Fields, 48, a registered Democrat who backs Trump, said he did not think concession would be an issue because Trump would win. Were he to lose, "After it's announced, you'd have to be a professional and concede." A CNN/ORC snap poll said 52 percent of Americans thought Clinton won the debate, to 39 percent for Trump. Trump donor and energy investor Dan Eberhart said Trump won. He disagreed with his rhetoric, but still backs the candidate. "I think Hillary's policies and track record are not what the country needs leading us forward for the next four years. And that backs me into supporting Trump," Eberhart said. Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway sought on Thursday to defend Trump, saying in television interviews he was "putting people on notice" about voting irregularities. Trump has not offered specific evidence to back up his vote-rigging claims, and numerous studies have shown that the U.S. election system, which is run by the states, is sound. Trump has stepped up allegations that the election is being rigged against a backdrop of accusations that he had made improper sexual advances to women since a video emerged two weeks ago in which Trump boasted of such behavior. A 10th woman came forward on Thursday at a news conference in Manhattan with attorney Gloria Allred, a Clinton supporter who specializes in representing women in cases of alleged assault. Trump campaign spokeswoman Jessica Ditto called the news conference a "coordinated, publicity-seeking attack" by Allred. First lady Michelle Obama, a powerful campaigner for Clinton, renewed her criticism of Trump without naming him during a campaign event in Arizona. "Decent men do not demean women. And we shouldn't tolerate this behavior from any man, let alone a man who wants to be the president," she said.


It s no secret that German Chancellor Angela Merkel is no fan of Donald Trump. They had a frosty visit when she visited the United States. He infamously refused to shake her hand for the cameras as is customary in the Oval Office, and even reportedly presented her with some kind of bogus bill for supposed expenses with regards to financial obligations to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).Combine that with the fact that Trump publicly scolded our fellow NATO member nations at the summit in Brussels, and you have a recipe for Chancellor Merkel coming to a very grave conclusion: The United States of America can no longer be trusted to defend its NATO allies and support Article V which states that when one nation is attacked, all nations are attacked as long as Donald Trump is president. This is an especially striking blow, since the only time Article V of NATO has been invoked is when the U.S. was attacked on September 11, 2001.With all of this in mind, Merkel has made a stunning and historic statement to her fellow member nations of the European Union: Thanks to Trump, America is not to be relied on any longer. Merkel said of Trump s America: The times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out. I ve experienced that in the last few days. We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands. Merkel had the same advice regarding Great Britain, though with less harsh words. She still insists that respectful relationships with Britain and America will be maintained, but told the remaining European Union nations, we have to fight for our own destiny. Another warning came as a result of Trump s refusal to commit to the Paris Climate Agreement at the G7 Summit. All of the other six member nations of the agreement reaffirmed their commitment to addressing the problem of climate change, but Trump and thus the United States did not. Merkel said that this is a very difficult, not to say very unsatisfactory development and a six against one dialogue with regards to a grave world matter. A matter that, by the way, Trump has previously called a hoax. Here is the tweet that confirms his crazy views there:The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012In short, with Donald Trump as president, the United States of America is no longer the leader of the free world. Germany is. Hopefully, Merkel gets re-elected, and can diminish Trump s power on the world stage until he is either impeached and removed from office, resigns, or his term ends.The fate of the free world depends on it.


Ever since Donald Trump announced he was running for president, most Americans pretty much thought it was a joke and brushed it off as Donald being Donald. However, as his poll numbers began to rise, so did people s curiosity with whether he may actually be in it to win it. And now that Trump has won New Hampshire and is still polling high nationwide the probability of a Trump presidency is actually starting to sink in among several American citizens and it is terrifying the living daylights out of them.However, don t fret! There seems to be a way out if Trump were to actually win the White House.Move to Canada!!A new website has been set up to advise people to move to the lovely Cape Breton Island.The site is called Cape Breton If Donald Trump Wins and it encourages Americans to move to the island if that awful circumstance were to become a reality. It says: Hi Americans! Donald Trump may become the President of your country! If that happens, and you decide to get the hell out of there, might I suggest moving to Cape Breton Island! And you can find lots of cool things there! And lots and lots of yummy SEAFOOD!Where is Cape Breton? Not far from New England! You could be there in no time!While this site is technically a joke website set up by radio host Rob Calabrese, people are still reaching out to him in droves. It seems people are horrified at that possibility of a Trump presidency. Calabrese had no idea it would actually be this popular. He told nationalpost.com: I m in disbelief, Calabrese said in an interview Wednesday from Sydney, the largest community in Cape Breton. I wish everyone from Cape Breton could read them because they really make you proud of living here. You can find the FAQ page telling you it s not a joke:And it actually will lead you to the Canadian government citizen website:So, while it is a joke, you may want to still check out the possibilities anyway. The site also directs you to the real Cape Breton tour page.As they say, it s always good to have a back up plan. Featured image: Flickr/Wikimedia


U.S. Vice President Mike Pence on Saturday brought a message of support for Europe from Donald Trump, but failed to wholly reassure allies worried about the new president's stance on Russia and the European Union. In Pence's first major foreign policy address for the Trump administration, he told European leaders that he spoke for Trump when he promised "unwavering" commitment to the NATO alliance. "Today, on behalf of President Trump, I bring you this assurance: the United States of America strongly supports NATO and will be unwavering in our commitment to this transatlantic alliance," Pence told the Munich Security Conference, offering "greetings" from the president. But he also repeated U.S. calls for more defense spending in return: "As you keep faith with us, under President Trump we will always keep faith with you." While Poland's defense minister praised Pence, many others, including France's foreign minister and U.S. lawmakers in Munich, remained skeptical that he had convinced his allies that Trump would stand by Europe. Trump's contradictory remarks on the value of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, scepticism over the 2015 deal to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions and an apparent disregard for the future of the European Union have left Europe fearful for the seven-decade-old U.S. guardianship of the West. After Pence spoke, former NATO deputy secretary general Alexander Vershbow, who is American, summed up the mood, telling Reuters: "Many in this hall are still asking if this is the real policy." Pence, whose meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel was described by German aides as "very friendly", also marked out a divide on Iran, which the European Union sees as a business opportunity following the nuclear deal. Pence called Tehran "the leading state sponsor of terrorism", language never used by European officials. Pence's strident vow to consign Islamist militants "to the ash-heap of history" also raised eyebrows, European officials said. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly defended Trump's directive suspending travel to the United States by citizens of seven mostly Muslim countries, since blocked by U.S judges, which was condemned by EU governments. Kelly said he would produce a "tighter, more streamlined version" soon, saying: "We need to find ways to vet in a more reliable way to satisfy us that people coming to the United States are coming for the right reasons." French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault expressed disappointment that Pence's speech did not mention the European Union, although the vice president will take his message to EU headquarters in Brussels on Monday. "I hope that we will have a clear response (in Brussels) ... because Donald Trump has said he was overjoyed by the Brexit and that there would be others," Ayrault said, referring to Britain's decision to leave the European Union. U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, a member of the opposition Democrats, said he welcomed Pence's address but saw two rival governments emerging from the Trump administration. Pence, Trump's Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and his foreign minister Rex Tillerson all delivered messages of reassurance on their debut trip to Europe. But events in Washington, including a news conference in which Trump branded accredited White House reporters "dishonest people", sowed more confusion. "I like a lot of what I heard from Vice President Pence," Murphy told Reuters. "It's just hard to square that speech with everything Donald Trump is doing and saying," citing an assault on the free press. The resignation of Trump's security adviser Michael Flynn over his contacts with Russia on the eve of the U.S. charm offensive in Europe also tarnished the message Pence, Mattis and Tillerson were seeking to send, officials told Reuters. U.S. Republican Senator John McCain, a Trump critic, told the conference on Friday that the new president's team was "in disarray". The United States is Europe's biggest trading partner, the biggest foreign investor in the continent and the European Union's partner in almost all foreign policy, as well as the main promoter of European unity for more than 60 years. Pence, citing a trip to Cold War-era West Berlin in his youth, said Trump would uphold the post-World War Two order. "This is President Trump's promise: we will stand with Europe today and every day, because we are bound together by the same noble ideals – freedom, democracy, justice and the rule of law," Pence said. Pence received little applause beyond the warm reception he got when he declared his support for NATO. His warning that the "time has come to do more" on military spending was met with an awkward silence. The United States provides around 70 percent of the NATO alliance's funds. European governments sharply cut defense spending after the fall of the Soviet Union but Russia's resurgence as a military power and its seizure of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula has started to change that. Baltic states and Poland fear Russia might try a repeat of Crimea elsewhere. Europe believes Moscow is seeking to destabilize governments and influence elections with cyber attacks and fake news, an accusation denied at the conference by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Pence's tough line on Russia, calling on Moscow to honor the international peace accords that seek to end the conflict in eastern Ukraine, were welcomed by Polish Defence Minister Antoni Macierewicz. Lavrov said after a meeting with his French, German and Ukrainian counterparts that there would be a new ceasefire from Feb. 20. "Know this: the United States will continue to hold Russia accountable, even as we search for new common ground, which as you know, President Trump believes can be found," Pence said.


When Alan Rusbridger retired last year after two decades as the editor of The Guardian, he was lauded as one of the finest journalists of his generation, having transformed a midsize British newspaper into an international digital media giant. He racked up a string of investigative scoops and made the organization a darling of readers around the world. But Mr. Rusbridger on Friday departed the organization to which he had devoted his career. With mounting financial losses that threatened The Guardian, he was forced to give up the plum role he was set to assume in September, as chairman of the Scott Trust, the nonprofit organization that owns The Guardian. Mr. Rusbridger's decision to cut ties with The Guardian follows a series of events that made his presence seem increasingly untenable: lingering resentments from a battle over his replacement as editor a string of articles detailing the paper's deteriorating finances and, finally, a clash with his successor, Katharine Viner, who helped spearhead his strategy for international growth but now faces a period of retrenchment. The tensions, playing out on a public stage, deviate from the familiar news media angst in the digital world, where print's changing fortunes can create upheaval at the top. In his resignation statement, Mr. Rusbridger, 62, seemed to imply at times that he had been undone by the new regime — which he helped put in place — as well as a rapidly shifting environment in which even news organizations hemorrhage money while titans like Facebook and Google devour advertising revenue. The Guardian lost an estimated 45 million pounds, or $65 million, last year. It is seeking to cut its annual budget of $380 million by 20 percent over the next three years. It is cutting its British work force by 310 positions — 250 job cuts and 60 vacant positions that will not be filled — or 18 percent of the total. "Much has changed in the year since I stepped down," Mr. Rusbridger wrote in a memo to The Guardian's staff members on Friday, stating that the leadership of The Guardian — David Pemsel, the chief executive of the Guardian Media Group, and Ms. Viner, the editor — no longer wanted him to take over the Scott Trust. "We all currently do our journalism in the teeth of a digital hurricane," Mr. Rusbridger said in the memo. The leaders of The Guardian "clearly believe they would like to plot a route into the future with a new chair," he said, adding, "I understand their reasoning. " A central point of disagreement within The Guardian has been its refusal — for Mr. Rusbridger, virtually an ideology — to charge online subscribers, as news organizations like The Financial Times, The Times of London, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times have come around to doing. The Guardian has recently experimented with a membership model that amounts to seeking donations, but Mr. Rusbridger insisted that a digital pay wall would be at odds with the newspaper's editorial mission. Under Mr. Rusbridger, The Guardian invested hundreds of millions of dollars in expansion, fueled in part by proceeds from the sale of a trade publication, Auto Trader. The Guardian Media Group's investment fund had been shrinking recently at an alarming rate — to £740 million in January, from £838. 3 million in July. The Guardian, which started in Manchester, England, in 1821, built a presence in Australia and the United States beginning in 2011. It seemed to move easily into the digital realm, staffing 10 bureaus in the two countries and hiring more than 50 reporters. Along the way, Mr. Rusbridger racked up an investigative hat trick, with electrifying scoops on illegal phone hacking by British tabloids, the WikiLeaks trove of diplomatic cables, and leaks from Edward J. Snowden describing the vast electronic surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency. The Guardian won its first Pulitzer Prize in 2014, shared with The Washington Post, for the surveillance articles. The Guardian succeeded in significantly expanding its international readership — the company says traffic from outside Britain now represents of its digital audience. But its resistance to charging readers for content came at a significant cost. "He made The Guardian's mark, and made it an international brand," said Dominic Ponsford, the editor of Press Gazette, which covers the British news industry. But it was an expensive proposition, and Mr. Ponsford said, "That cost is one of the reasons that its losses are so high now. " In a statement on Friday, Ms. Viner lauded Mr. Rusbridger as "a truly towering figure at The Guardian over the last three decades. " But she added: "In his email to staff, Alan recognized how much has changed in the year since he stepped down as editor, and that it is right that we all plot a new route to the future. We face a formidable challenge over the coming months in a digital environment that is shifting all the time. " Current and former colleagues of Mr. Rusbridger's, who acknowledged criticism of his business decisions, characterized him as a brilliant journalist — not to mention a talented pianist, an affinity he explored in a 2013 book — and nearly universally declined to discuss his departure for attribution, describing it as a sad way to end his affiliation with the institution. Mr. Rusbridger, who was born in Zambia and graduated from the University of Cambridge in 1976 with a degree in English, started as a journalist at The Cambridge Evening News. He joined The Guardian in 1979, and in 1988 became an editor there. In 1994, he was promoted to deputy editor, before taking over the next year as editor in chief, a position he held until his departure last spring. Cerebral and academic, with often unruly hair, Mr. Rusbridger had an inner steel that won him admiration and devotion. Early in his career at The Guardian, Mr. Rusbridger led the newspaper's tenacious investigation of what became known as the scandal in Parliament, which contributed to the fall of the Conservative government of Prime Minister John Major in 1997. Mr. Rusbridger stared down a libel suit against the newspaper by a powerful former minister involved in the scandal, Jonathan Aitken, who was ultimately jailed for perjury. In the hypercompetitive and partisan world of British journalism, Mr. Rusbridger was sometimes a lonely figure, often more admired in the United States than among his rivals at home. As Mr. Rusbridger's vision for the newsroom played out, the strategy appeared to have the full support of the top brass. Shortly after Mr. Rusbridger retired in 2015, Mr. Pemsel, the chief executive, said he was "hugely excited at the prospect of managing the next phase of growth at The Guardian, building on our international audience, capitalizing on the many commercial and digital opportunities. " Around that time, another top executive said the company's finances had been good that year. Then the bottom fell out. Print advertising cratered, and expected digital money never materialized. Support for Mr. Rusbridger suddenly shifted, as he was cast as a negligent manager who had saddled the paper with a slew of problems. Janine Gibson, a favorite of Mr. Rusbridger's who lost out in the race to succeed him, left with other senior Guardian journalists, further shifting the way his legacy was viewed in the newsroom. In January, Mr. Rusbridger's choice as The Guardian's opinion editor, Jonathan Freedland, stepped down in what was seen as a leftward shift in the organization's editorial stance. And Ms. Viner's plans for the newsroom seemed increasingly at odds with Mr. Rusbridger's, making the idea that he would soon return, as essentially her boss, increasingly unsavory. The negative sentiment started to rise in recent months, as several news media reports detailed a rising tide of internal discord, quoting insiders who placed the blame for the company's woes on Mr. Rusbridger's policies and what they saw as his intractability. A critical article in Prospect Magazine took aim at Mr. Rusbridger's decisions to "lavish money on new presses and delightful new offices. " It prompted Mr. Rusbridger to strike back, defending the move to make a "significant investment in digital today" in the hope of having a "sustainable business tomorrow. " It all reached a head on Thursday when the board of the trust met to discuss Mr. Rusbridger's future. The meeting ended without a decision. Mr. Rusbridger was by all accounts apparently dismayed by the public and the sour tone at the institution he dominated for so many years. While his supporters framed the decision to go as his, others said he had lost the battle with the trust and had no choice but to leave. In his memo, Mr. Rusbridger, who is currently the principal, or head, of Lady Margaret Hall, a college at the University of Oxford, wished his colleagues well. In September, he will also become the chairman of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, also at Oxford.


Investigators in Zurich, ranked among the world s cleanest cities, are probing alleged grubby dealings within the municipal garbage and recycling department. While trash services in the United States and Italy have sometimes been linked with illicit dealings, the Swiss financial center appears an unlikely source of muck. Rubbish bins are ubiquitous, and a fleet of motorized street sweepers keeps boulevards nearly spotless. But so far Zurich has unearthed irregular accounting surrounding some $15 million in cost overruns on one of its marquee projects, possible nepotism and an alleged off-the-books slush fund, according to a series of reports released last week. The garbage and recycling department in Zurich developed into a state within a state, Filippo Leutenegger, a city council member who has overseen the Sanitation and Recycling office since 2014, told state broadcaster SRF. We cannot allow that to happen, he added, rejecting criticism he failed to act quickly enough to halt the problems. The department s chief, Urs Pauli, was fired in June after revelations he was driving a taxpayer-funded BMW sedan worth more than $100,000 and after a so-called secret stash of 215,000 Swiss francs ($226,500) was uncovered in his offices. The city prosecutor s office seized the cash, which Swiss newspaper Tages-Anzeiger has reported resulted from selling used department vehicles and was used to reward employees for good performance. SWEEPING COVER-UP According to the city s reports, the garbage department hid 15 million Swiss francs in cost overruns on a logistics center, including by booking them to unrelated accounts in a sweeping cover-up. A whistleblower alerted authorities in 2015, accusing Pauli s department of neglecting proper documentation as well as irregularities on no-bid construction contracts involving firms with close ties to trash department officials. Awarding contracts without seeking bids or ensuring transparency can prompt questions about compliance when the same contractors are always chosen, according to the city reports. It creates fertile ground for accusations of favoritism. Earlier this year, Leutenegger filed a criminal complaint with city prosecutors, alleging Pauli, who had led the department since 2008, had broken the law by bypassing formal approval for his BMW. Zurich prosecutors did not immediately respond to questions on Tuesday about their investigation s status. Nobody has been charged. Pauli, who has denied wrongdoing, declined to comment this week through his attorney.


We have compiled a huge list of voter fraud incidents which were caught in the early voting process, all of it done by Hillary Clinton's supporters against Republican candidate Donald Trump. So far there hasn't been a single case where Republicans were caught doing voter fraud for Donald Trump. Remember the following list is a compilation of CAUGHT cases. Imagine how many more there might be out there uncaught. NEVADA  – CAUGHT ON VIDEO Hillary Supporters Commit Voter Fraud in Las Vegas — Again! INDIANA  – More Crooked Democrats : Police Raid Offices of Indiana Voter Registration Project in Voter Fraud Case NORTH CAROLINA  -North Carolina Hillary Supporter Brags on Facebook About Voting Multiple Times PENNSYLVANIA  – BREAKING: PA STATE POLICE RAID Democrat Group For Evidence Of Voter Fraud FLORIDA  – GOP Alleges VOTER FRAUD in Broward County – Democrats Opened TENS OF THOUSANDS of Ballots TEXAS  -Texas Woman – Who Is Not a US Citizen – BUSTED for Voting 5 Times in Texas  CALIFORNIA  – Voter Fraud: 83 Ballots , With 83 Different Names, Sent to One Address in LA County NATIONWIDE  – Election "results" have already been shown in advance, in error, on multiple major news outlets such as CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC. – Third-party Voters Are "Trading Votes" With Clinton Voters To Defeat Trump – Democrats are suing Roger Stone on bogus charges of "voter intimidation" for only wanting to conduct AFTER -voting exit polling! Exit polling is not only legal but its something done in all civilized countries in the world. Democrats want to steal and prevent anyone from exposing their thievery. Exit polling provides perfectly accurate results and if in some state GOP gets for example 55% in exit polls and then 40% or whatever in final results, then we know there was fraud involved in that state. The usual accepted error between actual final results and exit polling can't be bigger than 2%.


Actress Scarlett Johansson revealed she would be open to running for public office in the future in an interview Wednesday. [In a conversation with Good Morning America's Michael Strahan, the Avengers star said she has been "interested" in local politics for some time, but family commitments and her film career have kept her plenty busy. "I've always, like I said, been interested in local politics," the actress said. "Right now, I think with my young daughter and also the way my career is going right now … it's just not the right time. But eventually, maybe when my daughter is older and I can totally focus myself on something like that, I think it could be interesting. " The Ghost in the Shell star said she makes no apologies for supporting liberal policies that might offend her potential audience: "I'm not afraid to say what I feel is right, just because I think that I'm going to face criticism, or some people might not like me. " In recent months, Johansson has become a vocal critic of President Donald Trump. In September, the actress appeared alongside her Avengers cast mates in a voter registration PSA meant to rev up support among younger voters and millennials to turn out on Election Day for former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The actress also participated in the Trump Women's March in Washington D. C. where she delivered a speech railing against the president. Scarlett Johansson to Trump: "I want to be able to support you, but first, I ask that you support me" and all women https: . — NBC News (@NBCNews) January 21, 2017, In her interview Wednesday, Johansson said she would continue to support organizations like Planned Parenthood even if it causes some people to stay away from her films. "If fighting, you know, for women's rights, for women's reproductive rights, and you know, in support of Planned Parenthood, if that's going to, you know, mean that some people don't want to buy a ticket to see Ghost in the Shell, then … I'm OK with that," she said. Follow Jerome Hudson on Twitter: @JeromeEHudson