Datasets:

cjziems

/

Article-Bias-Prediction

like 2

cOLxfKmYYOvP75cU

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2018/08/02/rename-austin-over-slavery-how-about-was

Rename Austin Over Slavery? How About Washington?

2018-08-02

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

I grew up in Austin , Texas . At least that 's what we called it then . I 've often said that after all the growth it has experienced , I barely recognize the city I once called home . If a new proposal goes anywhere , though , I wo n't be able to call it home or Austin . The Austin Equity Office , you see , recently published a report on Confederate monuments . It compiled a list of parks , streets , and facilities named for slaveholders , Confederate veterans , and other symbols of the antebellum South , and it provided cost estimates for changing names and removing statues . One of the people mentioned is Stephen F. Austin , who played a central part in the founding of Texas . Though he owned no slaves and died long before the Civil War , the report notes that he `` fought to defend slavery in spite of Mexico 's effort to ban it '' and feared that freed slaves would be `` a nuisance and a menace . '' Among the things named after him are a street , a high school , a recreation center and…a city of nearly a million people . The unlikely idea of changing the city 's name , which the report raised , has provoked outrage and incredulity . I am no fan of Confederate statues , flags , and nostalgia , but the critics have a point . Carting off a bronze sculpture of Stonewall Jackson is one thing . Renaming a city is another . Compared with the sins of the people who took part in secession and bore arms against the United States , Stephen F. Austin 's were not major . In any case , the connection between him and the city has withered to irrelevance . When you think of Monument Avenue in Richmond , you think of the Civil War . When you think of Austin , you think of Willie Nelson , the University of Texas , South by Southwest—almost anything but the person it was named for . In much of the Lone Star State , `` Austin '' is shorthand for `` crazy liberals . '' If re-christening is obligatory there , sign-makers are going to be working overtime across the country . The nation 's capital and dozens of other Washingtons were named for a slaveholder . So were Madison , Wisconsin , and Jefferson City , Missouri . Anything named `` Columbus '' or `` Columbia '' would need a replacement , given the fate of Native Americans once the explorer arrived . And let 's not forget the big enchilada : America . Its name came from Amerigo Vespucci , who on one of his voyages to the New World captured a couple of hundred natives to sell as slaves . This is not to say the campaign against Confederate symbols is mistaken . On the contrary , it 's long overdue . The University of Texas has taken down statues of four Confederate leaders . The city of Austin has renamed Robert E. Lee Road and Jeff Davis Avenue . Confederate Avenue and Dixie Drive could be next . The reasoning behind such changes is unassailable . It 's an abomination to honor the Confederacy , whose chief purpose was preserving white supremacy and African-American bondage . There is no way to think of Lee or Davis without recalling the vast monstrosity they upheld . But Austin , like other cities , has an identity entirely separate from its namesake . As the report noted , `` Where do we stop ? '' is a reasonable question . I do n't know exactly the right place to stop , but the name of the city is way past it . This addled suggestion , however , should not be used to discredit the reassessment of problematic tributes . The mostly white , mostly male people who ran cities and states decades ago had the right to decide who deserved a statue or a street name . The more diverse people in charge today have the right to make additions and deletions in accordance with their own values—racial equality being one . Austin has a Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and a Cesar Chavez Street because locals came to see the contributions of people of color . That 's not political correctness . It 's democracy . You know why they call the Confederacy the Lost Cause ? Because it lost . Changes like this do n't `` erase history '' as some critics charge . On the contrary , they expand our appreciation of history to include oppressed groups that were once rendered invisible . Confederate statues can serve an educational purpose—in museums . A Jeff Davis Avenue , however , makes about as much sense as a Benedict Arnold Drive . It 's important that Americans have begun to rid ourselves of monuments to avoid glorifying evil and folly . It 's equally useful to know where to stop .

I grew up in Austin, Texas. At least that's what we called it then. I've often said that after all the growth it has experienced, I barely recognize the city I once called home. If a new proposal goes anywhere, though, I won't be able to call it home or Austin. The Austin Equity Office, you see, recently published a report on Confederate monuments. It compiled a list of parks, streets, and facilities named for slaveholders, Confederate veterans, and other symbols of the antebellum South, and it provided cost estimates for changing names and removing statues. One of the people mentioned is Stephen F. Austin, who played a central part in the founding of Texas. Though he owned no slaves and died long before the Civil War, the report notes that he "fought to defend slavery in spite of Mexico's effort to ban it" and feared that freed slaves would be "a nuisance and a menace." Among the things named after him are a street, a high school, a recreation center and…a city of nearly a million people. The unlikely idea of changing the city's name, which the report raised, has provoked outrage and incredulity. I am no fan of Confederate statues, flags, and nostalgia, but the critics have a point. Carting off a bronze sculpture of Stonewall Jackson is one thing. Renaming a city is another. Compared with the sins of the people who took part in secession and bore arms against the United States, Stephen F. Austin's were not major. In any case, the connection between him and the city has withered to irrelevance. When you think of Monument Avenue in Richmond, you think of the Civil War. When you think of Austin, you think of Willie Nelson, the University of Texas, South by Southwest—almost anything but the person it was named for. In much of the Lone Star State, "Austin" is shorthand for "crazy liberals." If re-christening is obligatory there, sign-makers are going to be working overtime across the country. The nation's capital and dozens of other Washingtons were named for a slaveholder. So were Madison, Wisconsin, and Jefferson City, Missouri. Anything named "Columbus" or "Columbia" would need a replacement, given the fate of Native Americans once the explorer arrived. And let's not forget the big enchilada: America. Its name came from Amerigo Vespucci, who on one of his voyages to the New World captured a couple of hundred natives to sell as slaves. This is not to say the campaign against Confederate symbols is mistaken. On the contrary, it's long overdue. The University of Texas has taken down statues of four Confederate leaders. The city of Austin has renamed Robert E. Lee Road and Jeff Davis Avenue. Confederate Avenue and Dixie Drive could be next. The reasoning behind such changes is unassailable. It's an abomination to honor the Confederacy, whose chief purpose was preserving white supremacy and African-American bondage. There is no way to think of Lee or Davis without recalling the vast monstrosity they upheld. But Austin, like other cities, has an identity entirely separate from its namesake. As the report noted, "Where do we stop?" is a reasonable question. I don't know exactly the right place to stop, but the name of the city is way past it. This addled suggestion, however, should not be used to discredit the reassessment of problematic tributes. The mostly white, mostly male people who ran cities and states decades ago had the right to decide who deserved a statue or a street name. The more diverse people in charge today have the right to make additions and deletions in accordance with their own values—racial equality being one. Austin has a Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and a Cesar Chavez Street because locals came to see the contributions of people of color. That's not political correctness. It's democracy. You know why they call the Confederacy the Lost Cause? Because it lost. Changes like this don't "erase history" as some critics charge. On the contrary, they expand our appreciation of history to include oppressed groups that were once rendered invisible. Confederate statues can serve an educational purpose—in museums. A Jeff Davis Avenue, however, makes about as much sense as a Benedict Arnold Drive. It's important that Americans have begun to rid ourselves of monuments to avoid glorifying evil and folly. It's equally useful to know where to stop.

www.reason.com

right

cOLxfKmYYOvP75cU

test

YhcnPvk6d7ZgAnPP

race_and_racism

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-reparations-poll/u-s-public-more-aware-of-racial-inequality-but-still-rejects-reparations-reuters-ipsos-polling-idUSKBN23W1NG

U.S. public more aware of racial inequality but still rejects reparations: Reuters/Ipsos polling

2020-06-26

Katanga Johnson

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - Americans are growing increasingly aware of racial inequality in the United States , but a large majority still oppose the use of one-time payments , known as reparations , to tackle the persistent wealth gap between Black and white citizens . Marcie Hampton and Rod West show their children Major , 5 , and Maya , 7 , the place where the first Africans arrived in Virginia in 1619 , on Juneteenth , which commemorates the end of slavery in Texas , two years after the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves elsewhere in the United States , amid nationwide protests against racial inequality in Hampton , Virginia , U.S. June 19 , 2020 . ███/Julia Rendleman According to ███/Ipsos polls this month , only one in five respondents agreed the United States should use “ taxpayer money to pay damages to descendants of enslaved people in the United States . ” Calls are growing from some politicians , academics and economists for such payments to be made to an estimated 40 million African Americans , amid an expanding discussion about race in America . Any federal reparations program could cost trillions of dollars , they estimate . Supporters say such payments would act as acknowledgement of the value of the forced , unpaid labor that supported the economy of Southern U.S. states until the Civil War ended slavery in 1865 , the broken promise of land grants after the war and the burden of the century and a half of legal and de facto segregation that followed . A ███/Ipsos poll conducted on Monday and Tuesday showed clear divisions along partisan and racial lines , with only one in 10 white respondents supporting the idea and half of Black respondents endorsing it . Republicans were heavily opposed , at nearly 80 % , while about one in three Democrats supported it . The poll did not ask respondents why they answered the way they did . Other critics have said too much time has passed since slavery was outlawed , and expressed confusion about how it would work . “ I ’ m not racist and think it ’ s an insult for someone to pay me or anyone else strictly based on the color of their skin , ” Burgess Owens , a retired National Football League player and a Republican candidate for Congress from Utah , told ███ on Wednesday . “ Those who say they care about slavery should be leading the charge to save the 30 million men , women and children enslaved today around the world ” by sex trafficking and other evils , said Owens , an African American . Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell criticized the idea last year , saying that “ none of us currently living are responsible ” for slavery , which he calls America ’ s “ original sin . ” Asked about reparations during a 2019 Democratic presidential debate , progressive Senator Bernie Sanders asked : “ What does that mean ? ... I don ’ t think anyone ’ s been very clear . ” On Wednesday , St. Louis Federal Reserve President James Bullard said : “ To promote racial economic equity , we as a nation must consider structural or institutional responses . ” Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has said he would support a commission studying the feasibility of the idea . Some local governments and academic institutions are starting here programs of their own , and Democratic Representative Sheila Jackson Lee said another hearing on the issue would occur in Congress this year . “ Doubters may not have had slaves yesterday , or a decade ago or 100 years ago , but any wealth they hold or expect to gain only exists because of the institution of slavery , ” Jackson Lee told ███ . Reparations have been used in other circumstances to offset large moral and economic debts - paid to Japanese Americans interned during World War Two , to families of Holocaust survivors in Germany and to Blacks in post-apartheid South Africa . Formal proposals in the United States have been more narrowly cast , such as using existing social programs , for example , but increasing the amount of support for those who live in areas of persistent poverty . The mood surrounding racial issues may be shifting , ███ polls showed , with more Americans agreeing with the idea that Black people are still treated unfairly , and supporting the specific complaints about police behavior raised by groups like Black Lives Matter . Seventy-two percent of ███/Ipsos poll respondents in a survey last week said they understood “ why Black Americans do not trust the police , ” up 17 points from a similar poll in May 2015 . Fifty-nine percent of Americans said police were too violent when handling people suspected of crimes , up 15 points from a similar poll in July 2016 . The polls were conducted after the May 25 death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody ignited national and international protests against police brutality and racial injustice . The economic crash caused by the coronavirus pandemic has also focused attention on gaps in economic outcomes between Black and white Americans , despite decades of efforts to prevent discrimination in hiring , housing and education . Black adults have been hit harder by job losses in recent months , reversing recent progress in closing the roughly 2-1 gap in unemployment rates with white Americans - a racial wedge that has existed for as long as joblessness has been calculated . Median income for Black families is about 57 % that of white ones , a gap that compounds over time into dramatic differences in wealth as well . The failure of efforts to offset inequality , beginning with broken promises of farmland for freed slaves after the Civil War , “ laid the foundation for the enormous contemporary gap in wealth between Black and White people in the U.S. , ” Duke University economist William Darity and writer A. Kirsten Mullen argued in their April book “ From Here to Equality . ” The latest ███/Ipsos poll surveyed 1,115 adults about their feelings on slavery reparations and asked 4,426 adults about racial issues in a separate poll that ran June 10 to 16 . The polls had a credibility interval , a measure of precision of between 2 and 3 percentage points .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans are growing increasingly aware of racial inequality in the United States, but a large majority still oppose the use of one-time payments, known as reparations, to tackle the persistent wealth gap between Black and white citizens. Marcie Hampton and Rod West show their children Major, 5, and Maya, 7, the place where the first Africans arrived in Virginia in 1619, on Juneteenth, which commemorates the end of slavery in Texas, two years after the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves elsewhere in the United States, amid nationwide protests against racial inequality in Hampton, Virginia, U.S. June 19, 2020. REUTERS/Julia Rendleman According to Reuters/Ipsos polls this month, only one in five respondents agreed the United States should use “taxpayer money to pay damages to descendants of enslaved people in the United States.” Calls are growing from some politicians, academics and economists for such payments to be made to an estimated 40 million African Americans, amid an expanding discussion about race in America. Any federal reparations program could cost trillions of dollars, they estimate. Supporters say such payments would act as acknowledgement of the value of the forced, unpaid labor that supported the economy of Southern U.S. states until the Civil War ended slavery in 1865, the broken promise of land grants after the war and the burden of the century and a half of legal and de facto segregation that followed. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted on Monday and Tuesday showed clear divisions along partisan and racial lines, with only one in 10 white respondents supporting the idea and half of Black respondents endorsing it. Republicans were heavily opposed, at nearly 80%, while about one in three Democrats supported it. The poll did not ask respondents why they answered the way they did. Other critics have said too much time has passed since slavery was outlawed, and expressed confusion about how it would work. “I’m not racist and think it’s an insult for someone to pay me or anyone else strictly based on the color of their skin,” Burgess Owens, a retired National Football League player and a Republican candidate for Congress from Utah, told Reuters on Wednesday. ‘WHAT DO THEY MEAN?’ “Those who say they care about slavery should be leading the charge to save the 30 million men, women and children enslaved today around the world” by sex trafficking and other evils, said Owens, an African American. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell criticized the idea last year, saying that “none of us currently living are responsible” for slavery, which he calls America’s “original sin.” Asked about reparations during a 2019 Democratic presidential debate, progressive Senator Bernie Sanders asked: “What does that mean? ... I don’t think anyone’s been very clear.” On Wednesday, St. Louis Federal Reserve President James Bullard said: “To promote racial economic equity, we as a nation must consider structural or institutional responses.” Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has said he would support a commission studying the feasibility of the idea. Some local governments and academic institutions are starting here programs of their own, and Democratic Representative Sheila Jackson Lee said another hearing on the issue would occur in Congress this year. “Doubters may not have had slaves yesterday, or a decade ago or 100 years ago, but any wealth they hold or expect to gain only exists because of the institution of slavery,” Jackson Lee told Reuters. Reparations have been used in other circumstances to offset large moral and economic debts - paid to Japanese Americans interned during World War Two, to families of Holocaust survivors in Germany and to Blacks in post-apartheid South Africa. Formal proposals in the United States have been more narrowly cast, such as using existing social programs, for example, but increasing the amount of support for those who live in areas of persistent poverty. U.S. SHIFTS ON RACE The mood surrounding racial issues may be shifting, Reuters polls showed, with more Americans agreeing with the idea that Black people are still treated unfairly, and supporting the specific complaints about police behavior raised by groups like Black Lives Matter. Seventy-two percent of Reuters/Ipsos poll respondents in a survey last week said they understood “why Black Americans do not trust the police,” up 17 points from a similar poll in May 2015. Fifty-nine percent of Americans said police were too violent when handling people suspected of crimes, up 15 points from a similar poll in July 2016. The polls were conducted after the May 25 death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody ignited national and international protests against police brutality and racial injustice. The economic crash caused by the coronavirus pandemic has also focused attention on gaps in economic outcomes between Black and white Americans, despite decades of efforts to prevent discrimination in hiring, housing and education. Black adults have been hit harder by job losses in recent months, reversing recent progress in closing the roughly 2-1 gap in unemployment rates with white Americans - a racial wedge that has existed for as long as joblessness has been calculated. Slideshow (2 Images) Median income for Black families is about 57% that of white ones, a gap that compounds over time into dramatic differences in wealth as well. The failure of efforts to offset inequality, beginning with broken promises of farmland for freed slaves after the Civil War, “laid the foundation for the enormous contemporary gap in wealth between Black and White people in the U.S.,” Duke University economist William Darity and writer A. Kirsten Mullen argued in their April book “From Here to Equality.” The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll surveyed 1,115 adults about their feelings on slavery reparations and asked 4,426 adults about racial issues in a separate poll that ran June 10 to 16. The polls had a credibility interval, a measure of precision of between 2 and 3 percentage points.

www.reuters.com

center

YhcnPvk6d7ZgAnPP

test

9h14k6F2katJ2X2w

supreme_court

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/5f87898346e4e63fa3a43beac6ea1bbe

Justices wary of tying AIDS money to prostitution pledge

2020-05-05

Mark Sherman, Jessica Gresko

In this May 4 , 2020 , photo , rhe Supreme Court in Washington . The Supreme Court 's second day of arguments by phone is devoted to a new version of a case it decided seven years ago involving federal money to fight AIDS around the world . ( AP Photo/Andrew Harnik ) In this May 4 , 2020 , photo , rhe Supreme Court in Washington . The Supreme Court 's second day of arguments by phone is devoted to a new version of a case it decided seven years ago involving federal money to fight AIDS around the world . ( AP Photo/Andrew Harnik ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — In its second day of arguments by phone , the Supreme Court appeared skeptical of a requirement that foreign affiliates of U.S.-based health organizations denounce prostitution as a condition of receiving taxpayer money to fight AIDS around the world . The justices on Tuesday heard a new version of a case they decided seven years ago involving a federal program that has spent nearly $ 80 billion to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS . The court ruled in 2013 that the anti-prostitution pledge , contained in a 2003 law , improperly restricts the U.S. groups ’ constitutional rights . The new question is whether the administration can subject the foreign organizations to the pledge . Chief Justice John Roberts , who wrote the 2013 opinion , was among several members of the court who suggested there might not be much of a difference in the new case because in many countries the U.S. organization has to work through a foreign partner . “ The effort would not be as effective if the American entity were the one actually on the ground in the foreign country , ” Roberts said , kicking off the questioning as he did Monday . As also happened Monday , the justices and two lawyers representing the administration and the organizations met by telephone , with live audio available to the public . The court scheduled the arguments by phone because of the coronavirus pandemic . Justice Clarence Thomas , formerly known for his silence at arguments , asked questions for the second day in a row , and Justice Sonia Sotomayor once again forgot to unmute her line . “ I ’ m sorry , chief . Did it again , ” she said . Only eight justices took part . Justice Elena Kagan is sitting out the case , presumably because she worked on an earlier version of the case when she served in the Justice Department before joining the court . The justices took up the Trump administration ’ s appeal to distinguish between the domestic organizations and their foreign affiliates in their anti-AIDS programs . Lower federal courts ruled that there is no real difference between the U.S. and foreign-based groups , which do AIDS prevention work in more than 100 countries . The administration argues that the foreign groups don ’ t have the same rights as their domestic counterparts . The U.S. organizations can receive the money without stating their opposition to prostitution and sex trafficking , Justice Department lawyer Christopher Michel told the justices . The program , enacted during President George W. Bush ’ s administration , has been a foreign policy success on a par with the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after World War II , Michel said . David Bowker , representing the organizations , said people generally don ’ t distinguish between the domestic and foreign labels of the groups . “ They lose their integrity , their reputation and their brand when they ’ re forced to talk out of two sides of their mouth , ” Bowker said . His clients include InterAction , Global Health Council , Pathfinder , World Vision and Save the Children . Some justices worried that a ruling for the groups could have broader implications for restrictions the government sometimes attaches to U.S. foreign aid . “ I ’ m concerned it will force Congress to withhold foreign aid entirely or to allow foreign aid to be used in ways that are contrary to the interests of the people of this country , ” said Justice Samuel Alito , who was part of the majority in 2013 . Roberts said in that case that the government could not force the U.S. groups to “ pledge allegiance to the government ’ s policy of eradicating prostitution . ” Roberts , Alito , Sotomayor and two other justices , Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg , were part of the majority in 2013 and remain on the court . Follow AP ’ s Supreme Court Twitter feed at https : //twitter.com/AP_Courtside . And Supreme Court reporters Mark Sherman at https : //twitter.com/shermancourt and Jessica Gresko at https : //twitter.com/jessicagresko .

In this May 4, 2020, photo, rhe Supreme Court in Washington. The Supreme Court's second day of arguments by phone is devoted to a new version of a case it decided seven years ago involving federal money to fight AIDS around the world. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik) In this May 4, 2020, photo, rhe Supreme Court in Washington. The Supreme Court's second day of arguments by phone is devoted to a new version of a case it decided seven years ago involving federal money to fight AIDS around the world. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik) WASHINGTON (AP) — In its second day of arguments by phone , the Supreme Court appeared skeptical of a requirement that foreign affiliates of U.S.-based health organizations denounce prostitution as a condition of receiving taxpayer money to fight AIDS around the world. The justices on Tuesday heard a new version of a case they decided seven years ago involving a federal program that has spent nearly $80 billion to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS. The court ruled in 2013 that the anti-prostitution pledge, contained in a 2003 law, improperly restricts the U.S. groups’ constitutional rights. The new question is whether the administration can subject the foreign organizations to the pledge. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the 2013 opinion, was among several members of the court who suggested there might not be much of a difference in the new case because in many countries the U.S. organization has to work through a foreign partner. “The effort would not be as effective if the American entity were the one actually on the ground in the foreign country,” Roberts said, kicking off the questioning as he did Monday. As also happened Monday , the justices and two lawyers representing the administration and the organizations met by telephone, with live audio available to the public. The court scheduled the arguments by phone because of the coronavirus pandemic . Justice Clarence Thomas, formerly known for his silence at arguments, asked questions for the second day in a row, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor once again forgot to unmute her line. “ I’m sorry , chief. Did it again,” she said. Only eight justices took part. Justice Elena Kagan is sitting out the case, presumably because she worked on an earlier version of the case when she served in the Justice Department before joining the court. The justices took up the Trump administration’s appeal to distinguish between the domestic organizations and their foreign affiliates in their anti-AIDS programs. Lower federal courts ruled that there is no real difference between the U.S. and foreign-based groups, which do AIDS prevention work in more than 100 countries. The administration argues that the foreign groups don’t have the same rights as their domestic counterparts. The U.S. organizations can receive the money without stating their opposition to prostitution and sex trafficking, Justice Department lawyer Christopher Michel told the justices. The program, enacted during President George W. Bush’s administration, has been a foreign policy success on a par with the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after World War II, Michel said. David Bowker, representing the organizations, said people generally don’t distinguish between the domestic and foreign labels of the groups. “They lose their integrity, their reputation and their brand when they’re forced to talk out of two sides of their mouth,” Bowker said. His clients include InterAction, Global Health Council, Pathfinder, World Vision and Save the Children. Some justices worried that a ruling for the groups could have broader implications for restrictions the government sometimes attaches to U.S. foreign aid. “I’m concerned it will force Congress to withhold foreign aid entirely or to allow foreign aid to be used in ways that are contrary to the interests of the people of this country,” said Justice Samuel Alito, who was part of the majority in 2013. Roberts said in that case that the government could not force the U.S. groups to “pledge allegiance to the government’s policy of eradicating prostitution.” Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor and two other justices, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, were part of the majority in 2013 and remain on the court. ___ Follow AP’s Supreme Court Twitter feed at https://twitter.com/AP_Courtside . And Supreme Court reporters Mark Sherman at https://twitter.com/shermancourt and Jessica Gresko at https://twitter.com/jessicagresko .

www.apnews.com

center

9h14k6F2katJ2X2w

test

43maZTNIFYFxYBFA

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/04/read-the-full-text-of-donald-trump-jrs-interview-with-the-dcnf/

Read The Full Text Of Donald Trump Jr’s Interview With The DCNF

2018-02-04

███ News Foundation sat down with Donald Trump , Jr. for an exclusive interview in January , where the president ’ s son spoke openly about his thoughts about his father , special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and a host of other topics . Don Jr. , as he is more commonly known , described his father as the “ blue-collar billionaire , ” a man who made his money successfully building skyscrapers while also caring for those who worked for him at every level . He called Mueller ’ s investigation the “ greatest witch hunt since Salem , ” propagated at the hands of the media and government agents who do not care for his father . Ginni Thomas : Thank you for doing this . I really appreciate your time today . Thomas : So in Davos the other day , George Soros said that he thought your dad was danger . Danger to the world and will disappear in 2020 or even sooner . What did you think of George Soros ? Trump : Well , I ’ d say many would say the same about George Soros . I mean , I don ’ t know that anyone has spent more money actively–you know–combating the democratic process and fighting that . I mean he spent more money and lobbying against anything that my father has done that he has probably in history . You know on other things . So you know he can say whatever he wants but you know the fact remains he ’ s the one trying to undermine the duly elected president of the United States . You know if George wants to run he should maybe step in the ring don ’ t just fund it with billions from the side . And we all know how he made that money , so you know I don ’ t know that anyone should be listening to George Soros . Thomas : What do you think about the left ’ s efforts to frame your dad and anyone who supports your dad as a hater , as a racist , as a fascist ? This is a cultural phenomenon and there ’ s fear spreading across the country of being able to say what you really believe . Trump : Well , I think it ’ s terrible for a couple reasons . I spent this on the campaign trail when it was so obvious that was sort of the game plan . You know we ’ re gon na smear you with racist , fascist , whatever . The real problem is those things exist . Certainly , racism exists but if it ’ s your response to any argument you can ’ t win , you actually do real disservice to those people actually afflicted by it . To those people who are actually oppressed and hurt by real racism , real sexism . So if you use it every time , what really happens … as people hear it , they roll their eyes and they move on because they realize it ’ s nonsense . In this case , the problem is when people who are actually affected by it say it doesn ’ t matter anymore . It ’ s lost its effect because it ’ s been numbing to people . You can only overplay your hand so many times before people start calling your bluff , so it ’ s actually doing nothing on the positive side of being able to promote that as a real issue . And what it ’ s doing , on the other side , is it ’ s hurting those that are actually afflicted by it so it ’ s been terrible to watch . I see , I know him ( the president ) , I ’ ve seen him my whole life . I ’ ve seen the things he ’ s done . You know it ’ s amazing–all the rappers , all his African American friends , from Jesse Jackson or al Sharpton , have pictures with him . Trump : It was only till he got into politics that all of a sudden they say , “ oh he ’ s the most terrible human being. ” Oh , I don ’ t know he wasn ’ t so terrible a couple years ago when you ’ re at his events . It wasn ’ t so terrible then when you ’ re hitting him up for charity dollars and he ’ s sponsoring things–sponsoring scholarships and doing XYZ for you guys . That wasn ’ t a problem . But now , all of a sudden , you ’ re a conservative , so we must take this stance . You know , again , it ’ s another backfire . You can only do so much before people start to see through the nonsense . Thomas : Talk about the obvious press bias again . When you see what they were like with President Obama and the soft lobbing softballs to him versus what happens when your dad hits the press . ( What are your thoughts ? ) Trump : The media in the mainstream media has become so dishonest , so flagrant… I mean , the best part , I mean I really enjoyed watching the the best 90 minutes of television I ’ ve ever seen . It was ten days ago , during the Health Report , when they ’ re questioning the rear admiral–who happened to be appointed by Obama–who gave my father his physical . You know and they went on for .. I think it was 94 minutes . You know , you just said he ’ s really , really healthy . I mean I felt like I was watching Dumb and Dumber . It ’ s like one in a million , so you ’ re saying there ’ s a chance . They ’ re just trying to latch onto anything to be able to attack him . Trump : No one questioned Obama about his smoking … I don ’ t know if he was doing that then , but you know certainly he was a smoker , which has as much you know … is as much a contributing factor to heart disease and these sort of things . But why it wasn ’ t ( reported is ) because he ’ s a tall , skinny guy with no muscle mass . That ’ s also not so healthy … I think real people see right through it . I guess that ’ s all that matters . I mean , it ’ s amazing . It ’ s a bias that is so palpable . It ’ s disgusting … They don ’ t even get it . … He ’ s actually fighting back . Well , you guys never asked a hard question in eight years . … He ( Obama ) can do no wrong , he can say no wrong . Facts don ’ t matter . Trump : You have someone else gon na fight back . You have someone that , frankly , bypassed the media . Played a great game of monkey in the middle with them using Twitter . He did this because the way they ’ ll take his message and distort it . By the time they play one degree of telephone game , you know they ’ re saying whatever they want . It ’ s not grounded in any reality , so you know it ’ s been interesting . They say … Twitter is gon na be his downfall . He shouldn ’ t be using it . Yeah , they ’ re covering it all the time . Even they can ’ t make up their minds . It ’ s sad . It ’ s actually forcing people to sort of other routes I think it ’ s why social has become such a big platform I think frankly both good and bad . I mean I think it ’ s driven who don ’ t necessarily have a TV soap box . I think there ’ s also plenty of people on the fringe and some of those things that people are going there for their news–both left and right–on the extreme ends . It ’ s bad we ’ ve actually gotten to the point now where they ’ ve given up even trying to pretend that they ’ re not biased . They ’ ve just literally just thrown it out the window . It ’ s funny to watch , because when we first got into this process two years ago , I was like , wait a minute , that guy actually said something that was almost in favor of us . That was probably because they were told , “ Hey , boost Trump a little bit because there ’ s no way he can win . We want to have to take out the others. ” Look what it got them . Trump : But they ’ ve all been working together , right ? Whether it ’ s the debate questions you know being leaked … I mean they ’ ve picked a pony . That pony was Clinton , or frankly whoever the left puts up . It doesn ’ t matter and that ’ s the Anointed One . We will push them and do whatever it takes to make sure that person wins . In the meantime , they ’ ve shot their credibility . You know , in the foot and they ’ ve lost . I don ’ t think you get it back . The American public is much smarter than the media would ever give them credit for and they see right through it . Thomas : So talk about what ’ s going on . Why is your dad connected with the real American people ? Has he the wingspan to be able to be successful with mainstream America ? Trump : It was amazing , coming in the heels of Davos , you know , the the media narrative last week was that they ’ re gon na boycott Trump . Meanwhile , there ’ s lines of billionaires waiting outside of the room to be able to hear him ( the president ) . Speak for hours you know he ’ s always been able to do it that way . I mean , because he ’ s a builder . That ’ s what he does , so he didn ’ t get good at building by listening to an executive behind a glass door at an office . He did it by being on the ground by talking to real people . The guy ’ s actually doing the real work . I spoke about it at my convention speech last year . I mean , that ’ s what he did . That ’ s what made him better . He got the real information . … He ’ s always been able to relate that way . I called him sort of the blue-collar billionaire , because that ’ s sort of the way he is . He ’ s able to relate to those guys . He ’ s able to have fun with them . He ’ s made so many of them succeed within his organization . Any other executive of his level would have never even given them a chance . They got that promotion because they were good , because they were smart , because they had a street smarts , because they worked harder . Not because they had some sort of acronym behind , you know , some sort of fancy college degree . They just did better work better than someone else . Most people in that same position would have been passed over , but he just has a history of doing this . I think he was able to relate to that working class . It ’ s the way he speaks . It ’ s the way he interacts . He ’ s willing to say the things that probably everyone ’ s thinking but so few were willing to verbalize it . Thomas : If you walk to Arlington Cemetery . He just takes all the crap in this town that comes at people . They think it ’ s games , but it ’ s not a game . Trump : After winning the campaign , I actually sort of … it was such a long fight and so hard . Everyday , the sort of the frequency of , you know , up and down emotions . Even when we won it was , like wait a minute , they ’ re gon na play a game . There ’ s some sort of trick up their sleeve , so I couldn ’ t even enjoy it . You mentioned Arlington , because that ’ s when it hit me . Two months later going to the wreath laying ceremony at Arlington . The magnitude and the gravity of everything that had just transpired and sort of it was emotionally over . I think for the American people , I think they get it they see it and I said it they see someone fighting for them now . We are fighting hamstrung , we are fighting with one arm tied behind our back . Not because that ’ s the way we fight , but because there are a lot more forces making it a lot harder for us . What I know about my father is that he is a fighter . He doesn ’ t quit . He doesn ’ t give up . Everyone saw that on the campaign trail . He worked them to death . If she ( Clinton ) did one event , two events a day–two events a day was a major feat–he was doing five , six , seven events in a day . That is not including everything in between , but full-time speeches . They see his energy , they see his passion . He is the last person in this country that needed his job . He didn ’ t need to do this , but he wanted to do this because he ’ s seen it . He ’ s seen it firsthand . He ’ s been the recipient from both sides . The request and he understands exactly how this system works . He wants to fix it because he realizes that it ’ s been broken . We ’ ve gone down the wrong path for way too long and he ’ s the guy that can write that ship . So , you know , I do see it . I see it with you know the people who supported us are still a hundred percent there but more importantly the people who weren ’ t sure you know they weren ’ t sure because maybe they didn ’ t like the way he verbalized something . They didn ’ t like perhaps the approach . But in the end Americans are results driven and you know what sometimes you know you ’ d love to be able to sweat talk something . Sometimes you actually have to break out the sledgehammer and sort of push it through and make sure you hit hard so people get it . We have to do that because we ’ re not on equal footing . We ’ re not on equal ground because we can ’ t get our message out the same way it ’ ll be manipulated . It ’ ll be shredded . It ’ ll be we won ’ t have that same benefit of a debt you know . Obama could say and do anything it didn ’ t matter . They would they would take the message and be like , “ Hey , give us the talker and we ’ ll just it ’ s perfect. ” He didn ’ t have to do anything we have to work a lot harder to get you know even remotely close to the same . He ’ s ( the president ) been able to do that and the results are gon na speak for themselves . The results are speaking for themselves in the economy , in the unemployment numbers . Certainly , you know amongst minorities people are gon na get it . People vote with their heads in the end they ’ re gon na vote with what has happened . Trump : Hey , some of the big you know conservative never Trump organization saying by the numbers he ’ s doing better than Reagan in year one . I mean , that ’ s pretty impressive when you think about coming from no actual political experience to be able to take on that challenge . To be able to step in there and do that , that ’ s part of why they ’ re fighting so hard against us . They don ’ t want others to think , “ wait a minute , I don ’ t have to be born into this system and raised through it ? ” You don ’ t have to be tied in with the lobbyists and all the groups that have made millions you know on the backs of hardworking Americans . Around the DC area , I mean , he ’ s been able to do that for real American people . You know , I remember you know four or five years ago when Obama there was a $ 40 rebate that was people were gon na get that was a big deal . Today , when companies are giving thousands of dollars of bonuses , it ’ s petty cash according to Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz . You know it ’ s only petty cash compare to the money that they paid their IT people before they had to flee the country . Right ? That ’ s the difference . That double standard can no longer fly and it doesn ’ t but it only doesn ’ t fly because this is the first time we ’ ve had someone in conservative leadership who will actually call them out . He will actually fight back and not just take it on the . chin and turn around and walk away head head hunched over . You have someone who has the guts to fight back and that ’ s what it is he ’ s a counter puncher . He ’ ll get along with everyone but you ’ re not gon na walk all over him without a fight . People have seen that . They learn it the hard way . We have the chance to really drain the swamp and the swamp has teeth . They will fight back . They will not make it easy . They have made a lot of money and a very good livings you pretending that this is rocket science . That you need them . That this is all that complicated but in all reality it really is a big friend network . Everyone worked for someone else at one point in time and everyone ’ s made a lot of money through the system . Everyone passes around the only people that are totally forgotten about are their constituents , their worker . Right ? From the Senate they become a lobbyist and they go back . They make a little money . They ’ ve got a lot of money . It ’ s why the DC zip codes are the richest in the country . They don ’ t produce anything . They don ’ t make anything . All they do is pedal influence , OK. We saw it with the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation . That ’ s where we ’ re different . He ’ s doing this not because he has to do it . They look at his administration , look at his cabinet . The prior administration every cabinet head that was the best job that person ever had for this cabinet . These are people stepping out from making hundreds of millions dollars running industry to take on the headache that ’ s gon na come with the attacks that they ’ re gon na face . This is in many respects the worst job they ’ ve ever had and yet they want to do it because they believe in him , they believe in the message and they know they can actually make a difference . That they can impart all this change that we hear about every election cycle . Where we ’ re gon na do it differently , there ’ s never been a change it ’ s all the same . That my father is the first change that ’ s happened to government in a long time and that ’ s why all these people went all in . How could someone from the outside ever break into our little system our little and cabal . He did it and he ’ s gon na make a big difference for those people and for everyone in this country . It ’ s really important … Thomas : So as we film the Republicans in the House Intelligence Committee are getting ready to vote . I don ’ t know how that ’ s going to turn out but assuming they expose the misdeeds of the FBI and senior Justice Department people , do you think that has the possibility of changing that the the trajectory of the Mueller investigation ? Trump : You would think it would . You would think that if you found out the game was that rigged , if that ’ s what happens , you would think that it would . I don ’ t think it will . Thomas : So thanks for tweeting our interview with Joe Digenova ! In my interview with Joe , he talks about the kind of the exceptional rules that Hillary Clinton had when she was interviewed by the FBI . So I was wondering , if you think your dad if he has to talk with Special Counsel Mueller ? If he could ask for the same kinds of things , whether it ’ s none of the regular rules , every break in the book , immunized , a lot of people , no grand jury , no subpoenas to allow the destruction of evidence , do you think your dad ’ s going to be treated the way that Hillary Clinton was ? Trump : I doubt it . You know and the reason I say that is just I can use myself as an example , when you talk about sort of the Russia collusion nonsense … yeah the media has been the left has made this thing to be a thing for two years . They swear by it . It ’ s the truth this had to happen so much so that they need it to be true . The absolute so they ’ ve risked their entire credibility their entire narrative for almost two years now has been this is fact…

The Daily Caller News Foundation sat down with Donald Trump, Jr. for an exclusive interview in January, where the president’s son spoke openly about his thoughts about his father, special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and a host of other topics. Don Jr., as he is more commonly known, described his father as the “blue-collar billionaire,” a man who made his money successfully building skyscrapers while also caring for those who worked for him at every level. He called Mueller’s investigation the “greatest witch hunt since Salem,” propagated at the hands of the media and government agents who do not care for his father. Read the full text below: The transcript has been edited for quality and clarity. Ginni Thomas: Thank you for doing this. I really appreciate your time today. Donald Trump, Jr: It’s my pleasure. Thank you. Thomas: So in Davos the other day, George Soros said that he thought your dad was danger. Danger to the world and will disappear in 2020 or even sooner. What did you think of George Soros? Trump: Well, I’d say many would say the same about George Soros. I mean, I don’t know that anyone has spent more money actively–you know–combating the democratic process and fighting that. I mean he spent more money and lobbying against anything that my father has done that he has probably in history. You know on other things. So you know he can say whatever he wants but you know the fact remains he’s the one trying to undermine the duly elected president of the United States. You know if George wants to run he should maybe step in the ring don’t just fund it with billions from the side. And we all know how he made that money, so you know I don’t know that anyone should be listening to George Soros. Thomas: What do you think about the left’s efforts to frame your dad and anyone who supports your dad as a hater, as a racist, as a fascist? This is a cultural phenomenon and there’s fear spreading across the country of being able to say what you really believe. Trump: Well, I think it’s terrible for a couple reasons. I spent this on the campaign trail when it was so obvious that was sort of the game plan. You know we’re gonna smear you with racist, fascist, whatever. The real problem is those things exist. Certainly, racism exists but if it’s your response to any argument you can’t win, you actually do real disservice to those people actually afflicted by it. To those people who are actually oppressed and hurt by real racism, real sexism. So if you use it every time, what really happens … as people hear it, they roll their eyes and they move on because they realize it’s nonsense. In this case, the problem is when people who are actually affected by it say it doesn’t matter anymore. It’s lost its effect because it’s been numbing to people. You can only overplay your hand so many times before people start calling your bluff, so it’s actually doing nothing on the positive side of being able to promote that as a real issue. And what it’s doing, on the other side, is it’s hurting those that are actually afflicted by it so it’s been terrible to watch. I see, I know him (the president), I’ve seen him my whole life. I’ve seen the things he’s done. You know it’s amazing–all the rappers, all his African American friends, from Jesse Jackson or al Sharpton, have pictures with him. Trump: It was only till he got into politics that all of a sudden they say, “oh he’s the most terrible human being.” Oh, I don’t know he wasn’t so terrible a couple years ago when you’re at his events. It wasn’t so terrible then when you’re hitting him up for charity dollars and he’s sponsoring things–sponsoring scholarships and doing XYZ for you guys. That wasn’t a problem. But now, all of a sudden, you’re a conservative, so we must take this stance. You know, again, it’s another backfire. You can only do so much before people start to see through the nonsense. Thomas: Talk about the obvious press bias again. When you see what they were like with President Obama and the soft lobbing softballs to him versus what happens when your dad hits the press. (What are your thoughts?) Trump: The media in the mainstream media has become so dishonest, so flagrant… I mean, the best part, I mean I really enjoyed watching the the best 90 minutes of television I’ve ever seen. It was ten days ago, during the Health Report, when they’re questioning the rear admiral–who happened to be appointed by Obama–who gave my father his physical. You know and they went on for .. I think it was 94 minutes. You know, you just said he’s really, really healthy. I mean I felt like I was watching Dumb and Dumber. It’s like one in a million, so you’re saying there’s a chance. They’re just trying to latch onto anything to be able to attack him. Trump: No one questioned Obama about his smoking … I don’t know if he was doing that then, but you know certainly he was a smoker, which has as much you know … is as much a contributing factor to heart disease and these sort of things. But why it wasn’t (reported is) because he’s a tall, skinny guy with no muscle mass. That’s also not so healthy … I think real people see right through it. I guess that’s all that matters. I mean, it’s amazing. It’s a bias that is so palpable. It’s disgusting … They don’t even get it. … He’s actually fighting back. Well, you guys never asked a hard question in eight years. … He (Obama) can do no wrong, he can say no wrong. Facts don’t matter. Trump: You have someone else gonna fight back. You have someone that, frankly, bypassed the media. Played a great game of monkey in the middle with them using Twitter. He did this because the way they’ll take his message and distort it. By the time they play one degree of telephone game, you know they’re saying whatever they want. It’s not grounded in any reality, so you know it’s been interesting. They say … Twitter is gonna be his downfall. He shouldn’t be using it. Yeah, they’re covering it all the time. Even they can’t make up their minds. It’s sad. It’s actually forcing people to sort of other routes I think it’s why social has become such a big platform I think frankly both good and bad. I mean I think it’s driven who don’t necessarily have a TV soap box. I think there’s also plenty of people on the fringe and some of those things that people are going there for their news–both left and right–on the extreme ends. It’s bad we’ve actually gotten to the point now where they’ve given up even trying to pretend that they’re not biased. They’ve just literally just thrown it out the window. It’s funny to watch, because when we first got into this process two years ago, I was like, wait a minute, that guy actually said something that was almost in favor of us. That was probably because they were told, “Hey, boost Trump a little bit because there’s no way he can win. We want to have to take out the others.” Look what it got them. Trump: But they’ve all been working together, right? Whether it’s the debate questions you know being leaked … I mean they’ve picked a pony. That pony was Clinton, or frankly whoever the left puts up. It doesn’t matter and that’s the Anointed One. We will push them and do whatever it takes to make sure that person wins. In the meantime, they’ve shot their credibility. You know, in the foot and they’ve lost. I don’t think you get it back. The American public is much smarter than the media would ever give them credit for and they see right through it. Thomas: So talk about what’s going on. Why is your dad connected with the real American people? Has he the wingspan to be able to be successful with mainstream America? Trump: It was amazing, coming in the heels of Davos, you know, the the media narrative last week was that they’re gonna boycott Trump. Meanwhile, there’s lines of billionaires waiting outside of the room to be able to hear him (the president). Speak for hours you know he’s always been able to do it that way. I mean, because he’s a builder. That’s what he does, so he didn’t get good at building by listening to an executive behind a glass door at an office. He did it by being on the ground by talking to real people. The guy’s actually doing the real work. I spoke about it at my convention speech last year. I mean, that’s what he did. That’s what made him better. He got the real information. … He’s always been able to relate that way. I called him sort of the blue-collar billionaire, because that’s sort of the way he is. He’s able to relate to those guys. He’s able to have fun with them. He’s made so many of them succeed within his organization. Any other executive of his level would have never even given them a chance. They got that promotion because they were good, because they were smart, because they had a street smarts, because they worked harder. Not because they had some sort of acronym behind, you know, some sort of fancy college degree. They just did better work better than someone else. Most people in that same position would have been passed over, but he just has a history of doing this. I think he was able to relate to that working class. It’s the way he speaks. It’s the way he interacts. He’s willing to say the things that probably everyone’s thinking but so few were willing to verbalize it. Thomas: If you walk to Arlington Cemetery. He just takes all the crap in this town that comes at people. They think it’s games, but it’s not a game. Trump: After winning the campaign, I actually sort of … it was such a long fight and so hard. Everyday, the sort of the frequency of, you know, up and down emotions. Even when we won it was, like wait a minute, they’re gonna play a game. There’s some sort of trick up their sleeve, so I couldn’t even enjoy it. You mentioned Arlington, because that’s when it hit me. Two months later going to the wreath laying ceremony at Arlington. The magnitude and the gravity of everything that had just transpired and sort of it was emotionally over. I think for the American people, I think they get it they see it and I said it they see someone fighting for them now. We are fighting hamstrung, we are fighting with one arm tied behind our back. Not because that’s the way we fight, but because there are a lot more forces making it a lot harder for us. What I know about my father is that he is a fighter. He doesn’t quit. He doesn’t give up. Everyone saw that on the campaign trail. He worked them to death. If she (Clinton) did one event, two events a day–two events a day was a major feat–he was doing five, six, seven events in a day. That is not including everything in between, but full-time speeches. They see his energy, they see his passion. He is the last person in this country that needed his job. He didn’t need to do this, but he wanted to do this because he’s seen it. He’s seen it firsthand. He’s been the recipient from both sides. The request and he understands exactly how this system works. He wants to fix it because he realizes that it’s been broken. We’ve gone down the wrong path for way too long and he’s the guy that can write that ship. So, you know, I do see it. I see it with you know the people who supported us are still a hundred percent there but more importantly the people who weren’t sure you know they weren’t sure because maybe they didn’t like the way he verbalized something. They didn’t like perhaps the approach. But in the end Americans are results driven and you know what sometimes you know you’d love to be able to sweat talk something. Sometimes you actually have to break out the sledgehammer and sort of push it through and make sure you hit hard so people get it. We have to do that because we’re not on equal footing. We’re not on equal ground because we can’t get our message out the same way it’ll be manipulated. It’ll be shredded. It’ll be we won’t have that same benefit of a debt you know. Obama could say and do anything it didn’t matter. They would they would take the message and be like, “Hey, give us the talker and we’ll just it’s perfect.” He didn’t have to do anything we have to work a lot harder to get you know even remotely close to the same. He’s (the president) been able to do that and the results are gonna speak for themselves. The results are speaking for themselves in the economy, in the unemployment numbers. Certainly, you know amongst minorities people are gonna get it. People vote with their heads in the end they’re gonna vote with what has happened. Trump: Hey, some of the big you know conservative never Trump organization saying by the numbers he’s doing better than Reagan in year one. I mean, that’s pretty impressive when you think about coming from no actual political experience to be able to take on that challenge. To be able to step in there and do that, that’s part of why they’re fighting so hard against us. They don’t want others to think, “wait a minute, I don’t have to be born into this system and raised through it?” You don’t have to be tied in with the lobbyists and all the groups that have made millions you know on the backs of hardworking Americans. Around the DC area, I mean, he’s been able to do that for real American people. You know, I remember you know four or five years ago when Obama there was a $40 rebate that was people were gonna get that was a big deal. Today, when companies are giving thousands of dollars of bonuses, it’s petty cash according to Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. You know it’s only petty cash compare to the money that they paid their IT people before they had to flee the country. Right? That’s the difference. That double standard can no longer fly and it doesn’t but it only doesn’t fly because this is the first time we’ve had someone in conservative leadership who will actually call them out. He will actually fight back and not just take it on the. chin and turn around and walk away head head hunched over. You have someone who has the guts to fight back and that’s what it is he’s a counter puncher. He’ll get along with everyone but you’re not gonna walk all over him without a fight. People have seen that. They learn it the hard way. We have the chance to really drain the swamp and the swamp has teeth. They will fight back. They will not make it easy. They have made a lot of money and a very good livings you pretending that this is rocket science. That you need them. That this is all that complicated but in all reality it really is a big friend network. Everyone worked for someone else at one point in time and everyone’s made a lot of money through the system. Everyone passes around the only people that are totally forgotten about are their constituents, their worker. Right? From the Senate they become a lobbyist and they go back. They make a little money. They’ve got a lot of money. It’s why the DC zip codes are the richest in the country. They don’t produce anything. They don’t make anything. All they do is pedal influence, OK. We saw it with the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation. That’s where we’re different. He’s doing this not because he has to do it. They look at his administration, look at his cabinet. The prior administration every cabinet head that was the best job that person ever had for this cabinet. These are people stepping out from making hundreds of millions dollars running industry to take on the headache that’s gonna come with the attacks that they’re gonna face. This is in many respects the worst job they’ve ever had and yet they want to do it because they believe in him, they believe in the message and they know they can actually make a difference. That they can impart all this change that we hear about every election cycle. Where we’re gonna do it differently, there’s never been a change it’s all the same. That my father is the first change that’s happened to government in a long time and that’s why all these people went all in. How could someone from the outside ever break into our little system our little and cabal. He did it and he’s gonna make a big difference for those people and for everyone in this country. It’s really important … Thomas: So as we film the Republicans in the House Intelligence Committee are getting ready to vote. I don’t know how that’s going to turn out but assuming they expose the misdeeds of the FBI and senior Justice Department people, do you think that has the possibility of changing that the the trajectory of the Mueller investigation? Trump: You would think it would. You would think that if you found out the game was that rigged, if that’s what happens, you would think that it would. I don’t think it will. Thomas: So thanks for tweeting our interview with Joe Digenova! In my interview with Joe, he talks about the kind of the exceptional rules that Hillary Clinton had when she was interviewed by the FBI. So I was wondering, if you think your dad if he has to talk with Special Counsel Mueller? If he could ask for the same kinds of things, whether it’s none of the regular rules, every break in the book, immunized, a lot of people, no grand jury, no subpoenas to allow the destruction of evidence, do you think your dad’s going to be treated the way that Hillary Clinton was? Trump: I doubt it. You know and the reason I say that is just I can use myself as an example, when you talk about sort of the Russia collusion nonsense … yeah the media has been the left has made this thing to be a thing for two years. They swear by it. It’s the truth this had to happen so much so that they need it to be true. The absolute so they’ve risked their entire credibility their entire narrative for almost two years now has been this is fact…

www.dailycaller.com

right

43maZTNIFYFxYBFA

test

3z928zdF9shnVljg

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/august/he-was-americas-hero-mccain-makes-final-trip-to-washington-as-nation-remembers-his-life-legacy

'He Was America's Hero': McCain Makes Final Trip to Washington as Nation Remembers His Life, Legacy

2018-08-31

WASHINGTON – Sen. John McCain has made one last trip to the city where he made such an impact , Washington , DC . The American hero was greeted by a military honor guard when he touched down at Andrews Air Force Base . On Friday , he 'll lie in state in the US Capitol Rotunda before a final funeral service on Saturday . The senator 's death and reflections on his life have captured the nation . In Arizona , thousands lined the streets , some holding campaign signs , to pay last respects to the Arizona senator of more than 30 years . `` He was America 's hero , '' said Grant Woods , McCain 's former chief of staff , during a memorial service for him Thursday at North Phoenix Baptist Church . Woods explained how McCain 's Christian faith sustained him during the years he spent as a POW at the Hanoi Hilton . `` He said , 'On Christmas Eve we celebrated and we got together under this bare light bulb and we sang Christmas carols and we quoted Bible verses that we could remember and we told the Gospel story to each other , ' '' Woods recalled McCain telling a group of community leaders early in his Senate career . Arizona Cardinals wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald shared memories of his unlikely friendship with McCain . `` He ran for president ; I run out of bounds , '' he said , drawing chuckles from the people sitting in the pews . Then Vice President Joe Biden delivered a heartfelt eulogy for his longtime friend . Biden and McCain 's friendship was born in the early 1970s . Biden was a young senator from Delaware and McCain , just released from POW prison in Vietnam , was the Naval liaison to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee . The two traveled the world together forging a deep bond that transcended their political differences . `` I always thought of John as a brother . We had a hell of a lot family fights , '' Biden said as he wiped away tears . `` It was n't about politics with John . He could disagree on substance , but it was the underlying values that animated everything John did , everything he was . You could come to a different conclusion , but he would part company with you if you lacked the basic values of decency , respect , knowing that this project is bigger than yourself , '' Biden said . And with McCain 's Christian faith , comes the promise of eternity to console his grieving widow , mother and children . `` We will mourn but we will do so with a different hope because of the faith he has placed in Jesus Christ that we can with confidence grieve with the hope to know that this very moment he is spending eternity with Jesus Christ , his Lord and Savior , '' a pastor prayed . On Saturday , another display of bipartisanship is planned . Former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama , the two men who denied McCain the presidency , will share their thoughts about the senator 's life and legacy . McCain will then be laid to rest at the Naval Academy outside of Washington in Annapolis , Maryland .

WASHINGTON – Sen. John McCain has made one last trip to the city where he made such an impact, Washington, DC. The American hero was greeted by a military honor guard when he touched down at Andrews Air Force Base. On Friday, he'll lie in state in the US Capitol Rotunda before a final funeral service on Saturday. The senator's death and reflections on his life have captured the nation. In Arizona, thousands lined the streets, some holding campaign signs, to pay last respects to the Arizona senator of more than 30 years. "He was America's hero," said Grant Woods, McCain's former chief of staff, during a memorial service for him Thursday at North Phoenix Baptist Church. Woods explained how McCain's Christian faith sustained him during the years he spent as a POW at the Hanoi Hilton. "He said, 'On Christmas Eve we celebrated and we got together under this bare light bulb and we sang Christmas carols and we quoted Bible verses that we could remember and we told the Gospel story to each other,'" Woods recalled McCain telling a group of community leaders early in his Senate career. Arizona Cardinals wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald shared memories of his unlikely friendship with McCain. "He ran for president; I run out of bounds," he said, drawing chuckles from the people sitting in the pews. Then Vice President Joe Biden delivered a heartfelt eulogy for his longtime friend. Biden and McCain's friendship was born in the early 1970s. Biden was a young senator from Delaware and McCain, just released from POW prison in Vietnam, was the Naval liaison to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The two traveled the world together forging a deep bond that transcended their political differences. "I always thought of John as a brother. We had a hell of a lot family fights," Biden said as he wiped away tears. McCain's code of conduct, he says, was timeless. "It wasn't about politics with John. He could disagree on substance, but it was the underlying values that animated everything John did, everything he was. You could come to a different conclusion, but he would part company with you if you lacked the basic values of decency, respect, knowing that this project is bigger than yourself," Biden said. And with McCain's Christian faith, comes the promise of eternity to console his grieving widow, mother and children. "We will mourn but we will do so with a different hope because of the faith he has placed in Jesus Christ that we can with confidence grieve with the hope to know that this very moment he is spending eternity with Jesus Christ, his Lord and Savior," a pastor prayed. On Saturday, another display of bipartisanship is planned. Former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the two men who denied McCain the presidency, will share their thoughts about the senator's life and legacy. McCain will then be laid to rest at the Naval Academy outside of Washington in Annapolis, Maryland.

www1.cbn.com

right

3z928zdF9shnVljg

test

JTinWFn99mc6NQmD

media_bias

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/04/07/cruz-to-oreilly-you-defend-trump-a-lot/

Cruz to O’Reilly: You ‘Defend’ Trump ‘A Lot’

2016-04-07

Ian Hanchett

Republican presidential candidate Texas Senator Ted Cruz told Fox News Channel host Bill O ’ Reilly that he defends GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump “ a lot ” on Thursday ’ s “ O ’ Reilly Factor . ” After Cruz pointed to Trump ’ s donations to liberal politicians , O ’ Reilly objected that these donations weren ’ t made “ as a politician. ” O ’ Reilly then advised Cruz to have a press conference in Penn Station to see what has happened to it under Mayor Bill de Blasio ( D ) . Later on , Cruz argued there ’ s “ liberal intolerance ” in New York state , and stated that New York State Senator Rubén Díaz ( D ) told him that he knew exactly what Cruz ’ s reference to “ New York values ” meant , and that Díaz pointed to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo ’ s ( D ) statement that “ extreme conservatives who are right-to-life , pro-assault-weapon , anti-gay ” “ have no place in the state of New York , because that ’ s not who New Yorkers are . ” O ’ Reilly responded that “ Trump doesn ’ t subscribe to any of that. ” Cruz objected that Trump does because “ he funded it. ” O ’ Reilly again said that this was done “ as a businessman. ” And “ You can have two lives . ” Cruz countered that Trump didn ’ t need to donate to Hillary Clinton ’ s presidential campaign to get real estate deals , a point O ’ Reilly objected to with , “ You know how they play the game here. ” Cruz answered that “ I know lots of businessman who ’ ve never given a check to Hillary Clinton . ” O ’ Reilly then said that Cruz is “ more conservative than Trump. ” Cruz said that this wasn ’ t the issue , and that both Trump and Clinton are “ flip sides of the same coin . Hillary Clinton has made millions of dollars selling power and access in Washington . And Donald Trump has made billions of dollars buying power and access in Washington . ” O ’ Reilly cut in to re-state that Trump did this as a businessman , to which Cruz countered that Trump is “ part of the corruption . ” Cruz then referenced de Blasio ’ s attempts to “ shut down charter schools in Harlem. ” O ’ Reilly countered that Cruz isn ’ t running against de Blasio , he ’ s running against Trump . Cruz responded that Trump is “ responsible for the policies he supported . ” O ’ Reilly then stated he was “ not buying it. ” Cruz then told O ’ Reilly “ I know . You defend him a lot , Bill . That ’ s your prerogative . ” O ’ Reilly responded , “ I defend him when — I defend him on points that I think are valid , But I go after him , and that ’ s why he ’ s not on the program , because he ’ s mad at me . All right ? ” Cruz agreed that Trump wasn ’ t appearing on O ’ Reilly ’ s program because he was mad at him , and because “ he ’ s terrified to debate. ” Cruz pointed to his invite to debate Trump on “ The O ’ Reilly Factor . ” O ’ Reilly said that he didn ’ t know if he would say Trump is “ terrified , ” but he didn ’ t want to debate Cruz on “ The O ’ Reilly Factor . ” Later on , O ’ Reilly said he would go to any press conference Cruz had in Penn Station , because he wanted to see that . And that he would continue to try to convince Trump to debate Cruz on “ The O ’ Reilly Factor . ”

Republican presidential candidate Texas Senator Ted Cruz told Fox News Channel host Bill O’Reilly that he defends GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump “a lot” on Thursday’s “O’Reilly Factor.” After Cruz pointed to Trump’s donations to liberal politicians, O’Reilly objected that these donations weren’t made “as a politician.” O’Reilly then advised Cruz to have a press conference in Penn Station to see what has happened to it under Mayor Bill de Blasio (D). Later on, Cruz argued there’s “liberal intolerance” in New York state, and stated that New York State Senator Rubén Díaz (D) told him that he knew exactly what Cruz’s reference to “New York values” meant, and that Díaz pointed to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s (D) statement that “extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay” “have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.” O’Reilly responded that “Trump doesn’t subscribe to any of that.” Cruz objected that Trump does because “he funded it.” O’Reilly again said that this was done “as a businessman.” And “You can have two lives.” Cruz countered that Trump didn’t need to donate to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign to get real estate deals, a point O’Reilly objected to with, “You know how they play the game here.” Cruz answered that “I know lots of businessman who’ve never given a check to Hillary Clinton.” O’Reilly then said that Cruz is “more conservative than Trump.” Cruz said that this wasn’t the issue, and that both Trump and Clinton are “flip sides of the same coin. Hillary Clinton has made millions of dollars selling power and access in Washington. And Donald Trump has made billions of dollars buying power and access in Washington.” O’Reilly cut in to re-state that Trump did this as a businessman, to which Cruz countered that Trump is “part of the corruption.” Cruz then referenced de Blasio’s attempts to “shut down charter schools in Harlem.” O’Reilly countered that Cruz isn’t running against de Blasio, he’s running against Trump. Cruz responded that Trump is “responsible for the policies he supported.” O’Reilly then stated he was “not buying it.” Cruz then told O’Reilly “I know. You defend him a lot, Bill. That’s your prerogative.” O’Reilly responded, “I defend him when — I defend him on points that I think are valid, But I go after him, and that’s why he’s not on the program, because he’s mad at me. All right?” Cruz agreed that Trump wasn’t appearing on O’Reilly’s program because he was mad at him, and because “he’s terrified to debate.” Cruz pointed to his invite to debate Trump on “The O’Reilly Factor.” O’Reilly said that he didn’t know if he would say Trump is “terrified,” but he didn’t want to debate Cruz on “The O’Reilly Factor.” Later on, O’Reilly said he would go to any press conference Cruz had in Penn Station, because he wanted to see that. And that he would continue to try to convince Trump to debate Cruz on “The O’Reilly Factor.” Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett

www.breitbart.com

right

JTinWFn99mc6NQmD

test

PcR4oSSenUe5Tywu

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/donald-trumps-race-against-death/

Donald Trump’s Race Against Death

H.W. Crocker Iii, Philip Leigh, Patricia Mahon, Adam Ellwanger, Abraham H. Miller, Jared Whitley, Paul Kengor

Politics , we ’ re sometimes told is a war of ideas . Unfortunately , those ideas , at least on one side of the aisle , seem to be that Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist and Donald Trump is a spy for the Kremlin . Instead of reading Plato ’ s Republic or Aristotle ’ s Politics , the aspiring Democratic Capitol Hill staffer might be better advised to study the movies I Was a Teenage Werewolf ( 1957 , with Michael Landon cast as Brett Kavanaugh ) and I Married a Communist ( 1949 , with Robert Ryan playing the Donald Trump role and Laraine Day as the unsuspecting Melania ) . Don ’ t get me wrong , ideas in politics can be wonderful things , but they can also be irrelevant . If you tell a political pro your age , sex , race , marital status , religious affiliation , education , and hometown , he can probably predict your vote with ninety percent certainty . Your political beliefs are settled long before you cast a ballot and are moved only marginally by policy discussions . That ’ s why elections are about turnout , and it ’ s why Democrats inevitably try to inflame their base by accusing every Republican of racism , sexism , and even Putinism . They also think farther down the road than most Republicans do . Their immigration , education , and social policies are designed to make the electorate more liberal . Liberals believe the future belongs to them , because the people who vote overwhelmingly Republican ( whites , conservatives , Christians ) are losing demographic ground to people who vote overwhelmingly Democrat ( ethnic minorities , liberals , atheists ) . They suspect that Donald Trump is in a losing race with death , as white voters die off and the browning of America continues apace . Liberals see California — formerly white-majority Reagan Country , now a white-minority Democratic one-party state — as a model for the transformation of America . They expect to see it happening soon in Arizona , Georgia , North Carolina , and Texas . Nearly three million more people voted for Hillary Clinton than voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election , and as political analyst Henry Olsen has warned , if “ President Trump receives the same shares of the vote among different demographic groups in 2020 as he did in 2016 , ” demographic changes in just four years in the Midwest mean he would lose “ Wisconsin , Michigan , and Pennsylvania and hence the election . ” It is not just demographics that challenge President Trump . He is facing headwinds such as few incumbents have ever faced — and with less reason . By any dispassionate measure of achievement , his first two years in office have been a spectacular success economically , judicially , and in foreign policy . But as a sportscaster said recently ( in an entirely different context ) , “ Volume beats facts every time ” — and a deranged , hyper-partisan ( almost beyond belief ) press and popular culture ( promoting how “ woke ” it is in every other TV ad ) will have , inevitably , some eroding effect on political popularity . Well , it is possible that the Donald Trump-Steve Bannon strategy of economic nationalism that raises all boats , including most especially those of the working class , will rally a greater majority of white blue-collar workers and a growing number of working class minority voters to the Trump standard . That would be a great achievement . But for long-term gains we will have to do more . Conservatives will have to live up to their name . There is a place for ideas in politics — but that place is more fundamental than many politically minded people understand . Politics is less about policy ideas than it is about shaping the imagination of the electorate and defining justice . The reason that white , Christian voters prefer Republicans is because they have a certain conception of what America is and was — a nation founded in liberty , developed by heroic frontiersman , and guided by an admirable biblical morality . Voters who prefer Democrats also have a vision of what America is and was — a nation marred at its conception by slavery , and marked throughout its history by racism , sexism , and genocide , and in need of continual reform . Imagine , for a moment , that you ’ re an immigrant to this country . You value its economic opportunities and the rule of law . You want to be a good American . The school system and popular culture that Americanizes you teaches you that America ’ s history is best forgotten : it is a sordid tale of oppressive bigotry against minorities — like you . Thank goodness we ’ re beyond all that — and the takeaway is that to be a good American is to be a progressive , and that America is in constant need of remaking to wring out its remaining remnants of white male privilege and Christian prejudice . For many young people , who don ’ t know any history beyond what is taught in school and absorbed in popular culture , the takeaway is pretty much the same . And it doesn ’ t help matters for soi-disant conservatives to say , “ Well , yes , that ’ s all true — slavery , racism , sexism ; it really was horrible . But , hey , Lincoln was a Republican , and , uh , John McCain and Orrin Hatch supported transgender people in the military ! ” That merely concedes that the “ progressives ” are right , that justice is on their side , and that even some Republicans — the tolerable , less deplorable ones — are with them ( and that all Republicans really should be ) . If you wonder why “ social justice ” is inevitably on the Left , this is why — because we ’ ve surrendered the argument of justice and truth . The Right doesn ’ t even try to make a counterargument , but concedes everything , albeit generally with lower tax rates . Ultimately , to win the battle for the future , conservatives need to win the battle for the past . They need to show that America ’ s history is a heroic story ; that America ’ s founding was based on noble English traditions of liberty , free government , and the rule of law ; that Andrew Jackson ’ s sense of American manifest destiny was a patriotic part and parcel of America ’ s emergence as a great power ; that the Civil War was a tragic Iliad with heroes on both sides ; that the winning of the West was just that ; that the Judeo-Christian morality that shaped our culture was humane , just , and true . Yes , this history involves slavery . Yes , this history involves war . But how is it that Americans in previous generations could understand that the great human drama of the United States was something more than that , something great , something where the magnanimity of the victor allowed him to join in celebrating the heroism of the defeated ( whether Confederate or Indian ) . Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said : “ The central conservative truth is that it is culture , not politics , that determines the success of a society . The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself. ” Conservatives will never win , unless they remember their own central truth . Historian , novelist , and former political speechwriter , H. W. Crocker III ’ s most recent book is Armstrong , a comic novel of George Armstrong Custer surviving the Battle of the Little Big Horn to become an anonymous , gun-slinging do-gooder in the West .

Politics, we’re sometimes told is a war of ideas. Unfortunately, those ideas, at least on one side of the aisle, seem to be that Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist and Donald Trump is a spy for the Kremlin. Instead of reading Plato’s Republic or Aristotle’s Politics, the aspiring Democratic Capitol Hill staffer might be better advised to study the movies I Was a Teenage Werewolf (1957, with Michael Landon cast as Brett Kavanaugh) and I Married a Communist (1949, with Robert Ryan playing the Donald Trump role and Laraine Day as the unsuspecting Melania). Don’t get me wrong, ideas in politics can be wonderful things, but they can also be irrelevant. If you tell a political pro your age, sex, race, marital status, religious affiliation, education, and hometown, he can probably predict your vote with ninety percent certainty. Your political beliefs are settled long before you cast a ballot and are moved only marginally by policy discussions. That’s why elections are about turnout, and it’s why Democrats inevitably try to inflame their base by accusing every Republican of racism, sexism, and even Putinism. They also think farther down the road than most Republicans do. Their immigration, education, and social policies are designed to make the electorate more liberal. Liberals believe the future belongs to them, because the people who vote overwhelmingly Republican (whites, conservatives, Christians) are losing demographic ground to people who vote overwhelmingly Democrat (ethnic minorities, liberals, atheists). They suspect that Donald Trump is in a losing race with death, as white voters die off and the browning of America continues apace. Liberals see California — formerly white-majority Reagan Country, now a white-minority Democratic one-party state — as a model for the transformation of America. They see that transformation happening now in Virginia. They expect to see it happening soon in Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas. Nearly three million more people voted for Hillary Clinton than voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, and as political analyst Henry Olsen has warned, if “President Trump receives the same shares of the vote among different demographic groups in 2020 as he did in 2016,” demographic changes in just four years in the Midwest mean he would lose “Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania and hence the election.” It is not just demographics that challenge President Trump. He is facing headwinds such as few incumbents have ever faced — and with less reason. By any dispassionate measure of achievement, his first two years in office have been a spectacular success economically, judicially, and in foreign policy. But as a sportscaster said recently (in an entirely different context), “Volume beats facts every time” — and a deranged, hyper-partisan (almost beyond belief) press and popular culture (promoting how “woke” it is in every other TV ad) will have, inevitably, some eroding effect on political popularity. So, what to do? Well, it is possible that the Donald Trump-Steve Bannon strategy of economic nationalism that raises all boats, including most especially those of the working class, will rally a greater majority of white blue-collar workers and a growing number of working class minority voters to the Trump standard. That would be a great achievement. But for long-term gains we will have to do more. Conservatives will have to live up to their name. There is a place for ideas in politics — but that place is more fundamental than many politically minded people understand. Politics is less about policy ideas than it is about shaping the imagination of the electorate and defining justice. The reason that white, Christian voters prefer Republicans is because they have a certain conception of what America is and was — a nation founded in liberty, developed by heroic frontiersman, and guided by an admirable biblical morality. Voters who prefer Democrats also have a vision of what America is and was — a nation marred at its conception by slavery, and marked throughout its history by racism, sexism, and genocide, and in need of continual reform. Imagine, for a moment, that you’re an immigrant to this country. You value its economic opportunities and the rule of law. You want to be a good American. The school system and popular culture that Americanizes you teaches you that America’s history is best forgotten: it is a sordid tale of oppressive bigotry against minorities — like you. Thank goodness we’re beyond all that — and the takeaway is that to be a good American is to be a progressive, and that America is in constant need of remaking to wring out its remaining remnants of white male privilege and Christian prejudice. For many young people, who don’t know any history beyond what is taught in school and absorbed in popular culture, the takeaway is pretty much the same. And it doesn’t help matters for soi-disant conservatives to say, “Well, yes, that’s all true — slavery, racism, sexism; it really was horrible. But, hey, Lincoln was a Republican, and, uh, John McCain and Orrin Hatch supported transgender people in the military!” That merely concedes that the “progressives” are right, that justice is on their side, and that even some Republicans — the tolerable, less deplorable ones — are with them (and that all Republicans really should be). If you wonder why “social justice” is inevitably on the Left, this is why — because we’ve surrendered the argument of justice and truth. The Right doesn’t even try to make a counterargument, but concedes everything, albeit generally with lower tax rates. Ultimately, to win the battle for the future, conservatives need to win the battle for the past. They need to show that America’s history is a heroic story; that America’s founding was based on noble English traditions of liberty, free government, and the rule of law; that Andrew Jackson’s sense of American manifest destiny was a patriotic part and parcel of America’s emergence as a great power; that the Civil War was a tragic Iliad with heroes on both sides; that the winning of the West was just that; that the Judeo-Christian morality that shaped our culture was humane, just, and true. Yes, this history involves slavery. Yes, this history involves war. But how is it that Americans in previous generations could understand that the great human drama of the United States was something more than that, something great, something where the magnanimity of the victor allowed him to join in celebrating the heroism of the defeated (whether Confederate or Indian). Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said: “The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.” Conservatives will never win, unless they remember their own central truth. Historian, novelist, and former political speechwriter, H. W. Crocker III’s most recent book is Armstrong, a comic novel of George Armstrong Custer surviving the Battle of the Little Big Horn to become an anonymous, gun-slinging do-gooder in the West.

www.spectator.org

right

PcR4oSSenUe5Tywu

test

XzdD4NSKiOypwvwe

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/10/donald-trump-forbes-rex-tillerson-moron

Trump challenges Tillerson to 'compare IQ tests' after reported 'moron' dig

2017-10-10

Martin Pengelly, Sabrina Siddiqui, David Smith

Donald Trump has challenged his secretary of state to “ compare IQ tests ” , if Rex Tillerson did call the president a “ moron ” as reported . Trump told Forbes magazine : “ I think it ’ s fake news . But if he did [ say ] that , I guess we ’ ll have to compare IQ tests . And I can tell you who is going to win . ” Bob Corker : White House is 'adult day care center ' and Trump may start WWIII Read more The president spoke to the magazine on Friday and the interview was published online on Tuesday . Last week , an NBC story claimed Mike Pence , the vice-president , had to talk Tillerson out of resigning this summer , and that Tillerson had called Trump a “ moron ” . Some reports said he called the president “ a fucking moron ” . Tillerson said he never considered resigning but did not deny calling Trump a moron . His spokeswoman said he never used such language . In brief comments to reporters in the Oval Office hours after Trump ’ s comments to Forbes were published and ahead of a meeting with Henry Kissinger , the president was asked if he had undercut Tillerson by questioning his IQ . “ No , I didn ’ t undercut anybody , ” he said . “ I don ’ t believe in undercutting people . ” Later , at the daily White House briefing , the press secretary , Sarah Sanders , insisted : “ The president never implied the secretary of state was not incredibly intelligent . He made a joke – nothing more than that . He has full confidence in the secretary of state … They ’ re working hand in hand to move the president ’ s agenda forward . ” She chided reporters : “ Maybe you guys should get a sense of humor and try it some time … He ’ s got 100 % confidence in the secretary of state . We ’ re trying to move forward and talk about the agenda whereas you guys are trying to talk about who likes who . ” Speaking to Forbes , Trump also claimed to have had “ just about the most legislation passed of any president , in a nine-month period , that ’ s ever served . We had over 50 bills passed . I ’ m not talking about executive orders only , which are very important . I ’ m talking about bills . ” Trump has made such claims of unprecedented legislative success before – and had them debunked . He added : “ I also have another bill … an economic development bill , which I think will be fantastic . Which nobody knows about . Which you are hearing about for the first time . ” Under that bill , he said , companies that kept jobs in America would be rewarded while those sending operations offshore would “ get penalized severely ” . Rex Tillerson says he wo n't quit but does n't deny calling Trump a 'moron ' Read more “ It ’ s both a carrot and a stick , ” Trump said . “ It is an incentive to stay . But it is perhaps even more so – if you leave , it ’ s going to be very tough for you to think that you ’ re going to be able to sell your product back into our country . ” In a volley of four tweets issued on Tuesday morning , meanwhile , Trump seemed to say he was about to issue an executive action on healthcare . “ Since Congress can ’ t get its act together on HealthCare , ” he wrote , “ I will be using the power of the pen to give great HealthCare to many people – FAST . ” Republican attempts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act ( ACA ) have repeatedly failed in the Senate amid widespread opposition to plans that , nonpartisan analysis has said , would take access to health insurance away from millions of Americans . Trump ’ s threat of executive action – he has said he may sign an order to allow people to buy insurance across state lines – stood at odds with what he told Forbes . “ The Democrats want to make a deal , ” he said . “ At the same time , I think I have a deal with the Republicans . So I have the best of both worlds . That ’ s business to a certain extent . I ’ m very able to make deals with Democrats if I have to . ” Members of the president ’ s own party have voted down the ACA replacement plans and one deficit hawk , Bob Corker of Tennessee , has emerged as an establishment voice against planned tax reform . Over the weekend , Trump and Corker engaged in a bizarre exchange of insults on Twitter and , in Corker ’ s case , through the pages of the New York Times . “ The failing New York Times set Liddle ’ Bob Corker up by recording his conversation , ” Trump tweeted on Tuesday , coining a new nickname based on Corker ’ s height ( 5ft 7in ) and accusing the newspaper of malpractice . “ [ Corker ] was made to sound a fool , and that ’ s what I am dealing with ! ” On Sunday one of the Times reporters , Jonathan Martin , tweeted that Corker had planned his attack . “ He had two aides on line , one taping us , ” Martin wrote . “ Corker is effectively staging a slow-rolling public intervention with Trump . ” Sanders joined the fray on Tuesday , telling reporters : “ Senator Corker is entitled to his own opinion but he ’ s certainly not entitled to his own facts . ” She also elaborated on Trump ’ s claim that Corker is responsible for the Iran nuclear deal , which the president has fiercely criticised . “ Senator Corker worked with Nancy Pelosi and the Obama administration to pave the way for that legislation and basically rolled out the red carpet for the Iran deal , ” she said . Sanders was challenged over the claim as reporters noted that Corker had opposed the deal . But she dug in , saying : “ He worked with them on the legislation that rolled that out . That ’ s what helped I think put things in motion . He may have voted against the deal ultimately , but he not only allowed the deal to happen , he gave it credibility . I stand by my statement . ” Asked if Corker should resign , as Trump ’ s former chief strategist Steve Bannon has demanded , Sanders replied : “ I think that ’ s a decision for Senator Corker and the people of Tennessee , not for us to decide . ” Trump demands Congress fund border wall as price for keeping Dreamers Read more Also on Twitter on Tuesday , Trump turned his fire on Democrats over the possibility of a deal to protect Dreamers , young undocumented migrants brought to the country as children and previously protected by the Obama administration . Democratic leaders expressed strong opposition to a list of hardline demands the White House issued on Sunday . Among other measures , the White House said funding for a border wall with Mexico would be part of any accord . Democrats and Dreamers reacted with horror ; the Congressional Hispanic Caucus said no deal could proceed if a wall was included . “ The problem with agreeing to a policy on immigration is that the Democrats don ’ t want secure borders , ” Trump wrote on Tuesday . “ They don ’ t care about safety for USA . ” Trump also complained again about the NFL , in which player protests during the anthem continue . “ Why is the NFL getting massive tax breaks while at the same time disrespecting our anthem , flag and country ? ” he wrote . “ Change tax law ! ” The NFL gave up its federal tax-exempt status a few years ago and files tax returns as a taxable entity . The final tweet of the early morning sequence took aim at ESPN and an anchor suspended over the anthem controversy . The tweet also returned to one of Trump ’ s main preoccupations : ratings . “ With Jemele Hill at the mike , it is no wonder ESPN ratings have ‘ tanked ’ . In fact , tanked so badly it is the talk of the industry ! ”

Donald Trump has challenged his secretary of state to “compare IQ tests”, if Rex Tillerson did call the president a “moron” as reported. Trump told Forbes magazine: “I think it’s fake news. But if he did [say] that, I guess we’ll have to compare IQ tests. And I can tell you who is going to win.” Bob Corker: White House is 'adult day care center' and Trump may start WWIII Read more The president spoke to the magazine on Friday and the interview was published online on Tuesday. Last week, an NBC story claimed Mike Pence, the vice-president, had to talk Tillerson out of resigning this summer, and that Tillerson had called Trump a “moron”. Some reports said he called the president “a fucking moron”. Tillerson said he never considered resigning but did not deny calling Trump a moron. His spokeswoman said he never used such language. In brief comments to reporters in the Oval Office hours after Trump’s comments to Forbes were published and ahead of a meeting with Henry Kissinger, the president was asked if he had undercut Tillerson by questioning his IQ. “No, I didn’t undercut anybody,” he said. “I don’t believe in undercutting people.” Later, at the daily White House briefing, the press secretary, Sarah Sanders, insisted: “The president never implied the secretary of state was not incredibly intelligent. He made a joke – nothing more than that. He has full confidence in the secretary of state … They’re working hand in hand to move the president’s agenda forward.” She chided reporters: “Maybe you guys should get a sense of humor and try it some time … He’s got 100% confidence in the secretary of state. We’re trying to move forward and talk about the agenda whereas you guys are trying to talk about who likes who.” Speaking to Forbes, Trump also claimed to have had “just about the most legislation passed of any president, in a nine-month period, that’s ever served. We had over 50 bills passed. I’m not talking about executive orders only, which are very important. I’m talking about bills.” Trump has made such claims of unprecedented legislative success before – and had them debunked. He added: “I also have another bill … an economic development bill, which I think will be fantastic. Which nobody knows about. Which you are hearing about for the first time.” Under that bill, he said, companies that kept jobs in America would be rewarded while those sending operations offshore would “get penalized severely”. Rex Tillerson says he won't quit but doesn't deny calling Trump a 'moron' Read more “It’s both a carrot and a stick,” Trump said. “It is an incentive to stay. But it is perhaps even more so – if you leave, it’s going to be very tough for you to think that you’re going to be able to sell your product back into our country.” In a volley of four tweets issued on Tuesday morning, meanwhile, Trump seemed to say he was about to issue an executive action on healthcare. “Since Congress can’t get its act together on HealthCare,” he wrote, “I will be using the power of the pen to give great HealthCare to many people – FAST.” Republican attempts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have repeatedly failed in the Senate amid widespread opposition to plans that, nonpartisan analysis has said, would take access to health insurance away from millions of Americans. Trump’s threat of executive action – he has said he may sign an order to allow people to buy insurance across state lines – stood at odds with what he told Forbes. “The Democrats want to make a deal,” he said. “At the same time, I think I have a deal with the Republicans. So I have the best of both worlds. That’s business to a certain extent. I’m very able to make deals with Democrats if I have to.” Members of the president’s own party have voted down the ACA replacement plans and one deficit hawk, Bob Corker of Tennessee, has emerged as an establishment voice against planned tax reform. Over the weekend, Trump and Corker engaged in a bizarre exchange of insults on Twitter and, in Corker’s case, through the pages of the New York Times. “The failing New York Times set Liddle’ Bob Corker up by recording his conversation,” Trump tweeted on Tuesday, coining a new nickname based on Corker’s height (5ft 7in) and accusing the newspaper of malpractice. “[Corker] was made to sound a fool, and that’s what I am dealing with!” On Sunday one of the Times reporters, Jonathan Martin, tweeted that Corker had planned his attack. “He had two aides on line, one taping us,” Martin wrote. “Corker is effectively staging a slow-rolling public intervention with Trump.” Sanders joined the fray on Tuesday, telling reporters: “Senator Corker is entitled to his own opinion but he’s certainly not entitled to his own facts.” She also elaborated on Trump’s claim that Corker is responsible for the Iran nuclear deal, which the president has fiercely criticised. “Senator Corker worked with Nancy Pelosi and the Obama administration to pave the way for that legislation and basically rolled out the red carpet for the Iran deal,” she said. Sanders was challenged over the claim as reporters noted that Corker had opposed the deal. But she dug in, saying: “He worked with them on the legislation that rolled that out. That’s what helped I think put things in motion. He may have voted against the deal ultimately, but he not only allowed the deal to happen, he gave it credibility. I stand by my statement.” Asked if Corker should resign, as Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon has demanded, Sanders replied: “I think that’s a decision for Senator Corker and the people of Tennessee, not for us to decide.” Trump demands Congress fund border wall as price for keeping Dreamers Read more Also on Twitter on Tuesday, Trump turned his fire on Democrats over the possibility of a deal to protect Dreamers, young undocumented migrants brought to the country as children and previously protected by the Obama administration. Democratic leaders expressed strong opposition to a list of hardline demands the White House issued on Sunday. Among other measures, the White House said funding for a border wall with Mexico would be part of any accord. Democrats and Dreamers reacted with horror; the Congressional Hispanic Caucus said no deal could proceed if a wall was included. “The problem with agreeing to a policy on immigration is that the Democrats don’t want secure borders,” Trump wrote on Tuesday. “They don’t care about safety for USA.” Trump also complained again about the NFL, in which player protests during the anthem continue. “Why is the NFL getting massive tax breaks while at the same time disrespecting our anthem, flag and country?” he wrote. “Change tax law!” The NFL gave up its federal tax-exempt status a few years ago and files tax returns as a taxable entity. The final tweet of the early morning sequence took aim at ESPN and an anchor suspended over the anthem controversy. The tweet also returned to one of Trump’s main preoccupations: ratings. “With Jemele Hill at the mike, it is no wonder ESPN ratings have ‘tanked’. In fact, tanked so badly it is the talk of the industry!”

www.theguardian.com

left

XzdD4NSKiOypwvwe

test

nuPAaq9m5oWtPwKk

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/96582f359cdfd347a9f3f7cec68756e7

ViacomCBS drops Nick Cannon, cites ‘anti-Semitic’ comments

2020-07-15

Lynn Elber

FILE - In this Dec. 10 , 2018 , file photo Nick Cannon poses for a portrait in New York . Cannon 's “ hateful speech ” and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories led ViacomCBS to cut ties with the performer , the media giant said . “ ViacomCBS condemns bigotry of any kind and we categorically denounce all forms of anti-Semitism , '' the company said in a statement Tuesday , July 14 , 2020 . It is terminating its relationship with Cannon , ViacomCBS said . ( Photo by Amy Sussman/Invision/AP , File ) FILE - In this Dec. 10 , 2018 , file photo Nick Cannon poses for a portrait in New York . Cannon 's “ hateful speech ” and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories led ViacomCBS to cut ties with the performer , the media giant said . “ ViacomCBS condemns bigotry of any kind and we categorically denounce all forms of anti-Semitism , '' the company said in a statement Tuesday , July 14 , 2020 . It is terminating its relationship with Cannon , ViacomCBS said . ( Photo by Amy Sussman/Invision/AP , File ) LOS ANGELES ( AP ) — Nick Cannon apologized late Wednesday for “ hurtful and divisive ” anti-Semitic comments that led ViacomCBS to cut ties with the TV host and producer . “ I extend my deepest and most sincere apologies to my Jewish sisters and brothers for the hurtful and divisive words that came out of my mouth , ” Cannon said in a series of tweets addressing his remarks on a podcast that was released last month . He issued the apology hours after demanding an apology from ViacomCBS , which late Tuesday condemned him and said it was cutting ties with the host , with whom it had a more than 20-year working relationship . Cannon said his apology came after discussions with Jewish leaders and he vowed to become more informed . “ I am committed to deeper connections , more profound learning and strengthening the bond between our two cultures today and every day going forward , ” he said on Twitter . ViacomCBS cut ties with Cannon in response to his remarks on a podcast in which he and Richard “ Professor Griff ” Griffin , the former Public Enemy member , discussed racial bias . The podcast was recorded in May 2019 and released on June 30 . The men contended that Black people are the true Hebrews and Jews have usurped that identity . Cannon then argued that lighter-skinned people — “ Jewish people , white people , Europeans ” — “ are a little less ” and have a “ deficiency ” that historically caused them to act out of fear and commit acts of violence to survive . Jewish leaders including the Anti-Defamation League and prominent rabbis criticized the remarks . Cannon said in his apology tweets that his words “ reinforced the worst stereotypes of a proud and magnificent people and I feel ashamed of the uninformed and naïve place that these words came from . ” ViacomCBS cited Cannon ’ s lack of contrition as part of its reason for terminating their working relationship with him . “ While we support ongoing education and dialogue in the fight against bigotry , we are deeply troubled that Nick has failed to acknowledge or apologize for perpetuating anti-Semitism , and we are terminating our relationship with him , ” the company said . Cannon produced “ Wild ’ n Out , ” a comedy improv series for VH1 , a ViacomCBS-owned cable channel . He ’ s been a regular part of TV shows unconnected to the company , including as the former host of NBC ’ s “ America ’ s Got Talent ” and host of Fox ’ s “ The Masked Singer . ” The apology seemed to satisfy Fox , which noted it in a statement confirming Cannon will remain host of “ The Masked Singer . ” “ Nick has sincerely apologized , and quickly taken steps to educate himself and make amends , ” the statement said . “ On that basis and given a belief that this moment calls for dialogue , we will move forward with Nick and help him advance this important conversation , broadly . ” It is unclear whether the apology will repair Cannon ’ s relationship with ViacomCBS . Earlier Wednesday he demanded an apology from the company and said he was seeking full ownership of “ Wild ’ n Out . ” ViacomCBS ’ action came as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar , the basketball great and writer , condemned several sports and entertainment celebrities for anti-Semitic tweets and posts and what he called a “ shocking lack of indignation ” in response . Abdul-Jabbar made his comments in a column for The Hollywood Reporter that didn ’ t refer to Cannon .

FILE - In this Dec. 10, 2018, file photo Nick Cannon poses for a portrait in New York. Cannon's “hateful speech” and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories led ViacomCBS to cut ties with the performer, the media giant said. “ViacomCBS condemns bigotry of any kind and we categorically denounce all forms of anti-Semitism," the company said in a statement Tuesday, July 14, 2020. It is terminating its relationship with Cannon, ViacomCBS said. (Photo by Amy Sussman/Invision/AP, File) FILE - In this Dec. 10, 2018, file photo Nick Cannon poses for a portrait in New York. Cannon's “hateful speech” and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories led ViacomCBS to cut ties with the performer, the media giant said. “ViacomCBS condemns bigotry of any kind and we categorically denounce all forms of anti-Semitism," the company said in a statement Tuesday, July 14, 2020. It is terminating its relationship with Cannon, ViacomCBS said. (Photo by Amy Sussman/Invision/AP, File) LOS ANGELES (AP) — Nick Cannon apologized late Wednesday for “hurtful and divisive” anti-Semitic comments that led ViacomCBS to cut ties with the TV host and producer. “I extend my deepest and most sincere apologies to my Jewish sisters and brothers for the hurtful and divisive words that came out of my mouth,” Cannon said in a series of tweets addressing his remarks on a podcast that was released last month. He issued the apology hours after demanding an apology from ViacomCBS, which late Tuesday condemned him and said it was cutting ties with the host, with whom it had a more than 20-year working relationship. ADVERTISEMENT Cannon said his apology came after discussions with Jewish leaders and he vowed to become more informed. “I am committed to deeper connections, more profound learning and strengthening the bond between our two cultures today and every day going forward,” he said on Twitter. ViacomCBS cut ties with Cannon in response to his remarks on a podcast in which he and Richard “Professor Griff” Griffin, the former Public Enemy member, discussed racial bias. The podcast was recorded in May 2019 and released on June 30. The men contended that Black people are the true Hebrews and Jews have usurped that identity. Cannon then argued that lighter-skinned people — “Jewish people, white people, Europeans” — “are a little less” and have a “deficiency” that historically caused them to act out of fear and commit acts of violence to survive. “They had to be savages,” he said. Jewish leaders including the Anti-Defamation League and prominent rabbis criticized the remarks . Cannon said in his apology tweets that his words “reinforced the worst stereotypes of a proud and magnificent people and I feel ashamed of the uninformed and naïve place that these words came from.” ViacomCBS cited Cannon’s lack of contrition as part of its reason for terminating their working relationship with him. “While we support ongoing education and dialogue in the fight against bigotry, we are deeply troubled that Nick has failed to acknowledge or apologize for perpetuating anti-Semitism, and we are terminating our relationship with him,” the company said. Cannon produced “Wild ’n Out,” a comedy improv series for VH1, a ViacomCBS-owned cable channel. He’s been a regular part of TV shows unconnected to the company, including as the former host of NBC’s “America’s Got Talent” and host of Fox’s “The Masked Singer.” The apology seemed to satisfy Fox, which noted it in a statement confirming Cannon will remain host of “The Masked Singer.” ADVERTISEMENT “Nick has sincerely apologized, and quickly taken steps to educate himself and make amends,” the statement said. “On that basis and given a belief that this moment calls for dialogue, we will move forward with Nick and help him advance this important conversation, broadly.” It is unclear whether the apology will repair Cannon’s relationship with ViacomCBS. Earlier Wednesday he demanded an apology from the company and said he was seeking full ownership of “Wild ’n Out.” ViacomCBS’ action came as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, the basketball great and writer, condemned several sports and entertainment celebrities for anti-Semitic tweets and posts and what he called a “shocking lack of indignation” in response. Abdul-Jabbar made his comments in a column for The Hollywood Reporter that didn’t refer to Cannon.

www.apnews.com

center

nuPAaq9m5oWtPwKk

test

0keOFBCvifAzZOOB

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/21/poll-majority-of-americans-want-to-delay-forced-spending-cuts/?hpt=po_c2

Poll: Majority of Americans want to delay forced spending cuts

2013-02-21

( CNN ) - A new survey shows that a majority of Americans want Congress to stop the looming forced spending cuts from going into effect next week . Fifty-four percent want Congress to delay the cuts , while 40 % say the government should go ahead and allow the cuts to kick in , according to a Bloomberg News poll released Thursday . The across-the-board cuts would slash the amount federal agencies can spend by $ 85 billion over the next seven months and $ 1.2 trillion over the next decade . The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the cuts could reduce economic growth by at least 0.6 percentage points and reduce job growth by 750,000 jobs . Other ways Americans could feel the impact include weakened unemployment benefits , longer security lines at the airport , furloughs at federal agencies , delays or closures at national parks and higher prices for chicken and other products because of cuts to food safety programs . President Barack Obama and lawmakers on Capitol Hill now face a March 1 deadline to reach a deal if they want to avert the cuts . They were supposed to take place at the beginning of the year , but a scaled-back fiscal cliff bill postponed them for two months . Should Washington find a deficit-reduction agreement to replace the automatic cuts , known in Washington as the sequester , 59 % of Americans support White House proposals that call for a mix of spending cuts and tax increases , according to the new poll . But a majority of those polled also said Social Security and Medicare should be overhauled to reduce the deficit . Congressional Republicans agree . The poll largely falls in line with a Pew Research and USA Today poll released earlier Thursday , in which 49 % said the cuts should be delayed and 40 % wanted the cuts to go into effect , although a majority of Americans also want something done on the federal deficit this year . For the Bloomberg News survey , Iowa-based Selzer & Co. conducted the poll February 15-18 with 1,003 U.S. adults by telephone . The poll 's sampling error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points .

7 years ago (CNN) - A new survey shows that a majority of Americans want Congress to stop the looming forced spending cuts from going into effect next week. Fifty-four percent want Congress to delay the cuts, while 40% say the government should go ahead and allow the cuts to kick in, according to a Bloomberg News poll released Thursday. Follow @politicalticker The across-the-board cuts would slash the amount federal agencies can spend by $85 billion over the next seven months and $1.2 trillion over the next decade. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the cuts could reduce economic growth by at least 0.6 percentage points and reduce job growth by 750,000 jobs. Other ways Americans could feel the impact include weakened unemployment benefits, longer security lines at the airport, furloughs at federal agencies, delays or closures at national parks and higher prices for chicken and other products because of cuts to food safety programs. President Barack Obama and lawmakers on Capitol Hill now face a March 1 deadline to reach a deal if they want to avert the cuts. They were supposed to take place at the beginning of the year, but a scaled-back fiscal cliff bill postponed them for two months. Should Washington find a deficit-reduction agreement to replace the automatic cuts, known in Washington as the sequester, 59% of Americans support White House proposals that call for a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, according to the new poll. But a majority of those polled also said Social Security and Medicare should be overhauled to reduce the deficit. Congressional Republicans agree. The poll largely falls in line with a Pew Research and USA Today poll released earlier Thursday, in which 49% said the cuts should be delayed and 40% wanted the cuts to go into effect, although a majority of Americans also want something done on the federal deficit this year. For the Bloomberg News survey, Iowa-based Selzer & Co. conducted the poll February 15-18 with 1,003 U.S. adults by telephone. The poll's sampling error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. - CNN's Gregory Wallace contributed to this report.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

0keOFBCvifAzZOOB

test

js4dzvOUJxMc0KY3

education

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/december/rep-bradley-byrne-warns-atheist-group-stop-forcing-ungodly-un-american-views-down-our-throats

Rep. Bradley Byrne Warns Atheist Group: 'Stop Forcing Ungodly, Un-American Views Down Our Throats'

2019-12-30

Alabama Congressman Bradley Byrne does n't like bullies – especially out-of-state bullies . The Republican lawmaker jumped to the defense of a high school football team under fire from a Wisconsin-based gang of atheists , agnostics , and freethinkers . The Freedom From Religion Foundation accused Tallapoosa County Schools of violating the law by allowing football players to participate in a baptism event at Reeltown High School . The Alexander City Outlook reports that 26 players asked the coach if they could be baptized in a trough on the field prior to practice . It was a voluntary event and a good many players did not attend . Head Coach Matt Johnson and the team chaplain participated in the incredibly moving ceremony . `` Our community is based on those values overall , '' Johnson told the newspaper . `` Everybody is not the same obviously , and we 're fine with that . But the way we run our program , the way I run my program specifically is based 100 percent off Christian values . '' But the out-of-town atheists accused Coach Johnson of breaking the law and they are demanding the school district investigate . `` The district should take the appropriate steps to ensure there will be no further religious rituals , including baptisms , during school-sponsored activities , '' attorney Christopher Line wrote in a letter to the school superintendent . Well , Congressman Byrne sprang into action when he got word that a bunch of godless atheists were bullying the football players and the coach . `` This really makes me mad , '' the congressman wrote on Facebook . `` I 'm sick of these groups trying to tell us that we are n't allowed to live out our faith . The Freedom From Religion Foundation needs to pack it up and stop forcing their ungodly , un-American views down our throats . '' Well , praise the Lord and pass the biscuits ! I could n't have said it better , congressman . `` The foundation says they want separation of church and state , but what they really want to do is to rip God out of our nation altogether , '' Rep. Bryne said . FFRF co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor told Yellow Hammer News said they only got involved after a local resident complained . ( I find that hard to believe , folks ) `` It 's egregious overstep for public school officials to put Christian baptism in the playbook , '' Ms. Gaylor told the news organization . Rep. Byrne rightly called Gaylor and her cabal of troublemakers a `` radical , anti-Christian organization '' that 's targeting a bunch of teenagers `` who decided to give their life to Christ . '' `` Helping bring even a single person to know Christ should be praised , not attacked , '' the congressman said . `` The Christian values that made our country great are under attack , and we need more leaders who are n't afraid to stand up for what is right . '' Sports editor Lizi Arbogast wrote a terrific column defending the coach and the team , titled , `` Leave Reeltown Well Enough Alone . '' `` ( Coach ) Johnson stands by making his kids into better men , however , they choose to do so , and so do I , '' Arbogast wrote . `` The Freedom From Religion Foundation needs to leave Reeltown well enough alone . '' The Freedom From Religion Foundation has an ugly history of bullying Christians in small towns and communities across the fruited plain . And sadly , in many of those cases , the locals surrender their constitutional rights . But this time , the out-of-town atheists made a serious tactical mistake . Because in Alabama – the Christians fight back .

ANALYSIS Alabama Congressman Bradley Byrne doesn't like bullies – especially out-of-state bullies. The Republican lawmaker jumped to the defense of a high school football team under fire from a Wisconsin-based gang of atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers. The Freedom From Religion Foundation accused Tallapoosa County Schools of violating the law by allowing football players to participate in a baptism event at Reeltown High School. The Alexander City Outlook reports that 26 players asked the coach if they could be baptized in a trough on the field prior to practice. It was a voluntary event and a good many players did not attend. Head Coach Matt Johnson and the team chaplain participated in the incredibly moving ceremony. "Our community is based on those values overall," Johnson told the newspaper. "Everybody is not the same obviously, and we're fine with that. But the way we run our program, the way I run my program specifically is based 100 percent off Christian values." But the out-of-town atheists accused Coach Johnson of breaking the law and they are demanding the school district investigate. "The district should take the appropriate steps to ensure there will be no further religious rituals, including baptisms, during school-sponsored activities," attorney Christopher Line wrote in a letter to the school superintendent. Well, Congressman Byrne sprang into action when he got word that a bunch of godless atheists were bullying the football players and the coach. "This really makes me mad," the congressman wrote on Facebook. "I'm sick of these groups trying to tell us that we aren't allowed to live out our faith. The Freedom From Religion Foundation needs to pack it up and stop forcing their ungodly, un-American views down our throats." Well, praise the Lord and pass the biscuits! I couldn't have said it better, congressman. "The foundation says they want separation of church and state, but what they really want to do is to rip God out of our nation altogether," Rep. Bryne said. FFRF co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor told Yellow Hammer News said they only got involved after a local resident complained. (I find that hard to believe, folks) "It's egregious overstep for public school officials to put Christian baptism in the playbook," Ms. Gaylor told the news organization. Rep. Byrne rightly called Gaylor and her cabal of troublemakers a "radical, anti-Christian organization" that's targeting a bunch of teenagers "who decided to give their life to Christ." "Helping bring even a single person to know Christ should be praised, not attacked," the congressman said. "The Christian values that made our country great are under attack, and we need more leaders who aren't afraid to stand up for what is right." Sports editor Lizi Arbogast wrote a terrific column defending the coach and the team, titled, "Leave Reeltown Well Enough Alone." "(Coach) Johnson stands by making his kids into better men, however, they choose to do so, and so do I," Arbogast wrote. "The Freedom From Religion Foundation needs to leave Reeltown well enough alone." The Freedom From Religion Foundation has an ugly history of bullying Christians in small towns and communities across the fruited plain. And sadly, in many of those cases, the locals surrender their constitutional rights. But this time, the out-of-town atheists made a serious tactical mistake. Because in Alabama – the Christians fight back.

www1.cbn.com

right

js4dzvOUJxMc0KY3

test

MpddzEbEouXuwcGU

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/the-socialist-surge-thats-not-coming/

The Socialist Surge That’s Not Coming

William Murchison, Ziva Dahl, Jeffrey Lord, Dov Fischer, Veronique De Rugy, Jed Babbin

One of the really cool things about democracy is that voters tend to get what they want — which , um , can turn out to be one of the really uncool things about democracy . A thing of real terror , if you want the truth . I tiptoe past the presidential election of 2016 on my way to look at the democratic socialist surge that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez helped produce , supposedly , with her surprise primary victory in June over U.S. Rep. Joseph Crowley of Queens and the Bronx . So lavish , so gosh-durned ecstatic , are overreadings of the Ocasio-Cortez victory that , lo , last week the victorious candidate took to the trail with Bernie Sanders himself , hailing the new political dimension for which the two suppose Americans yearn . In Wichita , Kansas , where Candidate Ocasio-Cortez took up the cudgels for two local progressives , she and her “ unapologetically leftwing message , ” in the words of a New York Times correspondent , received whoops and huzzas . “ Change takes guts , ” she said . “ What you have shown me , and what we will show in the Bronx , is that working people in Kansas share the same values — the same values — as working people anywhere else . ” Well , we might want to keep certain things in mind , starting with the words “ unapologetically leftwing message. ” American voters show a marked distaste for unapologetically left-wing messages , just as they do for unapologetically right-wing messages — however you define either one . The immediate trouble here is the nature of the left-wing message that helped dispose of Congressman Crowley of the Bronx . Candidate Ocasio-Cortez doesn ’ t advocate uprooting capitalism so as to replace it with the Thought of Chairman Mao . She does have distinct non-Trumpish , for that matter non-Bushian , non-Reaganesque , even non-Clintonian notions . Her progressive policy agenda includes : 1 ) Medicare for all 2 ) abolition of the Immigrant and Customs Enforcement agency , 3 ) tuition-free public college , and , a little incongruously , 4 ) abolition of those privately owned prisons few voters have probably ever heard of . She wants , in other words , a lot of your money : promising wonderful outcomes once she gets it . Sen. Sanders makes the same pitch . Neither refers specifically to “ your money , ” but that ’ s what it comes down to . Donald Trump , it could be argued , made the political environment safe for over-the-top declarations , e.g. , he was going to wall off Mexico from the United States and make Mexico pay for the wall . I am not sure anyone outside the Trump bedroom ever took such a ridiculous notion seriously . It was an attention-grabber . In the cases of Medicare and college tuition for everybody , things get dicier . You could do these things . They are personal — unlike a southern wall no one but immigrants would ever see . The personal stuff is what socialists like to do : something for you , something for her . At someone else ’ s expense , naturally . The only folk likely to oppose it are fat cats , famous for their supposed wealth and theoretical indifference to the poor . They can go jump in the lake , making a soggy mess of their job-creating potential , but at least we ’ d have their money . Or would we ? Likely not . Beating up on people with ideas and drive and initiative can make socialists feel very good indeed , but it butters no parsnips . No socialist economy in the history of the world has ever succeeded in the long run , as opposed to the feverish , over-excited short run , when it ’ s easier for government to make promises than to plan for what happens if and when promises go awry . Cheers and accolades for the occasional socialist victor in politics don ’ t contradict Margaret Thatcher ’ s biting bon mot about socialists who always run out of other people ’ s money to spend . It is not that better medical care and affordable college belong outside the perimeter of civilized political discourse . It is that some proffered answers to these challenges make sense , whereas others don ’ t . It is that most Americans sense at a glance the deceptiveness of the promise to load their table with great gooey slices of pie in the sky : expecting voter gratitude in return . No wonder , I imagine , that polls show public preference sharply lessening for Democratic control of Congress . William Murchison ’ s latest book is The Cost of Liberty : The Life of John Dickinson .

One of the really cool things about democracy is that voters tend to get what they want — which, um, can turn out to be one of the really uncool things about democracy. A thing of real terror, if you want the truth. I tiptoe past the presidential election of 2016 on my way to look at the democratic socialist surge that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez helped produce, supposedly, with her surprise primary victory in June over U.S. Rep. Joseph Crowley of Queens and the Bronx. So lavish, so gosh-durned ecstatic, are overreadings of the Ocasio-Cortez victory that, lo, last week the victorious candidate took to the trail with Bernie Sanders himself, hailing the new political dimension for which the two suppose Americans yearn. In Wichita, Kansas, where Candidate Ocasio-Cortez took up the cudgels for two local progressives, she and her “unapologetically leftwing message,” in the words of a New York Times correspondent, received whoops and huzzas. “Change takes guts,” she said. “What you have shown me, and what we will show in the Bronx, is that working people in Kansas share the same values — the same values — as working people anywhere else.” Well, we might want to keep certain things in mind, starting with the words “unapologetically leftwing message.” American voters show a marked distaste for unapologetically left-wing messages, just as they do for unapologetically right-wing messages — however you define either one. The immediate trouble here is the nature of the left-wing message that helped dispose of Congressman Crowley of the Bronx. Candidate Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t advocate uprooting capitalism so as to replace it with the Thought of Chairman Mao. She does have distinct non-Trumpish, for that matter non-Bushian, non-Reaganesque, even non-Clintonian notions. Her progressive policy agenda includes: 1) Medicare for all 2) abolition of the Immigrant and Customs Enforcement agency, 3) tuition-free public college, and, a little incongruously, 4) abolition of those privately owned prisons few voters have probably ever heard of. She wants, in other words, a lot of your money: promising wonderful outcomes once she gets it. Sen. Sanders makes the same pitch. Neither refers specifically to “your money,” but that’s what it comes down to. Donald Trump, it could be argued, made the political environment safe for over-the-top declarations, e.g., he was going to wall off Mexico from the United States and make Mexico pay for the wall. I am not sure anyone outside the Trump bedroom ever took such a ridiculous notion seriously. It was an attention-grabber. In the cases of Medicare and college tuition for everybody, things get dicier. You could do these things. They are personal — unlike a southern wall no one but immigrants would ever see. The personal stuff is what socialists like to do: something for you, something for her. At someone else’s expense, naturally. The only folk likely to oppose it are fat cats, famous for their supposed wealth and theoretical indifference to the poor. They can go jump in the lake, making a soggy mess of their job-creating potential, but at least we’d have their money. Or would we? Likely not. Beating up on people with ideas and drive and initiative can make socialists feel very good indeed, but it butters no parsnips. No socialist economy in the history of the world has ever succeeded in the long run, as opposed to the feverish, over-excited short run, when it’s easier for government to make promises than to plan for what happens if and when promises go awry. Cheers and accolades for the occasional socialist victor in politics don’t contradict Margaret Thatcher’s biting bon mot about socialists who always run out of other people’s money to spend. It is not that better medical care and affordable college belong outside the perimeter of civilized political discourse. It is that some proffered answers to these challenges make sense, whereas others don’t. It is that most Americans sense at a glance the deceptiveness of the promise to load their table with great gooey slices of pie in the sky: expecting voter gratitude in return. No wonder, I imagine, that polls show public preference sharply lessening for Democratic control of Congress. William Murchison’s latest book is The Cost of Liberty: The Life of John Dickinson. COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM

www.spectator.org

right

MpddzEbEouXuwcGU

test

11CmvGOItQh4G4kj

politics

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/10/report-documents-reveal-hillary-clintons-private-reaction-to-her-husbands-cheating-scandal-with-monica-lewinsky/?hpt=po_c1

Documents reveal Hillary Clinton’s private reaction to her husband's cheating scandal with Monica Lewinsky

2014-02-10

Washington ( CNN ) – Hillary Clinton told a close friend that Monica Lewinsky was a `` narcissistic loony toon , '' and also discussed in detail why she decided to forgive her husband for having an affair with the White House intern , according to documents penned by Diane Blair , a close friend and longtime confidant to the former first lady . The contents of the documents , which are part of Blair ’ s papers housed at the University of Arkansas , were first reported by the Washington Free Beacon , a conservative website that posted the story late on Sunday night . CNN has confirmed the documents are authentic and has reached out to a spokesman for Hillary Clinton , who has not responded . Blair ’ s writings are made up of notes and diary entries based on communication the former political science professor who died in 2000 had with Mrs. Clinton . “ It was a lapse , but she says to his credit he tried to break it off , tried to pull away , tried to manage someone who was clearly a 'narcissistic loony toon ' ; but it was beyond control , '' Blair wrote about a conversation she had with Clinton on September 9 , 1998 , during the height of the Lewinsky scandal that led to her husband ’ s impeachment . Blair went on to write that Hillary Clinton had suggested her husband had made the mistake with Lewinsky because of the personal toll the deaths of his mother , her father , and their friend Vince Foster had taken on him while `` the ugly forces started making up hateful things about them , pounding on them . '' The story comes as speculation heats up that the former New York senator and secretary of state is weighing a second run for the White House . The Blair papers were not made public until 2010 , well after Clinton ’ s unsuccessful presidential bid in 2008 . And the details come as Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky , a likely 2016 GOP White House contender , continues to call the Lewinsky scandal a liability for Democrats . Some Democrats pushed back , saying the documents do n't reveal anything more about Hillary Clinton 's feelings about the controversy than what she wrote in her memoir , `` Living History . '' Clinton described herself as `` dumbfounded , heartbroken and outraged '' when her husband told her about his relations with Lewinsky . `` Gulping for air , I started crying and yelling at him , '' she wrote . `` 'What do you mean ? What are you saying ? Why did you lie to me ? ' '' Democrats argue the passages from her own book are more powerful because they come directly from her . The Clinton-Lewisnky affair captivated the nation ’ s attention as the sordid details became international news . The relationship and grand jury investigation led the House to impeach Clinton on two charges in December 1998 . In February 1999 , the Senate acquitted him . Just days after Clinton ’ s impeachment , Blair wrote that Hillary called her , and they had a lengthy conversation about impeachment . “ She sounded very up , almost jolly , ” writes Blair . “ Told me how she and Bill and Chelsea had been to church , to a Chinese restaurant , to a Shakespeare play , greeted everywhere with wild applause and cheers . ” She added , “ This , she said , is what drives their adversaries totally nut ( s ) , that they do n't bend , do not appear to be suffering . ” According to Blair , Clinton said that “ most people in this town have no pain threshold . ” Blair ’ s writings also show Hillary Clinton sought to downplay the relationship between her husband and Lewisnky . “ HRC insists , no matter what people say , it was gross inappropriate behavior but it was consensual ( was not a power relationship ) and was not sex within any real meaning… of the term , ” Blair wrote . In addition to Hillary Clinton 's private thoughts on the Lewinsky matter , Blair 's writing talks about Clinton 's support for a single payer health care system , as well as her thoughts on foreign policy , among other subjects . According to notes about a dinner Blair had with the first couple on February 23 , 1993 , Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton talked “ at length about the complexities of healthcare , ” with the first lady saying stating “ managed competition a crock , single payer necessary ; maybe add to Medicare . ” Hillary Clinton was the face of the White House ’ s unsuccessful 1993 push on health care reform and healthcare comes up throughout the Blair notes . Clinton ’ s admission that “ single payer necessary ” contrasts what she has sad in the past . In a 2008 interview with the New York Times , Clinton said , “ You know , I have thought about this , as you might guess , for 15 years and I never seriously considered a single-payer system . ” Blair , a political science professor from Arkansas , joined Gov . Bill Clinton ’ s 1992 presidential campaign as a senior researcher and worked as a senior adviser on his successful 1996 reelection bid . She became a close friend to both Clintons , but particularly the first lady . She died in 2000 at the age of 61 . At the time , The New York Times reported that Hillary Clinton eulogized Blair as “ the best person that one could have as a friend . ” The documents portray Blair ’ s relationship with Clinton as both professional and personal . While they appeared to talk extensively about policy and politics , they also discussed books , travel and family . The Blair documents were donated by her husband , James , in 2005 . The documents were processed and completed by 2010 and contain 109 boxes of information that range from Blair ’ s professional materials to her correspondence with the Clintons . James once helped Hillary Clinton make $ 100,000 in commodity futures trading , which drew scrutiny for its timing . According to the Free Beacon , Hillary Clinton was a supporter of making the Blair records public in 2010 . “ With this collection , [ Diane Blair ’ s ] contributions will grow and live on , enlarging our understanding of history , politics and culture , ” Hillary Clinton reportedly said , according to the Free Beacon . `` I hope also that some young scholar will come along and write the story of Diane . The Washington Free Beacon reporter who first poured through the documents did n't think she 'd find all that much to write about . `` I went down to Arkansas . I honestly did n't think that there would be much there , because I feel like so much of the Clintons , especially the 1990 's related stuff , has been so picked over by reporters . But yeah , I went down and surprisingly there were some interesting things there , '' Alana Goodman told CNN 's Brooke Baldwin in an interview on CNN Newsroom .

6 years ago Updated 4:10 p.m. ET, 2/10/2014 Washington (CNN) – Hillary Clinton told a close friend that Monica Lewinsky was a "narcissistic loony toon," and also discussed in detail why she decided to forgive her husband for having an affair with the White House intern, according to documents penned by Diane Blair, a close friend and longtime confidant to the former first lady. The contents of the documents, which are part of Blair’s papers housed at the University of Arkansas, were first reported by the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website that posted the story late on Sunday night. Follow @politicalticker Follow @danmericacnn CNN has confirmed the documents are authentic and has reached out to a spokesman for Hillary Clinton, who has not responded. Read the documents Blair’s writings are made up of notes and diary entries based on communication the former political science professor who died in 2000 had with Mrs. Clinton. “It was a lapse, but she says to his credit he tried to break it off, tried to pull away, tried to manage someone who was clearly a 'narcissistic loony toon'; but it was beyond control," Blair wrote about a conversation she had with Clinton on September 9, 1998, during the height of the Lewinsky scandal that led to her husband’s impeachment. Blair went on to write that Hillary Clinton had suggested her husband had made the mistake with Lewinsky because of the personal toll the deaths of his mother, her father, and their friend Vince Foster had taken on him while "the ugly forces started making up hateful things about them, pounding on them." The story comes as speculation heats up that the former New York senator and secretary of state is weighing a second run for the White House. The Blair papers were not made public until 2010, well after Clinton’s unsuccessful presidential bid in 2008. And the details come as Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a likely 2016 GOP White House contender, continues to call the Lewinsky scandal a liability for Democrats. Some Democrats pushed back, saying the documents don't reveal anything more about Hillary Clinton's feelings about the controversy than what she wrote in her memoir, "Living History." Clinton described herself as "dumbfounded, heartbroken and outraged" when her husband told her about his relations with Lewinsky. "Gulping for air, I started crying and yelling at him," she wrote. "'What do you mean? What are you saying? Why did you lie to me?'" Democrats argue the passages from her own book are more powerful because they come directly from her. Where is Monica Lewinsky? The Clinton-Lewisnky affair captivated the nation’s attention as the sordid details became international news. The relationship and grand jury investigation led the House to impeach Clinton on two charges in December 1998. In February 1999, the Senate acquitted him. Just days after Clinton’s impeachment, Blair wrote that Hillary called her, and they had a lengthy conversation about impeachment. “She sounded very up, almost jolly,” writes Blair. “Told me how she and Bill and Chelsea had been to church, to a Chinese restaurant, to a Shakespeare play, greeted everywhere with wild applause and cheers.” She added, “This, she said, is what drives their adversaries totally nut(s), that they don't bend, do not appear to be suffering.” According to Blair, Clinton said that “most people in this town have no pain threshold.” Blair’s writings also show Hillary Clinton sought to downplay the relationship between her husband and Lewisnky. “HRC insists, no matter what people say, it was gross inappropriate behavior but it was consensual (was not a power relationship) and was not sex within any real meaning… of the term,” Blair wrote. In addition to Hillary Clinton's private thoughts on the Lewinsky matter, Blair's writing talks about Clinton's support for a single payer health care system, as well as her thoughts on foreign policy, among other subjects. According to notes about a dinner Blair had with the first couple on February 23, 1993, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton talked “at length about the complexities of healthcare,” with the first lady saying stating “managed competition a crock, single payer necessary; maybe add to Medicare.” Hillary Clinton was the face of the White House’s unsuccessful 1993 push on health care reform and healthcare comes up throughout the Blair notes. Clinton’s admission that “single payer necessary” contrasts what she has sad in the past. In a 2008 interview with the New York Times, Clinton said, “You know, I have thought about this, as you might guess, for 15 years and I never seriously considered a single-payer system.” Blair, a political science professor from Arkansas, joined Gov. Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign as a senior researcher and worked as a senior adviser on his successful 1996 reelection bid. She became a close friend to both Clintons, but particularly the first lady. She died in 2000 at the age of 61. At the time, The New York Times reported that Hillary Clinton eulogized Blair as “the best person that one could have as a friend.” The documents portray Blair’s relationship with Clinton as both professional and personal. While they appeared to talk extensively about policy and politics, they also discussed books, travel and family. The Blair documents were donated by her husband, James, in 2005. The documents were processed and completed by 2010 and contain 109 boxes of information that range from Blair’s professional materials to her correspondence with the Clintons. If Clinton runs in 2016, what will Biden do? James once helped Hillary Clinton make $100,000 in commodity futures trading, which drew scrutiny for its timing. According to the Free Beacon, Hillary Clinton was a supporter of making the Blair records public in 2010. “With this collection, [Diane Blair’s] contributions will grow and live on, enlarging our understanding of history, politics and culture,” Hillary Clinton reportedly said, according to the Free Beacon. "I hope also that some young scholar will come along and write the story of Diane. The Washington Free Beacon reporter who first poured through the documents didn't think she'd find all that much to write about. "I went down to Arkansas. I honestly didn't think that there would be much there, because I feel like so much of the Clintons, especially the 1990's related stuff, has been so picked over by reporters. But yeah, I went down and surprisingly there were some interesting things there," Alana Goodman told CNN's Brooke Baldwin in an interview on CNN Newsroom. Moment of tension between Bill and Hillary Clinton

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

11CmvGOItQh4G4kj

test

GirLEJu36grzlD4x

gun_control_and_gun_rights

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/03/gun-control-in-crosshairs-at-nra-convention/

Gun control in crosshairs at NRA convention

2013-05-03

( CNN ) - Within minutes of the National Rifle Association 's opening forum at their annual meeting Friday , the group 's leaders went after gun control proposals and advocates who sought to expand tougher firearm laws following the Newtown elementary school massacre . `` Where we see tragedy , Barack Obama and Michael Bloomberg , they see opportunity , '' said Chris Cox , the executive director for the NRA 's Institute for Legislative Action . `` While we pray for God to comfort those suffering unimaginable pain , they rush to microphones and cameras , gather in war rooms on Capitol Hill and scheme about how to use that suffering to push their political agenda , '' he continued . `` That 's who they are and what they believe , but not us . '' Former Alaska Gov . Sarah Palin , wearing a shirt that said `` women hunt , '' also accused the president of being disingenuous in the wake of tragedy , pointing to the Newtown families who appeared at political events at the invitation of the president . `` The politics of emotion , it 's the opposite of leadership . It 's the manipulation of the people by the politicians for their own political ends . It 's not just self-serving . It 's destructive and it must stop , '' she said . Tens of thousands of NRA members and supporters are gathered in Houston this weekend , just weeks after the Senate fell short of the 60 votes needed to push forward with a bipartisan proposal to expand the background check system for firearm purchases . A proposed assault weapons ban was also defeated . The vote was seen as a major victory among anti-gun control advocates and among those in the gun lobby , who argued the measure would not have prevented mass shootings like those seen in Newtown , Connecticut and Aurora , Colorado last year . Gun control supporters , on the other hand , saw the vote as a catalyst to keep pushing for tougher gun laws . But Cox argued those who want more firearm regulations on the books are simply using the recent tragedies to push their political agendas . `` We are the moms and dads and sons of daughters of the National Rifle Association , and we want to prevent Newtown , not take advantage of it , '' Cox said . Responding to some of the comments made at the NRA convention , Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said he was dismayed by the `` celebratory '' mood at the gathering . Some of the remarks are `` disgusting , particularly since President Obama was doing what the NRA refuses to do - standing with and fighting for families who have lost loved ones as a result of gun violence . I also think the celebratory atmosphere at the NRA 's national conference is disgusting , '' he said in a statement . The senator argued the group is `` consigning itself to irrelevance '' as it `` celebrates '' its legislative victory . Around 75,000 people are expected to attend , based on registration and past attendance , with 550 vendors also planning to show up . Wayne LaPierre , executive Vice President of the NRA , scolded the media for what he described as distorting the gun debate in favor of gun control advocates and arguing that those in Washington and the `` elites '' are demonizing NRA members . `` We know that every word spoken today and throughout this weekend is going to be scrutinized by our opponents but let me make this perfectly clear , we will never back away from our resolve to defend our rights and the rights of all law-abiding American gun owners . '' Texas Gov . Rick Perry also took a swipe at the nation 's capital , comparing it to his home state , which he said never loses `` faith in the founding fathers ' wisdom to include the Second Amendment of the Constitution among the Bill of Rights . '' `` I wish that sentiment was found in more places , particularly a place whose boundaries are on the Potomac River , '' he said . `` Our message to them , and our message to everyone in the country , is simple , '' he continued , adding a plug to the Lone Star State . `` There is still a place that loves freedom in America , where people can pursue their dreams free from the kneejerk government regulations that occur . That place is called Texas . That place is called Texas . We want to invite you , if you 're not already here , consider coming to the place that loves freedom . '' Perry , known for attempting to draw business to his state from other states , also made a pitch to gun manufacturers leaving states that are enacting what he called `` draconian '' gun laws . PTR Industries of Bristol in Connecticut , for example , said last month it was leaving the state after the state government passed sweeping gun legislation . Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas , meanwhile , touted his effort to block gun control legislation in the Senate and challenged Vice President Joe Biden to a debate . Biden leads a task force for the Obama administration on coming up with a set of gun control proposals and was a main liaison between the White House and Congress in the final days before the Senate voted on the measures . `` I would like to invite the Vice President to engage in an hour long conversation and debate – how do we stop crime ? And if Vice President Biden really believes the facts are on his side , that this is not simply an exercise in political power by the administration , then I think he would welcome the opportunity to talk about the sources , '' he said . Coincidentally , Cruz and Biden will be within two miles of each other Friday night in South Carolina , where they 're both scheduled to deliver speeches as separate events . Also Friday , the widow of Chris Kyle , the former Navy SEAL and expert sniper who was fatally shot at a gun range in February , gave an emotional speech at the event , where she fought back tears to describe her husband who had become known as a hero among members of the military and gun enthusiasts . In his autobiography , he claimed he killed 160 people during five combat tours in Iraq , a record for a U.S. military sniper . `` While publishers and some parts of the public are impressed with numbers of kills , that number did not interest him , a number that would have been much more important to him would have been if someone could have told him the number of lives he saved , '' Taya Kyle said . Along with Perry and Cruz , a number of other potential 2016 Republican presidential candidates spoke at the event . Wisconsin Gov . Scott Walker and Rep. Paul Ryan , former GOP vice presidential nominee , addressed the crowd via video . Former Sen. Rick Santorum , who battled eventual GOP nominee Mitt Romney deep into the 2012 primary season , warned in a broader argument that Obama was attacking Americans ' freedoms on a larger scale . His remarks echoed refrains from many of his campaign speeches . He also praised NRA supporters for weathering the gun control debate , calling them `` freedom warriors . '' `` You stood tall–as unpopular as it seemed–but you stood for the truth . You did n't let all the smoke and the mirrors of trying to hide behind a horrible tragedy , to turn you from the truth , '' he said , though he received a more tepid response from the audience than some of the other speakers . Louisiana Gov . Bobby Jindal also targeted Obama in a highly-political speech , attacking the president not only over gun control , but also over the deficit , health care and taxes . `` I believe he wants to be a good president , but he does have a lack of trust . He does n't trust Americans , like you and I trust Americans . He will not succeed until that changes , '' he said . A number of gun control advocates under fire at the NRA are set to go to Houston , as well . Erica Lafferty , daughter of slain Sandy Hook principal Dawn Hochsprung , wants to reach out to NRA members and share her viewpoint . Mayors Against Illegal Guns , one of several gun control groups using this week 's Congressional recess to bring the gun control message to the states , said Friday they would air an ad in the Houston market during the convention featuring a gun owner and NRA member whose sister was shot and killed by her husband , who should have been prohibited from buying guns but was able to purchase a firearm online without a background check . Media from around the world are covering the NRA event , including journalists from Australia , Denmark and India , according to Alexa Fritts , an NRA representative . At last year 's meeting in St. Louis , 81 % of attendees were male , and 62 % described themselves as hunters , according to an informal survey taken at the convention . Nearly eight in 10 said they participate in NRA activities six or more times a year , and two-thirds said they spend more than $ 500 a year on shooting/hunting equipment . Just over half–53 % –traveled more than 200 miles to attend the convention and see the exhibits .

5 years ago (CNN) - Within minutes of the National Rifle Association's opening forum at their annual meeting Friday, the group's leaders went after gun control proposals and advocates who sought to expand tougher firearm laws following the Newtown elementary school massacre. "Where we see tragedy, Barack Obama and Michael Bloomberg, they see opportunity," said Chris Cox, the executive director for the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. Follow @politicalticker Follow @KilloughCNN "While we pray for God to comfort those suffering unimaginable pain, they rush to microphones and cameras, gather in war rooms on Capitol Hill and scheme about how to use that suffering to push their political agenda," he continued. "That's who they are and what they believe, but not us." Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, wearing a shirt that said "women hunt," also accused the president of being disingenuous in the wake of tragedy, pointing to the Newtown families who appeared at political events at the invitation of the president. "The politics of emotion, it's the opposite of leadership. It's the manipulation of the people by the politicians for their own political ends. It's not just self-serving. It's destructive and it must stop," she said. Tens of thousands of NRA members and supporters are gathered in Houston this weekend, just weeks after the Senate fell short of the 60 votes needed to push forward with a bipartisan proposal to expand the background check system for firearm purchases. A proposed assault weapons ban was also defeated. The vote was seen as a major victory among anti-gun control advocates and among those in the gun lobby, who argued the measure would not have prevented mass shootings like those seen in Newtown, Connecticut and Aurora, Colorado last year. Gun control supporters, on the other hand, saw the vote as a catalyst to keep pushing for tougher gun laws. But Cox argued those who want more firearm regulations on the books are simply using the recent tragedies to push their political agendas. "We are the moms and dads and sons of daughters of the National Rifle Association, and we want to prevent Newtown, not take advantage of it," Cox said. Responding to some of the comments made at the NRA convention, Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said he was dismayed by the "celebratory" mood at the gathering. Some of the remarks are "disgusting, particularly since President Obama was doing what the NRA refuses to do - standing with and fighting for families who have lost loved ones as a result of gun violence. I also think the celebratory atmosphere at the NRA's national conference is disgusting," he said in a statement. The senator argued the group is "consigning itself to irrelevance" as it "celebrates" its legislative victory. Around 75,000 people are expected to attend, based on registration and past attendance, with 550 vendors also planning to show up. Wayne LaPierre, executive Vice President of the NRA, scolded the media for what he described as distorting the gun debate in favor of gun control advocates and arguing that those in Washington and the "elites" are demonizing NRA members. "We know that every word spoken today and throughout this weekend is going to be scrutinized by our opponents but let me make this perfectly clear, we will never back away from our resolve to defend our rights and the rights of all law-abiding American gun owners." Texas Gov. Rick Perry also took a swipe at the nation's capital, comparing it to his home state, which he said never loses "faith in the founding fathers' wisdom to include the Second Amendment of the Constitution among the Bill of Rights." "I wish that sentiment was found in more places, particularly a place whose boundaries are on the Potomac River," he said. "Our message to them, and our message to everyone in the country, is simple," he continued, adding a plug to the Lone Star State. "There is still a place that loves freedom in America, where people can pursue their dreams free from the kneejerk government regulations that occur. That place is called Texas. That place is called Texas. We want to invite you, if you're not already here, consider coming to the place that loves freedom." Perry, known for attempting to draw business to his state from other states, also made a pitch to gun manufacturers leaving states that are enacting what he called "draconian" gun laws. PTR Industries of Bristol in Connecticut, for example, said last month it was leaving the state after the state government passed sweeping gun legislation. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, meanwhile, touted his effort to block gun control legislation in the Senate and challenged Vice President Joe Biden to a debate. Biden leads a task force for the Obama administration on coming up with a set of gun control proposals and was a main liaison between the White House and Congress in the final days before the Senate voted on the measures. "I would like to invite the Vice President to engage in an hour long conversation and debate – how do we stop crime? And if Vice President Biden really believes the facts are on his side, that this is not simply an exercise in political power by the administration, then I think he would welcome the opportunity to talk about the sources," he said. Coincidentally, Cruz and Biden will be within two miles of each other Friday night in South Carolina, where they're both scheduled to deliver speeches as separate events. Also Friday, the widow of Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL and expert sniper who was fatally shot at a gun range in February, gave an emotional speech at the event, where she fought back tears to describe her husband who had become known as a hero among members of the military and gun enthusiasts. In his autobiography, he claimed he killed 160 people during five combat tours in Iraq, a record for a U.S. military sniper. "While publishers and some parts of the public are impressed with numbers of kills, that number did not interest him, a number that would have been much more important to him would have been if someone could have told him the number of lives he saved," Taya Kyle said. Along with Perry and Cruz, a number of other potential 2016 Republican presidential candidates spoke at the event. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Rep. Paul Ryan, former GOP vice presidential nominee, addressed the crowd via video. Former Sen. Rick Santorum, who battled eventual GOP nominee Mitt Romney deep into the 2012 primary season, warned in a broader argument that Obama was attacking Americans' freedoms on a larger scale. His remarks echoed refrains from many of his campaign speeches. He also praised NRA supporters for weathering the gun control debate, calling them "freedom warriors." "You stood tall–as unpopular as it seemed–but you stood for the truth. You didn't let all the smoke and the mirrors of trying to hide behind a horrible tragedy, to turn you from the truth," he said, though he received a more tepid response from the audience than some of the other speakers. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal also targeted Obama in a highly-political speech, attacking the president not only over gun control, but also over the deficit, health care and taxes. "I believe he wants to be a good president, but he does have a lack of trust. He doesn't trust Americans, like you and I trust Americans. He will not succeed until that changes," he said. A number of gun control advocates under fire at the NRA are set to go to Houston, as well. Erica Lafferty, daughter of slain Sandy Hook principal Dawn Hochsprung, wants to reach out to NRA members and share her viewpoint. Mayors Against Illegal Guns, one of several gun control groups using this week's Congressional recess to bring the gun control message to the states, said Friday they would air an ad in the Houston market during the convention featuring a gun owner and NRA member whose sister was shot and killed by her husband, who should have been prohibited from buying guns but was able to purchase a firearm online without a background check. Media from around the world are covering the NRA event, including journalists from Australia, Denmark and India, according to Alexa Fritts, an NRA representative. At last year's meeting in St. Louis, 81% of attendees were male, and 62% described themselves as hunters, according to an informal survey taken at the convention. Nearly eight in 10 said they participate in NRA activities six or more times a year, and two-thirds said they spend more than $500 a year on shooting/hunting equipment. Just over half–53%–traveled more than 200 miles to attend the convention and see the exhibits. - CNN's Athena Jones, Todd Sperry, Adam Levy and Kevin Liptak contributed to this report. READ MORE: NRA gears up for big weekend

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

GirLEJu36grzlD4x

test

LoSUzVg5e1aBBAnm

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-clinton-revolving-door/2015/08/31/id/672792/

Hillary Clinton Supports Ban on 'Revolving Door' Corporate Bonuses

2015-08-31

U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton endorsed a proposed law on Monday that would prevent corporate firms paying bonuses to their executives for leaving to take senior government jobs . Clinton , in an op-ed published by the Huffington Post , was critical of the `` so-called revolving door '' between government and Wall Street firms in particular , saying it erodes public trust `` if a public servant 's past and future are tied to the financial industry . '' `` That 's when people start worrying that the foxes are guarding the hen house , '' Clinton , the front-runner in the race to win the Democratic Party 's nomination for the 2016 election , wrote . `` If you 're working for the government , you 're working for the people - not for an oil company , drug company , or Wall Street bank or money manager . '' Support for the proposed Financial Services Conflict of Interest Act had become a sort of litmus test for the Democratic Party 's progressive wing , which is seeking far more stringent oversight of the U.S. financial services industry . Elizabeth Warren , the Massachusetts senator who has become a standard-bearer for the party 's progressives , called on presidential candidates to endorse the bill last month shortly after it was introduced . The law would ban incoming government employees from accepting such bonuses , sometimes known as `` golden parachutes '' , from their former private sector employers . It would also require senior government regulators to recuse themselves from any work that would particularly benefit any employer or client they had in the two years before joining the government . Bernie Sanders , the socialist Vermont senator who is Clinton 's nearest rival for the nomination , had already given the bill his support , as had Martin O'Malley , a former Maryland governor , who has been lagging in public polls . Last week , groups representing Democratic progressives called for Clinton to make her position clear . Clinton co-wrote her Monday op-ed with Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin , the bill 's Democratic sponsor .

U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton endorsed a proposed law on Monday that would prevent corporate firms paying bonuses to their executives for leaving to take senior government jobs. Clinton, in an op-ed published by the Huffington Post, was critical of the "so-called revolving door" between government and Wall Street firms in particular, saying it erodes public trust "if a public servant's past and future are tied to the financial industry." "That's when people start worrying that the foxes are guarding the hen house," Clinton, the front-runner in the race to win the Democratic Party's nomination for the 2016 election, wrote. "If you're working for the government, you're working for the people - not for an oil company, drug company, or Wall Street bank or money manager." Support for the proposed Financial Services Conflict of Interest Act had become a sort of litmus test for the Democratic Party's progressive wing, which is seeking far more stringent oversight of the U.S. financial services industry. Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts senator who has become a standard-bearer for the party's progressives, called on presidential candidates to endorse the bill last month shortly after it was introduced. The law would ban incoming government employees from accepting such bonuses, sometimes known as "golden parachutes", from their former private sector employers. It would also require senior government regulators to recuse themselves from any work that would particularly benefit any employer or client they had in the two years before joining the government. Bernie Sanders, the socialist Vermont senator who is Clinton's nearest rival for the nomination, had already given the bill his support, as had Martin O'Malley, a former Maryland governor, who has been lagging in public polls. Last week, groups representing Democratic progressives called for Clinton to make her position clear. Clinton co-wrote her Monday op-ed with Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, the bill's Democratic sponsor.

www.newsmax.com

right

LoSUzVg5e1aBBAnm

test

cil5lU3HNK5YJa8f

race_and_racism

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/07/young-obama-voter-says-race-relations-worse-after-8-years-of-americas-first-black-president-video/

Young Obama Voter Says Race Relations Worse After 8 Years Of America’s First Black President

2017-01-07

Sadly , America ’ s race relations are worse off under President Barack Obama , our first black president , says a passionate black graduate student who voted for him twice . She blames Obama ’ s eight years of divisive governance spawning dangerous narratives of hate , not President-elect Donald Trump who is wrongly labeled by elites as divisive , even before taking office . Antonia Okafor rose to prominence because of her recent NRA ad , “ I Didn ’ t Listen . ” In this exclusive video interview for ███ News Foundation , she says she voted for Obama believing the false and dominant narrative being peddled through the black community that “ just because he looks like me , he is best for me. ” She then realized that “ his policies are harming me , not helping me. ” Now , she votes for policies , not the person . She casts herself as a black conservative and is optimistic about Trump ’ s policies . The Trump victory , she thinks , was a broad cross-section of Americans of all races saying “ enough ” to the false narratives and overused labels being thrown at political opponents . As for the labels being thrown at GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions , Trump ’ s nominee for attorney general , Okafor says they only remind her of the disturbing and ridiculous labels given to her , like “ racist , misogynist and sexist ” or “ deplorable ” for voting for Trump . Countering feminists , too , Okafor has worked with Students for Concealed Carry and been a passionate leader for more concealed carry policies on campuses as a means of personal empowerment , especially for young women . Besides being a frequent guest on Tomi Lahren ’ s popular show at The Blaze , she is now a journalist with the Independent Journal Review where her focus is on liberal bias on college campuses . Okafor is “ sad and disappointed ” with Obama ’ s failures as the first black president . Instead of being a peacemaker , he gave license to a “ dangerous narrative ” that hateful people can do anything to whites because of their skin color . She hears others believing and promoting this disturbing belief , a belief reflected in the “ heartbreaking ” Chicago Facebook live video of the four blacks who tortured a white special needs boy . Instead of unifying America , Obama has “ agitated ” to the point where others call for “ race wars ” because of the power and control progressives can wield if certain voices , facts and logic can be marginalized , she explains . Okafor has lost many friends for shifting her worldview , and was even been surrounded by a hostile , threatening Black Lives Matter mob in Austin , Texas , that chanted “ traitor ” at her . The pushback she receives only seems to strengthen her resolve to think , use facts and logic and help others . She is optimistic that with one-on-one conversations , more lives and worldviews can be changed , as opposed to the “ shout-fest ” occurring on social media . Okafor knows there are many who would try to keep voices like hers silenced or marginalized because she has the capacity to credibly offer a differing point of view from the elite narratives being driven through the media . She may even be headed to law school . For more on Antonia , see her Facebook page and follow her on Twitter at @ antonia_okafor . Mrs. Thomas does not necessarily support or endorse the products , services or positions promoted in any advertisement contained herein , and does not have control over or receive compensation from any advertiser .

Sadly, America’s race relations are worse off under President Barack Obama, our first black president, says a passionate black graduate student who voted for him twice. She blames Obama’s eight years of divisive governance spawning dangerous narratives of hate, not President-elect Donald Trump who is wrongly labeled by elites as divisive, even before taking office. Antonia Okafor rose to prominence because of her recent NRA ad, “I Didn’t Listen.” In this exclusive video interview for The Daily Caller News Foundation, she says she voted for Obama believing the false and dominant narrative being peddled through the black community that “just because he looks like me, he is best for me.” She then realized that “his policies are harming me, not helping me.” Now, she votes for policies, not the person. She casts herself as a black conservative and is optimistic about Trump’s policies. The Trump victory, she thinks, was a broad cross-section of Americans of all races saying “enough” to the false narratives and overused labels being thrown at political opponents. As for the labels being thrown at GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, Okafor says they only remind her of the disturbing and ridiculous labels given to her, like “racist, misogynist and sexist” or “deplorable” for voting for Trump. Countering feminists, too, Okafor has worked with Students for Concealed Carry and been a passionate leader for more concealed carry policies on campuses as a means of personal empowerment, especially for young women. Besides being a frequent guest on Tomi Lahren’s popular show at The Blaze, she is now a journalist with the Independent Journal Review where her focus is on liberal bias on college campuses. Okafor is “sad and disappointed” with Obama’s failures as the first black president. Instead of being a peacemaker, he gave license to a “dangerous narrative” that hateful people can do anything to whites because of their skin color. She hears others believing and promoting this disturbing belief, a belief reflected in the “heartbreaking” Chicago Facebook live video of the four blacks who tortured a white special needs boy. Instead of unifying America, Obama has “agitated” to the point where others call for “race wars” because of the power and control progressives can wield if certain voices, facts and logic can be marginalized, she explains. Okafor has lost many friends for shifting her worldview, and was even been surrounded by a hostile, threatening Black Lives Matter mob in Austin, Texas, that chanted “traitor” at her. The pushback she receives only seems to strengthen her resolve to think, use facts and logic and help others. She is optimistic that with one-on-one conversations, more lives and worldviews can be changed, as opposed to the “shout-fest” occurring on social media. Okafor knows there are many who would try to keep voices like hers silenced or marginalized because she has the capacity to credibly offer a differing point of view from the elite narratives being driven through the media. She may even be headed to law school. For more on Antonia, see her Facebook page and follow her on Twitter at @antonia_okafor. Mrs. Thomas does not necessarily support or endorse the products, services or positions promoted in any advertisement contained herein, and does not have control over or receive compensation from any advertiser. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

www.dailycaller.com

right

cil5lU3HNK5YJa8f

test

uQ5AZyLU3zcdFTZQ

environment

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/rep-tom-cole-okla-needs-help-not-a-funding-battle/

Rep. Tom Cole: Okla. Needs Help, Not a Funding Battle

Abd. Phillip

Republican Rep. Tom Cole , whose district took a direct hit from a powerful tornado on Monday , said the residents of the tornado ravaged towns in Oklahoma need help , not a political battle over funding in Washington . `` Once a disaster starts , to me that 's the end of a discussion . Now we need to focus on the Americans that are in a difficult spot , '' Cole told ███ in an interview today . `` They do n't need to be watching a big political battle , they need to be sure they 're getting help . '' Cole is one of only two members of Oklahoma 's seven-person Congressional delegation that voted in favor of a bill funding disaster aid after Superstorm Sandy , raising questions about whether they would change their stance on emergency funding in light of a tragedy in their own state . Oklahoma 's Republican Sen. Tom Coburn on Monday reiterated his opposition to funding disaster relief without first identifying corresponding budget cuts , if Congress is forced to allocate additional funds . Cole said he believes that the $ 11 billion the Federal Emergency Management Fund has in its disaster relief fund should be enough to cover the rebuilding and relief efforts in Oklahoma . But he added that , like with Sandy , relief should come first . `` You have to remember in Oklahoma , in my district or any place , you 're one tornado away from being Joplin [ Missouri ] , '' Cole said . `` I do n't begrudge other people . I know they 're trying to do the right thing . '' But he added that he 's always felt strongly about disaster aid . `` I felt exactly the same way about [ Hurricane ] Katrina , and we spent as much money on Katrina as we did on Sandy , if not more , '' he said . Cole spoke to ███ from the ground in Oklahoma , where he said the federal and local response has been `` swift and robust . '' `` The feds have been terrific . The resources have been there and the response has been excellent , '' said Cole , who toured the devastated region along with the other members of the state 's Congressional delegation . Cole 's hometown of Moore , Okla. , was nearly destroyed by the mile-wide storm . Cole said he had memories of working as a teenager at one of the local schools that was all but destroyed by the storm . `` Now you ca n't think about it without thinking about the horror that happened there , '' Cole said . `` The school was the safest , calmest building in the immediate area . Everybody made the right choice , they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time . `` There 's not a lot that can stand up to an F4 or an F5 [ tornado ] , '' he added . Cole said that after speaking with President Obama on Monday night he is confident the White House and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives will do what it takes to provide assistance to his constituents . `` A Democratic president and a Republican majority leader … I think they 'll do the right thing and the congressmen will follow their lead , '' Cole said .

(Joshua Lott/AFP/Getty Images) Republican Rep. Tom Cole, whose district took a direct hit from a powerful tornado on Monday, said the residents of the tornado ravaged towns in Oklahoma need help, not a political battle over funding in Washington. "Once a disaster starts, to me that's the end of a discussion. Now we need to focus on the Americans that are in a difficult spot," Cole told ABC News in an interview today. "They don't need to be watching a big political battle, they need to be sure they're getting help." Cole is one of only two members of Oklahoma's seven-person Congressional delegation that voted in favor of a bill funding disaster aid after Superstorm Sandy, raising questions about whether they would change their stance on emergency funding in light of a tragedy in their own state. Oklahoma's Republican Sen. Tom Coburn on Monday reiterated his opposition to funding disaster relief without first identifying corresponding budget cuts, if Congress is forced to allocate additional funds. Cole said he believes that the $11 billion the Federal Emergency Management Fund has in its disaster relief fund should be enough to cover the rebuilding and relief efforts in Oklahoma. But he added that, like with Sandy, relief should come first. "You have to remember in Oklahoma, in my district or any place, you're one tornado away from being Joplin [Missouri]," Cole said. "I don't begrudge other people. I know they're trying to do the right thing." But he added that he's always felt strongly about disaster aid. "I felt exactly the same way about [Hurricane] Katrina, and we spent as much money on Katrina as we did on Sandy, if not more," he said. Cole spoke to ABC News from the ground in Oklahoma, where he said the federal and local response has been "swift and robust." "The feds have been terrific. The resources have been there and the response has been excellent," said Cole, who toured the devastated region along with the other members of the state's Congressional delegation. Cole's hometown of Moore, Okla., was nearly destroyed by the mile-wide storm. Cole said he had memories of working as a teenager at one of the local schools that was all but destroyed by the storm. "Now you can't think about it without thinking about the horror that happened there," Cole said. "The school was the safest, calmest building in the immediate area. Everybody made the right choice, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. "There's not a lot that can stand up to an F4 or an F5 [tornado]," he added. Cole said that after speaking with President Obama on Monday night he is confident the White House and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives will do what it takes to provide assistance to his constituents. "A Democratic president and a Republican majority leader … I think they'll do the right thing and the congressmen will follow their lead," Cole said.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

uQ5AZyLU3zcdFTZQ

test

OraQsGoVA3XTwkl2

politics

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/11/hillary-clintons-numbers-slightly-edging-down/?hpt=po_t1

Hillary Clinton's numbers slightly edging down

2014-06-11

Washington ( CNN ) – A majority of Americans still see Hillary Clinton in a positive light , but a new national poll indicates the former secretary of state 's favorable rating has edged down since earlier this year . As Clinton kicks off her book tour of her much anticipated memoir , `` Hard Choices , '' a Gallup poll released Wednesday indicates that 54 % of the public holds a favorable opinion of her , down five percentage points from February . The 54 % figure is the lowest favorable rating for Clinton in Gallup polling since August of 2008 , just two months after the then-Sen. Clinton of New York lost a marathon and historic battle for the Democratic presidential nomination against then-Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois . Obama named Clinton as secretary of state , and her poll numbers soared as she served as America 's top diplomat , a non-political position in the eyes of most Americans . Her favorable ratings started to edge down last year after she left the State Department and began considering another bid for the White House . `` Hillary Clinton 's era of higher favorability appears to be ending even before she announces whether she will run for president . Americans typically rate non-political figures higher than political ones on this measure , and her favorable ratings before , during , and after being secretary of state are consistent with that phenomenon , '' says a release from Gallup . The poll indicates an obvious partisan divide , with 90 % of Democrats saying they see Clinton in a positive light . Her favorable rating drops to 49 % among independents and just 21 % among Republicans . The survey supports the conventional wisdom that Clinton 's husband , former President Bill Clinton , would most likely be an asset if she decides to launch a 2016 bid for the White House . Sixty-four percent of Americans say they have a favorable opinion of the former president . The Gallup poll 's release comes a few days after a new ABC News/Washington Post poll indicated that Clinton 's approval rating as secretary of state has slightly deteriorated , but that 59 % of Americans still give her a thumbs up for her four years running the State Department According to the survey , two-thirds said Clinton is a strong leader ; six in 10 said she was honest and trustworthy ; and majorities said Clinton understood people like them and had new ideas for the country . The numbers on Clinton 's personal qualities matched a CNN/ORC International poll conducted earlier this year . Of course , there was a partisan divide on all of those questions . The Gallup Poll was conducted June 5-8 , with 1,027 adults nationwide questioned by telephone . The survey 's overall sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points . The ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted May 29-June 1 , with 1,002 adults nationwide questioned by telephone . The survey 's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points .

5 years ago Program note: Hillary Clinton will discuss her memoir "Hard Choices" in a town hall meeting at the Newseum in Washington at 5 p.m. ET on June 17. The former secretary of state, senator and first lady will take questions from moderator Christiane Amanpour, CNN's Chief International Correspondent, and members of the audience. The town hall will be simulcast on CNN International and CNN en Espanol. Washington (CNN) – A majority of Americans still see Hillary Clinton in a positive light, but a new national poll indicates the former secretary of state's favorable rating has edged down since earlier this year. As Clinton kicks off her book tour of her much anticipated memoir, "Hard Choices," a Gallup poll released Wednesday indicates that 54% of the public holds a favorable opinion of her, down five percentage points from February. The 54% figure is the lowest favorable rating for Clinton in Gallup polling since August of 2008, just two months after the then-Sen. Clinton of New York lost a marathon and historic battle for the Democratic presidential nomination against then-Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. Follow @psteinhausercnn Follow @danmericacnn Obama named Clinton as secretary of state, and her poll numbers soared as she served as America's top diplomat, a non-political position in the eyes of most Americans. Her favorable ratings started to edge down last year after she left the State Department and began considering another bid for the White House. "Hillary Clinton's era of higher favorability appears to be ending even before she announces whether she will run for president. Americans typically rate non-political figures higher than political ones on this measure, and her favorable ratings before, during, and after being secretary of state are consistent with that phenomenon," says a release from Gallup. Hillary Clinton by the numbers The poll indicates an obvious partisan divide, with 90% of Democrats saying they see Clinton in a positive light. Her favorable rating drops to 49% among independents and just 21% among Republicans. The survey supports the conventional wisdom that Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, would most likely be an asset if she decides to launch a 2016 bid for the White House. Sixty-four percent of Americans say they have a favorable opinion of the former president. The Gallup poll's release comes a few days after a new ABC News/Washington Post poll indicated that Clinton's approval rating as secretary of state has slightly deteriorated, but that 59% of Americans still give her a thumbs up for her four years running the State Department According to the survey, two-thirds said Clinton is a strong leader; six in 10 said she was honest and trustworthy; and majorities said Clinton understood people like them and had new ideas for the country. The numbers on Clinton's personal qualities matched a CNN/ORC International poll conducted earlier this year. Of course, there was a partisan divide on all of those questions. Clinton blasts opponents of immigration reform The Gallup Poll was conducted June 5-8, with 1,027 adults nationwide questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points. The ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted May 29-June 1, with 1,002 adults nationwide questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

OraQsGoVA3XTwkl2

test

VS8y0J5fvg0J4B1O

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/22/trump-impeachment-inquiry-lynching-tweet

Fury as Trump compares impeachment inquiry to 'lynching'

2019-10-22

Tom Mccarthy, Martin Pengelly

Donald Trump referred to impeachment proceedings against him as a “ lynching ” in a Tuesday morning tweet , sparking condemnation for using such a racially charged word to describe his political predicament . The sadism of white men : why America must atone for its lynchings Read more “ So some day , ” the president wrote , “ if a Democrat becomes president and the Republicans win the House , even by a tiny margin , they can impeach the president , without due process or fairness or any legal rights . All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here – a lynching . But we will WIN ! ” The tweet fit with Trump ’ s history of racist remarks and his strategic use of cruelty , and some saw in it a political strategy . The tweet drew a chorus of outrage . “ That is one word that no president ought to apply to himself , ” the South Carolina representative James Clyburn , the House majority whip , said on CNN . “ I ’ m not just a politician … I ’ m a product of the south . I know the history of that word . ” The California representative Karen Bass , chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus , told CNN Trump ’ s “ lynching ” tweet was consistent with his pattern of throwing out “ racial bombs ” to give “ red meat ” to his base when his back is against the wall . Kamala Harris ( @ KamalaHarris ) Lynching is a reprehensible stain on this nation 's history , as is this President . We 'll never erase the pain and trauma of lynching , and to invoke that torture to whitewash your own corruption is disgraceful . https : //t.co/XOlsazwwRL “ You think this impeachment is a LYNCHING ? ” tweeted the Illinois representative Bobby Rush . “ What the hell is wrong with you ? Do you know how many people who look like me have been lynched , since the inception of this country , by people who look like you . Delete this tweet . ” “ Lynching is a reprehensible stain on this nation ’ s history , as is this president , ” wrote presidential candidate and California senator Kamala Harris . “ We ’ ll never erase the pain and trauma of lynching , and to invoke that torture to whitewash your own corruption is disgraceful . ” The New Jersey senator and 2020 hopeful Cory Booker tweeted : “ Lynching is an act of terror used to uphold white supremacy . Try again . ” Even Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell , a stalwart Trump ally , said the president had spoken poorly . “ Given the history in our country I would not compare this to a lynching , ” McConnell told reporters on Capitol Hill . “ That was an unfortunate choice of words . ” Some elected officials defended Trump . Senator Tim Scott , the sole African American Republican in Congress apart from one retiring representative , is from South Carolina . According to a report by the Equal Justice Initiative , between 1877 and 1950 , 184 African Americans were lynched there . “ There ’ s no question that the impeachment process is the closest thing to a political death row trial , so I get his absolute rejection of the process , ” Scott said . “ I wouldn ’ t use the word lynching . ” The White House claimed Trump had used the word innocently . “ The president has used many words , all types of language , to talk about the way the media has treated him , ” said deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley . “ The president wasn ’ t trying to compare himself to the horrific history in this country at all . ” But others saw a clear and familiar political play . “ When the polls get tough , Potus turns to race , ” tweeted Julian Zelizer , a historian at Princeton University . “ Lynching ? ! ” tweeted the New York Time columnist Charles Blow . “ Sir , don ’ t you DARE invoke the darkness of America ’ s viciousness toward black people to defend your corruption . How dare you ? ! … ” According to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ( NAACP ) , from 1882 to 1968 , “ 4,743 lynchings ” – that is , extrajudicial murders – “ occurred in the United States . Of these people that were lynched 3,446 were black . ” “ These numbers seem large , but it is known that not all of the lynchings were ever recorded . ” “ I ’ ve studied lynching for decades , ” wrote Sherrilyn Ifill , president of the NAACP legal defense and educational fund . “ Read hundreds of lynching accounts . Viewed almost scores of photographs . Wrote a book about lynching . Mr Trump ’ s actions & words are consistent w/those who incited lynching , not its victims . And that fact makes this tweet particularly grotesque . ” Carol Anderson , a professor of African American studies at Emory University , confronted Trump with a tweet evoking the horrifying torture enacted on lynching victims . “ You weren ’ t castrated & forced to eat your genitalia like Claude Neal , ” Anderson wrote . “ You weren ’ t dragged behind a car , doused w/gasoline & set on fire like Cleo Wright . You weren ’ t blow torched until your eyes popped out of your head like John Jones . That ’ s lynching ... ” America ’ s first lynching memorial and museum was opened in Montgomery , Alabama , last year . Play Video 7:02 Pain and terror : America remembers its past - video The impeachment inquiry being run by Democrats who control the House centres on Trump ’ s attempts to get Ukraine to investigate his political rivals . How white Americans used lynchings to terrorize and control black people Read more Article I of the US constitution grants the House “ the sole power of impeachment ” and Article II states that the president “ shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for , and Conviction of , Treason , Bribery , or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors ” . Lindsey Graham , the other South Carolina senator , said the process of impeachment against Trump “ is a lynching in every sense ” . Steve Vladeck , a law professor at the University of Texas , answered with “ a non-exhaustive list of key senses in which impeachment is not a lynching ” . “ 1 ) It is not racially motivated . 2 ) It is a legal process expressly set forth in the text of the constitution . 3 ) It doesn ’ t result in death of person being lynched . ”

Donald Trump referred to impeachment proceedings against him as a “lynching” in a Tuesday morning tweet, sparking condemnation for using such a racially charged word to describe his political predicament. The sadism of white men: why America must atone for its lynchings Read more “So some day,” the president wrote, “if a Democrat becomes president and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the president, without due process or fairness or any legal rights. All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here – a lynching. But we will WIN!” The tweet fit with Trump’s history of racist remarks and his strategic use of cruelty, and some saw in it a political strategy. The tweet drew a chorus of outrage. “That is one word that no president ought to apply to himself,” the South Carolina representative James Clyburn, the House majority whip, said on CNN. “I’m not just a politician … I’m a product of the south. I know the history of that word.” The California representative Karen Bass, chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, told CNN Trump’s “lynching” tweet was consistent with his pattern of throwing out “racial bombs” to give “red meat” to his base when his back is against the wall. Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) Lynching is a reprehensible stain on this nation's history, as is this President. We'll never erase the pain and trauma of lynching, and to invoke that torture to whitewash your own corruption is disgraceful. https://t.co/XOlsazwwRL “You think this impeachment is a LYNCHING?” tweeted the Illinois representative Bobby Rush. “What the hell is wrong with you? Do you know how many people who look like me have been lynched, since the inception of this country, by people who look like you. Delete this tweet.” “Lynching is a reprehensible stain on this nation’s history, as is this president,” wrote presidential candidate and California senator Kamala Harris. “We’ll never erase the pain and trauma of lynching, and to invoke that torture to whitewash your own corruption is disgraceful.” The New Jersey senator and 2020 hopeful Cory Booker tweeted: “Lynching is an act of terror used to uphold white supremacy. Try again.” Even Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, a stalwart Trump ally, said the president had spoken poorly. “Given the history in our country I would not compare this to a lynching,” McConnell told reporters on Capitol Hill. “That was an unfortunate choice of words.” Some elected officials defended Trump. Senator Tim Scott, the sole African American Republican in Congress apart from one retiring representative, is from South Carolina. According to a report by the Equal Justice Initiative, between 1877 and 1950, 184 African Americans were lynched there. “There’s no question that the impeachment process is the closest thing to a political death row trial, so I get his absolute rejection of the process,” Scott said. “I wouldn’t use the word lynching.” The White House claimed Trump had used the word innocently. “The president has used many words, all types of language, to talk about the way the media has treated him,” said deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley. “The president wasn’t trying to compare himself to the horrific history in this country at all.” But others saw a clear and familiar political play. “When the polls get tough, Potus turns to race,” tweeted Julian Zelizer, a historian at Princeton University. “Lynching?!” tweeted the New York Time columnist Charles Blow. “Sir, don’t you DARE invoke the darkness of America’s viciousness toward black people to defend your corruption. How dare you?!…” This is a lynching in every sense Lindsey Graham According to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), from 1882 to 1968, “4,743 lynchings” – that is, extrajudicial murders – “occurred in the United States. Of these people that were lynched 3,446 were black.” “These numbers seem large, but it is known that not all of the lynchings were ever recorded.” “I’ve studied lynching for decades,” wrote Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP legal defense and educational fund. “Read hundreds of lynching accounts. Viewed almost scores of photographs. Wrote a book about lynching. Mr Trump’s actions & words are consistent w/those who incited lynching, not its victims. And that fact makes this tweet particularly grotesque.” Carol Anderson, a professor of African American studies at Emory University, confronted Trump with a tweet evoking the horrifying torture enacted on lynching victims. “You weren’t castrated & forced to eat your genitalia like Claude Neal,” Anderson wrote. “You weren’t dragged behind a car, doused w/gasoline & set on fire like Cleo Wright. You weren’t blow torched until your eyes popped out of your head like John Jones. That’s lynching...” America’s first lynching memorial and museum was opened in Montgomery, Alabama, last year. Play Video 7:02 Pain and terror: America remembers its past - video The impeachment inquiry being run by Democrats who control the House centres on Trump’s attempts to get Ukraine to investigate his political rivals. How white Americans used lynchings to terrorize and control black people Read more Article I of the US constitution grants the House “the sole power of impeachment” and Article II states that the president “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Lindsey Graham, the other South Carolina senator, said the process of impeachment against Trump “is a lynching in every sense”. Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, answered with “a non-exhaustive list of key senses in which impeachment is not a lynching”. “1) It is not racially motivated. 2) It is a legal process expressly set forth in the text of the constitution. 3) It doesn’t result in death of person being lynched.”

www.theguardian.com

left

VS8y0J5fvg0J4B1O

test

EMrTG9CpUsrX9mHO

palestine

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-palestinians-hospitals/trump-axes-25-million-in-aid-for-palestinians-in-east-jerusalem-hospitals-idUSKCN1LO0O0

Trump axes $25 million in aid for Palestinians in East Jerusalem hospitals

2018-09-08

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - U.S. President Donald Trump has ordered that $ 25 million earmarked for the care of Palestinians in East Jerusalem hospitals be directed elsewhere as part of a review of aid , a State Department official said on Saturday . FILE PHOTO - U.S. President Donald Trump walks to Marine One while departing the White House in Washington , U.S. , September 6 , 2018 . ███/Chris Wattie Trump called for a review of U.S. assistance to the Palestinians earlier this year to ensure that the funds were being spent in accordance with national interests and were providing value to taxpayers . “ As a result of that review , at the direction of the President , we will be redirecting approximately $ 25 million originally planned for the East Jerusalem Hospital Network , ” the State Department official said . “ Those funds will go to high-priority projects elsewhere . ” The aid cut is the latest in a number of actions by the Trump administration that have alienated the Palestinians , including the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel ’ s capital and moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv . That move reversed longtime U.S. policy and led Palestinian leadership to boycott Washington peace efforts led by Jared Kushner , Trump ’ s senior adviser and son-in-law . Last month , the Trump administration said it would redirect $ 200 million in Palestinian economic support funds for programs in the West Bank and Gaza . And at the end of August , the Trump administration halted all funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees ( UNRWA ) , a decision that further heightened tensions with the Palestinian leadership . Palestinian refugees have reacted with dismay to the funding cuts , warning they would lead to more poverty , anger and instability in the Middle East . A statement from the Palestinian Foreign Ministry said the latest aid cut was part of a U.S. attempt “ to liquidate the Palestinian cause ” and said it would threaten the lives of thousands of Palestinians and the livelihoods of thousands of hospital employees . “ This dangerous and unjustified American escalation has crossed all red lines and is considered a direct aggression against the Palestinian people , ” it said . At the gates of two of the East Jerusalem hospitals affected , medical staff were aware of the decision but refused to comment . One of the centers , Al Makassed Islamic Charitable Society Hospital , said in statement the U.S. aid cuts come as the “ hospital is going through a suffocating crisis as a result of the lack of flow of financial aid , and the piling up of debts and funds held back by the Palestinian government ” . It said it had received 45 million shekels ( $ 12.5 million ) of the U.S. money to treat patients from the West Bank , Gaza and East Jerusalem . In the statement hospital CEO Dr. Bassam Abu Libdeh “ questioned the justification behind mixing political issues with medical and humanitarian issues . ” The last round of U.S.-brokered Palestinian-Israeli peace talks collapsed in 2014 .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump has ordered that $25 million earmarked for the care of Palestinians in East Jerusalem hospitals be directed elsewhere as part of a review of aid, a State Department official said on Saturday. FILE PHOTO - U.S. President Donald Trump walks to Marine One while departing the White House in Washington, U.S., September 6, 2018. REUTERS/Chris Wattie Trump called for a review of U.S. assistance to the Palestinians earlier this year to ensure that the funds were being spent in accordance with national interests and were providing value to taxpayers. “As a result of that review, at the direction of the President, we will be redirecting approximately $25 million originally planned for the East Jerusalem Hospital Network,” the State Department official said. “Those funds will go to high-priority projects elsewhere.” The aid cut is the latest in a number of actions by the Trump administration that have alienated the Palestinians, including the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. That move reversed longtime U.S. policy and led Palestinian leadership to boycott Washington peace efforts led by Jared Kushner, Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law. Last month, the Trump administration said it would redirect $200 million in Palestinian economic support funds for programs in the West Bank and Gaza. And at the end of August, the Trump administration halted all funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), a decision that further heightened tensions with the Palestinian leadership. Palestinian refugees have reacted with dismay to the funding cuts, warning they would lead to more poverty, anger and instability in the Middle East. A statement from the Palestinian Foreign Ministry said the latest aid cut was part of a U.S. attempt “to liquidate the Palestinian cause” and said it would threaten the lives of thousands of Palestinians and the livelihoods of thousands of hospital employees. “This dangerous and unjustified American escalation has crossed all red lines and is considered a direct aggression against the Palestinian people,” it said. At the gates of two of the East Jerusalem hospitals affected, medical staff were aware of the decision but refused to comment. One of the centers, Al Makassed Islamic Charitable Society Hospital, said in statement the U.S. aid cuts come as the “hospital is going through a suffocating crisis as a result of the lack of flow of financial aid, and the piling up of debts and funds held back by the Palestinian government”. It said it had received 45 million shekels ($12.5 million) of the U.S. money to treat patients from the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. In the statement hospital CEO Dr. Bassam Abu Libdeh “questioned the justification behind mixing political issues with medical and humanitarian issues.” The last round of U.S.-brokered Palestinian-Israeli peace talks collapsed in 2014.

www.reuters.com

center

EMrTG9CpUsrX9mHO

test

YgoDBBhAj661c3Uf

politics

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41708854

Trump says he will allow scheduled release of JFK files

Donald Trump has said he plans to allow the opening of a trove of long-classified files on the assassination of former president John F Kennedy . The president tweeted to say he would allow the release `` subject to receipt of further information '' . The files are scheduled to be opened by the US National Archives on 26 October , but the president is entitled to extend their classified status . Kennedy was shot dead by a sniper on 22 November 1963 in Dallas , Texas . The National Archives has already released most documents related to the assassination but a final batch remains under lock and key . `` Subject to the receipt of further information , I will be allowing , as President , the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be opened , '' Trump said in a tweet . Congress ruled in 1992 that all JFK documents should be released within 25 years , unless the president decided the release would harm national security . The archive contains more than 3,000 previously unreleased documents , and more than 30,000 that have been released before but with redactions . It is unclear whether Mr Trump intends to allow the release in full or with redactions . Kennedy assassination experts do not think the last batch of papers contains any bombshells , according to a Washington Post report . But the files may shed more light on Lee Harvey Oswald 's activities in Mexico City just months before the assassination . Oswald was arrested in Dallas on the day of the shooting and charged with the president 's murder . He denied the charges , claiming he was a `` just a patsy '' . He was gunned down by nightclub owner Jack Ruby while in police custody two days later , and the plot to kill Kennedy became the most powerful conspiracy theory in American history . `` The American public deserves to know the facts , or at least they deserve to know what the government has kept hidden from them for all these years , '' Larry Sabato , director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics and author of a book about Kennedy , told the Associated Press news agency . `` It 's long past the time to be forthcoming with this information . '' Get news from the BBC in your inbox , each weekday morning

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption President John F Kennedy was given a state funeral, after hundreds of thousands of people viewed his casket Donald Trump has said he plans to allow the opening of a trove of long-classified files on the assassination of former president John F Kennedy. The president tweeted to say he would allow the release "subject to receipt of further information". The files are scheduled to be opened by the US National Archives on 26 October, but the president is entitled to extend their classified status. Kennedy was shot dead by a sniper on 22 November 1963 in Dallas, Texas. The National Archives has already released most documents related to the assassination but a final batch remains under lock and key. "Subject to the receipt of further information, I will be allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be opened," Trump said in a tweet. Congress ruled in 1992 that all JFK documents should be released within 25 years, unless the president decided the release would harm national security. The archive contains more than 3,000 previously unreleased documents, and more than 30,000 that have been released before but with redactions. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption JFK at 100: 'His life was not as glamorous as you think' It is unclear whether Mr Trump intends to allow the release in full or with redactions. Kennedy assassination experts do not think the last batch of papers contains any bombshells, according to a Washington Post report. But the files may shed more light on Lee Harvey Oswald's activities in Mexico City just months before the assassination. Oswald was arrested in Dallas on the day of the shooting and charged with the president's murder. He denied the charges, claiming he was a "just a patsy". He was gunned down by nightclub owner Jack Ruby while in police custody two days later, and the plot to kill Kennedy became the most powerful conspiracy theory in American history. "The American public deserves to know the facts, or at least they deserve to know what the government has kept hidden from them for all these years," Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics and author of a book about Kennedy, told the Associated Press news agency. "It's long past the time to be forthcoming with this information." Get news from the BBC in your inbox, each weekday morning

www.bbc.com

center

YgoDBBhAj661c3Uf

test

aBwvtgYGR3VspwBZ

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Rand-Paul-Jeb-Bush-Iraq-War-intelligence/2015/05/19/id/645462/

Rand Paul Goes on the Offensive Over the Iraq War

2015-05-19

Melanie Batley

As 2016 presidential hopefuls continue to weigh in on the Iraq War , Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has put forward his noninterventionist view , implying a direct contrast with former Florida Gov . Jeb Bush . `` We 've had the same question repeatedly : is it a good idea to go in and topple a secular dictator and try to build a nation ? '' Paul said On CNN 's `` New Day '' Tuesday morning . `` Every time we 've toppled a secular dictator in the Middle East , we 've gotten something worse and less stable . `` `` It shows some differences between the candidates , '' Paul continued . `` If you want another Iraq War , you know who they can vote for . If they want somebody who will only go to war when it 's the last resort , when we have to defend America or American interests , there are going to be some other alternatives . `` Bush caused a media stir last week after telling Fox News ' Megyn Kelly that he would have authorized the Iraq War , not realizing that the question was based on hindsight . He subsequently made two different statements , refusing to answer a hypothetical , before finally saying that he would not have backed an invasion knowing the intelligence we have today . Paul said in an interview last week that invading Iraq was `` a mistake . `` `` I think every day we look at the mess of the chaos of the civil war in Iraq , I think every day people become more and more convinced that the war was a mistake , '' he told Politico . `` I think we have to learn from the mistakes of our past . '' A Rasmussen Reports survey released Monday found that 64 percent of likely voters feel a candidate 's position on the Iraq War is of significance while just 32 percent say that it is not important . Twenty-six percent say it is very important while just 8 percent say it is not at all important .

As 2016 presidential hopefuls continue to weigh in on the Iraq War, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has put forward his noninterventionist view, implying a direct contrast with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush."We've had the same question repeatedly: is it a good idea to go in and topple a secular dictator and try to build a nation?" Paul said On CNN's "New Day" Tuesday morning. "Every time we've toppled a secular dictator in the Middle East, we've gotten something worse and less stable.""It shows some differences between the candidates," Paul continued. "If you want another Iraq War, you know who they can vote for. If they want somebody who will only go to war when it's the last resort, when we have to defend America or American interests, there are going to be some other alternatives."Bush caused a media stir last week after telling Fox News' Megyn Kelly that he would have authorized the Iraq War, not realizing that the question was based on hindsight. He subsequently made two different statements, refusing to answer a hypothetical, before finally saying that he would not have backed an invasion knowing the intelligence we have today. Paul said in an interview last week that invading Iraq was "a mistake.""I think every day we look at the mess of the chaos of the civil war in Iraq, I think every day people become more and more convinced that the war was a mistake," he told Politico. "I think we have to learn from the mistakes of our past." A Rasmussen Reports survey released Monday found that 64 percent of likely voters feel a candidate's position on the Iraq War is of significance while just 32 percent say that it is not important. Twenty-six percent say it is very important while just 8 percent say it is not at all important.

www.newsmax.com

right

aBwvtgYGR3VspwBZ

test

L8UsJ1LjtFaRTOUQ

media_bias

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/03/30/cbs-news-footage-italian-hospital-report-new-york-coronavirus/

CBS News Airs Footage Of Italian Hospital While Reporting On New York’s Coronavirus Crisis

2020-03-30

CBS News aired footage of an Italian hospital while reporting on New York hospitals and the ventilator shortage on March 25 . “ CBS This Morning ” discussed Democratic New York Gov . Andrew Cuomo ’ s allegation that the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA ) only gave the state 400 ventilators when they needed 30,000 . ( RELATED : Kentucky Gun Range Confirms ABC ’ s ‘ Syrian Combat Footage ’ Comes From Its Range ) The network aired footage of a crowded hospital room with the implication , based on what was being reported , that it was taken at a hospital in New York . However , this hospital was seen in footage during a Sky News segment on Italian hospitals and the novel coronavirus crisis that aired on March 22 . “ It was an editing mistake . We took immediate steps to remove it from all platforms and shows , ” a CBS spokesperson said in a statement to ███ . ” When talking about the Coronavirus outbreak in New York City , @ CBSNews aired footage of a hospital in Italy . Especially in times of a crisis where people are already in a panic , the Media needs to give accurate information . Irresponsible . “ CBS This Morning ” aired a short clip of Dr. Deborah Birx , coordinator of the White House coronavirus response team , expressing her concern about the New York City and New York metro area . “ That is because more than half of the nation ’ s new Coronavirus cases are being found right here , ” CBS News reported after Birx ’ s clip . “ Crowded Subway cars may have accelerated the spread . New York ’ s governor says FEMA gave the state 400 ventilators . ” The segment cut away to Cuomo bashing FEMA for an apparent lack of ventilators . This is when CBS News showed footage that Sky News had reported as being from an Italian hospital , despite CBS ’ s report being entirely focused on New York ’ s coronavirus crisis . “ This is the main hospital in Bergamo , in Lombardy province . It ’ s one of the most advanced hospitals in Europe , ” Sky News reported as it aired the footage shown days later by CBS News during its New York segment .

CBS News aired footage of an Italian hospital while reporting on New York hospitals and the ventilator shortage on March 25. “CBS This Morning” discussed Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s allegation that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) only gave the state 400 ventilators when they needed 30,000. (RELATED: Kentucky Gun Range Confirms ABC’s ‘Syrian Combat Footage’ Comes From Its Range) The network aired footage of a crowded hospital room with the implication, based on what was being reported, that it was taken at a hospital in New York. However, this hospital was seen in footage during a Sky News segment on Italian hospitals and the novel coronavirus crisis that aired on March 22. “It was an editing mistake. We took immediate steps to remove it from all platforms and shows,” a CBS spokesperson said in a statement to the Daily Caller.” WATCH: When talking about the Coronavirus outbreak in New York City, @CBSNews aired footage of a hospital in Italy. Especially in times of a crisis where people are already in a panic, the Media needs to give accurate information. Irresponsible. pic.twitter.com/k2C8GWFS2J — Benny (@bennyjohnson) March 30, 2020 “CBS This Morning” aired a short clip of Dr. Deborah Birx, coordinator of the White House coronavirus response team, expressing her concern about the New York City and New York metro area. “That is because more than half of the nation’s new Coronavirus cases are being found right here,” CBS News reported after Birx’s clip. “Crowded Subway cars may have accelerated the spread. New York’s governor says FEMA gave the state 400 ventilators.” The segment cut away to Cuomo bashing FEMA for an apparent lack of ventilators. This is when CBS News showed footage that Sky News had reported as being from an Italian hospital, despite CBS’s report being entirely focused on New York’s coronavirus crisis. “This is the main hospital in Bergamo, in Lombardy province. It’s one of the most advanced hospitals in Europe,” Sky News reported as it aired the footage shown days later by CBS News during its New York segment.

www.dailycaller.com

right

L8UsJ1LjtFaRTOUQ

test

X9oG6ZQUTbVwpjox

us_military

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/825e94e2f8b340aab6151b47e0aff161

Trump thanks troops on Afghan visit, says Taliban want deal

2019-11-28

Jill Colvin

President Donald Trump holds up a tray of Thanksgiving dinner during a surprise Thanksgiving Day visit to the troops , Thursday , Nov. 28 , 2019 , at Bagram Air Field , Afghanistan . ( AP Photo/Alex Brandon ) President Donald Trump holds up a tray of Thanksgiving dinner during a surprise Thanksgiving Day visit to the troops , Thursday , Nov. 28 , 2019 , at Bagram Air Field , Afghanistan . ( AP Photo/Alex Brandon ) BAGRAM AIR FIELD , Afghanistan ( AP ) — President Donald Trump paid a surprise Thanksgiving visit to Afghanistan , where he announced the U.S. and the Taliban have been engaged in ongoing peace talks and said he believes the Taliban want a cease-fire . Trump arrived at Bagram Air Field shortly after 8:30 p.m. local time Thursday and spent 3½ hours on the ground during his first trip to the site of America ’ s longest war . He served turkey and thanked the troops , delivered a speech and sat down with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani before leaving just after midnight . He arrived back in Florida , where he is spending the holiday weekend , early Friday morning local time . As per tradition , reporters were under strict instructions to keep the trip a secret to ensure the president ’ s safety in Afghanistan . About 12,000 U.S. forces remain in the country . Traveling with Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming and a small clutch of aides , including his acting chief of staff , press secretary and national security adviser , Trump appeared in good spirits as he was escorted around the base by heavily armed soldiers , as the smell of burning fuel and garbage wafted through the chilly air . Unlike last year ’ s post-Christmas visit to Iraq — his first to an active combat zone — first lady Melania Trump did not make the trip . Trump ’ s first stop was a dining hall , where the crowd erupted into cheers when he arrived . There , he served turkey to soldiers dressed in fatigues and sat down for a meal . But he said he only tasted the mashed potatoes before he was pulled away for photos . “ I never got the turkey , ” he told the troops . “ A gorgeous piece of turkey . ” During his visit , Trump announced that the U.S. and Taliban have been engaged in peace talks and insisted the Taliban want to make a deal after heavy U.S. fire in recent months . “ We ’ re meeting with them , ” he said . “ And we ’ re saying it has to be a cease-fire . And they don ’ t want to do a cease-fire , but now they do want to do a cease-fire , I believe ... and we ’ ll see what happens . ” The trip came after Trump abruptly broke off peace talks with the Taliban in September , canceling a secret meeting with Taliban and Afghan leaders at the Camp David presidential retreat after a particularly deadly spate of violence , capped by a bombing in Kabul that killed 12 people , including an American soldier . That ended a nearly yearlong effort by the U.S. to reach a political settlement with the Taliban , the group that protected al-Qaida extremists in Afghanistan , prompting U.S. military action after the Sept. 11 , 2001 , terrorist attacks . U.S. and international forces have been on the ground ever since . It was not immediately clear how long or substantive the U.S. reengagement with the Taliban has been . Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said the Taliban ’ s stance is unchanged . He said the United States broke off talks and when it wants to resume the Taliban are ready . Trump ran his 2016 campaign promising to end the nation ’ s “ endless wars ” and has been pushing to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and in the Middle East despite protests from top U.S. officials , Trump ’ s Republican allies in Washington and many U.S. allies abroad . For months now , he has described American forces as “ policemen ” and argued that other countries ’ wars should be theirs to wage . Tens of thousands of Afghan civilians and more than 2,400 American service members have been killed since the war began 18 years ago . Just last week , Trump flew to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to oversee the transfer of the remains of two Army officers killed when their helicopter crashed as they provided security for troops on the ground in Logar province in eastern Afghanistan . The Taliban still control or hold sway over about half of the country , staging near daily attacks targeting Afghan forces and government officials . The U.S. and the Taliban in September had been close to an agreement that might have enabled a U.S. troop withdrawal . Nonetheless , Trump said Thursday that he was proceeding with a plan to reduce U.S. troop levels to about 8,600 , telling reporters we ’ re “ bringing down the number of troops substantially . ” Still , he said , the U.S. will stay in the country “ until we have a deal or we have total victory . ” Trump made the announcement as he met with Ghani , the Afghan president . Ghani thanked the Americans who have made the “ ultimate sacrifice ” in Afghanistan and assured the president that Afghan security forces are increasingly leading the fight . “ In the next three months , it ’ s going to be all Afghanistan ! ” Ghani said . Ghani also praised Trump for the October mission that killed Islamic State group leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi . The Afghan leader also indicated , as Trump himself has , that the al-Baghdadi mission was even more significant than the 2011 mission targeting al-Qaida founder Osama bin Laden . The bin Laden mission was ordered by then-President Barack Obama . “ President Trump , people talked a lot about bin Laden , but what you did to eliminate al-Baghdadi , who was an organizer and not a talker , is a much greater accomplishment , ” said Ghani , in remarks to U.S. troops before Trump ’ s departure . The trip came a week after the Taliban freed an American and an Australian who had been held hostage since 2016 in exchange for three top Taliban figures , a move that has been widely seen as a possible entree to rekindling peace talks . The White House took pains to keep the trip a secret after Trump ’ s cover was blown last year when Air Force One was spotted en route to Iraq by an amateur British flight watcher . Cellphones and other transmitting devices were confiscated for most of the trip from everyone traveling aboard Air Force One . And Thanksgiving-themed tweets were teed up to publish ahead of time from Trump ’ s account to prevent suspicions arising about the president ’ s silence . A small group of reporters was told to meet Wednesday night on the top floor of a parking garage in Maryland and was transported in black vans to Andrews Air Force Base . Nobody would confirm where he was going . The only guidance : Dress casually and warmly . Meanwhile , the president was secretly flying back from Florida , where reporters had been told he ’ d be spending Thanksgiving at his Mar-a-Lago club . The plane he ’ d flown to Florida — the modified 747 painted in the iconic white and blue of Air Force One — remained parked on the tarmac at the West Palm Beach airport to avoid revealing the president ’ s movement . About 9:45 p.m. Wednesday , the president boarded a nearly identical plane concealed in a hangar at Andrews Air Force Base , taking off and landing under the cover of darkness , with cabin lights dimmed and window shutters drawn . White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said plans for the visit had been in the works for weeks . “ It ’ s a dangerous area and he wants to support the troops , ” Grisham told reporters before Trump landed . “ He and Mrs. Trump recognize that there ’ s a lot of people who are away from their families during the holidays , and we thought it ’ d be a nice surprise . ” The president told the troops he was honored to spend part of his holiday with them . “ There is nowhere I ’ d rather celebrate this Thanksgiving than right here with the toughest , strongest , best and bravest warriors on the face of the earth , ” Trump said .

President Donald Trump holds up a tray of Thanksgiving dinner during a surprise Thanksgiving Day visit to the troops, Thursday, Nov. 28, 2019, at Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) President Donald Trump holds up a tray of Thanksgiving dinner during a surprise Thanksgiving Day visit to the troops, Thursday, Nov. 28, 2019, at Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) BAGRAM AIR FIELD, Afghanistan (AP) — President Donald Trump paid a surprise Thanksgiving visit to Afghanistan, where he announced the U.S. and the Taliban have been engaged in ongoing peace talks and said he believes the Taliban want a cease-fire. Trump arrived at Bagram Air Field shortly after 8:30 p.m. local time Thursday and spent 3½ hours on the ground during his first trip to the site of America’s longest war. He served turkey and thanked the troops, delivered a speech and sat down with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani before leaving just after midnight. He arrived back in Florida, where he is spending the holiday weekend, early Friday morning local time. As per tradition, reporters were under strict instructions to keep the trip a secret to ensure the president’s safety in Afghanistan. About 12,000 U.S. forces remain in the country. Traveling with Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming and a small clutch of aides, including his acting chief of staff, press secretary and national security adviser, Trump appeared in good spirits as he was escorted around the base by heavily armed soldiers, as the smell of burning fuel and garbage wafted through the chilly air. Unlike last year’s post-Christmas visit to Iraq — his first to an active combat zone — first lady Melania Trump did not make the trip. Trump’s first stop was a dining hall, where the crowd erupted into cheers when he arrived. There, he served turkey to soldiers dressed in fatigues and sat down for a meal. But he said he only tasted the mashed potatoes before he was pulled away for photos. “I never got the turkey,” he told the troops. “A gorgeous piece of turkey.” During his visit, Trump announced that the U.S. and Taliban have been engaged in peace talks and insisted the Taliban want to make a deal after heavy U.S. fire in recent months. “We’re meeting with them,” he said. “And we’re saying it has to be a cease-fire. And they don’t want to do a cease-fire, but now they do want to do a cease-fire, I believe ... and we’ll see what happens.” The trip came after Trump abruptly broke off peace talks with the Taliban in September, canceling a secret meeting with Taliban and Afghan leaders at the Camp David presidential retreat after a particularly deadly spate of violence, capped by a bombing in Kabul that killed 12 people, including an American soldier. That ended a nearly yearlong effort by the U.S. to reach a political settlement with the Taliban, the group that protected al-Qaida extremists in Afghanistan, prompting U.S. military action after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. U.S. and international forces have been on the ground ever since. It was not immediately clear how long or substantive the U.S. reengagement with the Taliban has been. Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said the Taliban’s stance is unchanged. He said the United States broke off talks and when it wants to resume the Taliban are ready. Trump ran his 2016 campaign promising to end the nation’s “endless wars” and has been pushing to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and in the Middle East despite protests from top U.S. officials, Trump’s Republican allies in Washington and many U.S. allies abroad. For months now, he has described American forces as “policemen” and argued that other countries’ wars should be theirs to wage. Tens of thousands of Afghan civilians and more than 2,400 American service members have been killed since the war began 18 years ago. Just last week, Trump flew to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to oversee the transfer of the remains of two Army officers killed when their helicopter crashed as they provided security for troops on the ground in Logar province in eastern Afghanistan. The Taliban still control or hold sway over about half of the country, staging near daily attacks targeting Afghan forces and government officials. The U.S. and the Taliban in September had been close to an agreement that might have enabled a U.S. troop withdrawal. Nonetheless, Trump said Thursday that he was proceeding with a plan to reduce U.S. troop levels to about 8,600, telling reporters we’re “bringing down the number of troops substantially.” Still, he said, the U.S. will stay in the country “until we have a deal or we have total victory.” Trump made the announcement as he met with Ghani, the Afghan president. Ghani thanked the Americans who have made the “ultimate sacrifice” in Afghanistan and assured the president that Afghan security forces are increasingly leading the fight. “In the next three months, it’s going to be all Afghanistan!” Ghani said. Ghani also praised Trump for the October mission that killed Islamic State group leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The Afghan leader also indicated, as Trump himself has, that the al-Baghdadi mission was even more significant than the 2011 mission targeting al-Qaida founder Osama bin Laden. The bin Laden mission was ordered by then-President Barack Obama. “President Trump, people talked a lot about bin Laden, but what you did to eliminate al-Baghdadi, who was an organizer and not a talker, is a much greater accomplishment,” said Ghani, in remarks to U.S. troops before Trump’s departure. The trip came a week after the Taliban freed an American and an Australian who had been held hostage since 2016 in exchange for three top Taliban figures, a move that has been widely seen as a possible entree to rekindling peace talks. The White House took pains to keep the trip a secret after Trump’s cover was blown last year when Air Force One was spotted en route to Iraq by an amateur British flight watcher. Cellphones and other transmitting devices were confiscated for most of the trip from everyone traveling aboard Air Force One. And Thanksgiving-themed tweets were teed up to publish ahead of time from Trump’s account to prevent suspicions arising about the president’s silence. A small group of reporters was told to meet Wednesday night on the top floor of a parking garage in Maryland and was transported in black vans to Andrews Air Force Base. Nobody would confirm where he was going. The only guidance: Dress casually and warmly. Meanwhile, the president was secretly flying back from Florida, where reporters had been told he’d be spending Thanksgiving at his Mar-a-Lago club. The plane he’d flown to Florida — the modified 747 painted in the iconic white and blue of Air Force One — remained parked on the tarmac at the West Palm Beach airport to avoid revealing the president’s movement. About 9:45 p.m. Wednesday, the president boarded a nearly identical plane concealed in a hangar at Andrews Air Force Base, taking off and landing under the cover of darkness, with cabin lights dimmed and window shutters drawn. White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said plans for the visit had been in the works for weeks. “It’s a dangerous area and he wants to support the troops,” Grisham told reporters before Trump landed. “He and Mrs. Trump recognize that there’s a lot of people who are away from their families during the holidays, and we thought it’d be a nice surprise.” The president told the troops he was honored to spend part of his holiday with them. “There is nowhere I’d rather celebrate this Thanksgiving than right here with the toughest, strongest, best and bravest warriors on the face of the earth,” Trump said. ___ Associated Press writers Aamer Madhani and Deb Riechmann in Washington contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

X9oG6ZQUTbVwpjox

test

YJkhUPJdSowEwO3q

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/2019/11/02/impeachment-is-both-the-cause-and-the-effect-of-a-too-powerful-presidency/

Impeachment Is Both the Cause and the Effect of a Too-Powerful Presidency

2019-11-02

Katherine Mangu-Ward, Christian Britschgi, Josh Blackman, Xander Peters, Cosmo Wenman, Joe Setyon, Zuri Davis

By focusing all of its efforts on impeachment during a presidential campaign , Congress has given away the game : Its members are little more than pawns in a winner-take-all battle for the presidency and its vast and ever-growing powers . Worse , they seem to prefer it that way . Impeachment is messy , like digging out the pit from an overripe peach . The formal process is difficult for Americans to comprehend . The criteria are blurry and debatable . It requires nearly everyone involved to perform some amount of hypocritical partisan contortionism . It 's the bluntest of instruments in politics , and that 's really saying something . Because of this confusingly contingent nature of impeachment , many in Congress are currently extremely busy practicing `` strategic silence . '' They 're waiting to see whether the 58 percent of Americans who told Washington Post/Schar pollsters in early October that they support the impeachment inquiry will stick to their guns ( and whether the number of likely Republican voters in their midst will grow larger ) . But it is increasingly clear that , especially for party leadership in Congress , the game is worth the candle . The game is worth a whole candelabra , in fact . A chandelier , even . Impeachments are becoming more frequent , with only one—of Andrew Johnson in 1868—in the first couple centuries of U.S. history and three ( yes , we 're counting Nixon ) in the last 50 years . It 's not a coincidence that the latter period has also seen unprecedented growth in the powers of the president and in the number of dollars and lives at his disposal . Even the substance of the narrow matter at hand in 2019 demonstrates this dynamic . At issue in the impeachment inquiry—at least at press time , since these things have a tendency to develop quickly—is the implication of a quid pro quo offered to a foreign leader in a phone call with Donald Trump . Depending on your reading of the evidence , the president may or may not have intentionally given the impression that the price of U.S. military aid to Ukraine was some kind of dirt on a political rival , Joe Biden . There are two ways to prevent this kind of alleged self-interested self-dealing from the White House . One option would be to elect a person of high moral character who also has a well-developed understanding of the rules and strictures that govern the office—someone who is inclined to respect those rules in letter and spirit as well as to honor the guidelines for transparency that allow other government officials and the press to verify the upright and noble exercise of his vast authority . We would then have to locate , nominate , and elect such a person every four to eight years unto eternity . We would have to trust not only that each president embodies all of these traits but also that he has surrounded himself with similarly virtuous characters . And we would have to assume that coming into possession of such powers is not itself corrupting . Good luck ! Another option would be to limit the power of the presidency . This approach is also difficult , but it can be done . In today 's case , the problem could have been avoided by the simple expedient of making it impossible for any president to control the disbursement of millions of dollars to foreign leaders at his own discretion , and by making that restriction on his authority so clear that favor seekers could have no plausible misunderstanding about who holds the purse strings . There are matters that are genuinely the business of the executive , the all-important Supreme Court appointments among them . But it is not the case that , as Trump has asserted , `` I have an Article II where I have the right to do whatever I want as president . '' In pursuing impeachment to the exclusion of all else , Congress has muddled the message about its own prerogatives and complicated its defense of them , all while dramatically reducing the time and energy available to actually exercise those prerogatives in a responsible manner . Impeachment , at least as it is currently being practiced , does not restrict the vast powers of the president—it 's merely an attempt to wrest those powers from a particular man . `` As I learn more and more each day , I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment , it is a COUP , intended to take away the Power of the People , their VOTE , their Freedoms , their Second Amendment , Religion , Military , Border Wall , and their God-given rights as a Citizen of The United States of America ! '' This was Trump 's analysis of those early October impeachment inquiry polls . And he was n't the only one floating the idea that impeachment proceedings would be somehow contrary to the democratic spirit . As Sen. Ted Cruz ( R–Texas ) told MSNBC 's Chris Hayes in October , `` The fact that he should n't have gone down that road is a long way from saying , 'Therefore , he should be impeached and forcibly removed from office after the American people have voted in a presidential election . ' '' But what is in fact contrary to the democratic spirit is the monarchical idea that the president alone is the embodiment of the power of the people , the lone defender of our rights . That 's a big job . And the Founders , in their great and unmatched wisdom , saw fit to distribute it across a rather large cast of characters . They gave the House the impeachment power in order to make coups unnecessary . The existence of elections can not logically make impeachments a violation of the democratic process . Every president who has been impeached was , after all , voted into office first . Trump could very well be re-elected post-impeachment . And any attempt by Congress at that point to prevent him from being sworn in a second time would indeed be undemocratic , unconstitutional , and unconscionable—an actual coup . Rather than squabble over the presidency , Congress can and should reassert its considerable constitutional powers . It could start by reclaiming the sole right to declare war and rediscovering its lawmaking authority , the latter of which it has ceded to executive branch bureaucrats out of laziness , cowardice , and general ineptitude in the face of genuinely difficult work . But there 's little evidence the legislative branch has any intention of doing that . If , at the end of all this , President Mike Pence sits behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office , what has been accomplished ? His presidential pen , phone , and Twitter account will still retain the same outsized power as his predecessors ' . He will be just as tempted to abuse that power and just as alone in his burden . And if , on the first Tuesday of November , President Biden emerges victorious ( or President Warren , or President Sanders , or even President Amash ) , we will still have the same destructive imbalance between the branches , the same motivation to go all-in on the battle for the presidency , and the same incentives to begin calling for impeachment proceedings on the Wednesday morning after each Election Day , before the new president even takes office . Impeachment is the hair of the dog after an all-night executive power bender . Sure , a Bloody Mary might make you feel better for a little while . But in the long run , it might be better to get off the sauce entirely .

By focusing all of its efforts on impeachment during a presidential campaign, Congress has given away the game: Its members are little more than pawns in a winner-take-all battle for the presidency and its vast and ever-growing powers. Worse, they seem to prefer it that way. Impeachment is messy, like digging out the pit from an overripe peach. The formal process is difficult for Americans to comprehend. The criteria are blurry and debatable. It requires nearly everyone involved to perform some amount of hypocritical partisan contortionism. It's the bluntest of instruments in politics, and that's really saying something. Because of this confusingly contingent nature of impeachment, many in Congress are currently extremely busy practicing "strategic silence." They're waiting to see whether the 58 percent of Americans who told Washington Post/Schar pollsters in early October that they support the impeachment inquiry will stick to their guns (and whether the number of likely Republican voters in their midst will grow larger). But it is increasingly clear that, especially for party leadership in Congress, the game is worth the candle. The game is worth a whole candelabra, in fact. A chandelier, even. Impeachments are becoming more frequent, with only one—of Andrew Johnson in 1868—in the first couple centuries of U.S. history and three (yes, we're counting Nixon) in the last 50 years. It's not a coincidence that the latter period has also seen unprecedented growth in the powers of the president and in the number of dollars and lives at his disposal. Even the substance of the narrow matter at hand in 2019 demonstrates this dynamic. At issue in the impeachment inquiry—at least at press time, since these things have a tendency to develop quickly—is the implication of a quid pro quo offered to a foreign leader in a phone call with Donald Trump. Depending on your reading of the evidence, the president may or may not have intentionally given the impression that the price of U.S. military aid to Ukraine was some kind of dirt on a political rival, Joe Biden. There are two ways to prevent this kind of alleged self-interested self-dealing from the White House. One option would be to elect a person of high moral character who also has a well-developed understanding of the rules and strictures that govern the office—someone who is inclined to respect those rules in letter and spirit as well as to honor the guidelines for transparency that allow other government officials and the press to verify the upright and noble exercise of his vast authority. We would then have to locate, nominate, and elect such a person every four to eight years unto eternity. We would have to trust not only that each president embodies all of these traits but also that he has surrounded himself with similarly virtuous characters. And we would have to assume that coming into possession of such powers is not itself corrupting. Good luck! Another option would be to limit the power of the presidency. This approach is also difficult, but it can be done. In today's case, the problem could have been avoided by the simple expedient of making it impossible for any president to control the disbursement of millions of dollars to foreign leaders at his own discretion, and by making that restriction on his authority so clear that favor seekers could have no plausible misunderstanding about who holds the purse strings. There are matters that are genuinely the business of the executive, the all-important Supreme Court appointments among them. But it is not the case that, as Trump has asserted, "I have an Article II where I have the right to do whatever I want as president." In pursuing impeachment to the exclusion of all else, Congress has muddled the message about its own prerogatives and complicated its defense of them, all while dramatically reducing the time and energy available to actually exercise those prerogatives in a responsible manner. Impeachment, at least as it is currently being practiced, does not restrict the vast powers of the president—it's merely an attempt to wrest those powers from a particular man. "As I learn more and more each day, I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP, intended to take away the Power of the People, their VOTE, their Freedoms, their Second Amendment, Religion, Military, Border Wall, and their God-given rights as a Citizen of The United States of America!" This was Trump's analysis of those early October impeachment inquiry polls. And he wasn't the only one floating the idea that impeachment proceedings would be somehow contrary to the democratic spirit. As Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) told MSNBC's Chris Hayes in October, "The fact that he shouldn't have gone down that road is a long way from saying, 'Therefore, he should be impeached and forcibly removed from office after the American people have voted in a presidential election.'" But what is in fact contrary to the democratic spirit is the monarchical idea that the president alone is the embodiment of the power of the people, the lone defender of our rights. That's a big job. And the Founders, in their great and unmatched wisdom, saw fit to distribute it across a rather large cast of characters. They gave the House the impeachment power in order to make coups unnecessary. The existence of elections cannot logically make impeachments a violation of the democratic process. Every president who has been impeached was, after all, voted into office first. Trump could very well be re-elected post-impeachment. And any attempt by Congress at that point to prevent him from being sworn in a second time would indeed be undemocratic, unconstitutional, and unconscionable—an actual coup. Rather than squabble over the presidency, Congress can and should reassert its considerable constitutional powers. It could start by reclaiming the sole right to declare war and rediscovering its lawmaking authority, the latter of which it has ceded to executive branch bureaucrats out of laziness, cowardice, and general ineptitude in the face of genuinely difficult work. But there's little evidence the legislative branch has any intention of doing that. If, at the end of all this, President Mike Pence sits behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office, what has been accomplished? His presidential pen, phone, and Twitter account will still retain the same outsized power as his predecessors'. He will be just as tempted to abuse that power and just as alone in his burden. And if, on the first Tuesday of November, President Biden emerges victorious (or President Warren, or President Sanders, or even President Amash), we will still have the same destructive imbalance between the branches, the same motivation to go all-in on the battle for the presidency, and the same incentives to begin calling for impeachment proceedings on the Wednesday morning after each Election Day, before the new president even takes office. Impeachment is the hair of the dog after an all-night executive power bender. Sure, a Bloody Mary might make you feel better for a little while. But in the long run, it might be better to get off the sauce entirely.

www.reason.com

right

YJkhUPJdSowEwO3q

test

gjh1lIvqRGhAzkUt

race_and_racism

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/feb/27/jay-z-files-second-lawsuit-against-barbaric-mississippi-prison

Jay-Z files second lawsuit against 'barbaric' Mississippi prison

2020-02-27

Ben Beaumont-Thomas

Acting on behalf of 152 inmates , the rapper and mogul argues prisoners ’ constitutional rights are being violated Jay-Z has filed a civil lawsuit against the Mississippi Department of Corrections on behalf of 152 inmates at a state prison , alleging “ barbaric ” conditions . Parchman prison is accused of “ abhorrent conditions , abuse and constant violence , inadequate health care and mental health care , and overuse of isolation … the people confined at Parchman live a miserable and hopeless existence confronted daily by imminent risk of substantial harm in violation of their rights under the US Constitution ” . Among the problems detailed by the lawsuit and an accompanying documentary film made by Jay-Z ’ s company Roc Nation are a lack of staffing that has allowed prisoner violence to flourish , sewage-filled cells , contaminated food and water , and a lack of adequate healthcare . Nine inmates have died at the prison so far in 2020 . The suit calls for the Department of Corrections to eliminate health and safety risks within 90 days . The department wouldn ’ t comment on the suit , but has previously said that violence is gang-related rather than linked to staffing issues . It is the second lawsuit brought against the prison by Jay-Z , in tandem with fellow rapper Yo Gotti – the pair filed a suit on behalf of 29 other inmates in January . Poetic justice : how Jay-Z became a civil rights champion Read more Jay-Z has frequently involved himself in African American civil rights cases using his philanthropy arm Team Roc , including those of other figures from the rap world . He intervened over 21 Savage ’ s detainment by immigration officials , and the sentencing of Meek Mill following a probation violation , saying : “ What ’ s happening to Meek Mill is just one example of how our criminal justice system entraps and harasses hundreds of thousands of black people every day . ” He has also reportedly bailed out protesters in Baltimore and Ferguson who were detained during anti-police brutality demonstrations , and has taken on dozens of other cases with civil rights lawyer Alex Spiro .

Acting on behalf of 152 inmates, the rapper and mogul argues prisoners’ constitutional rights are being violated Jay-Z has filed a civil lawsuit against the Mississippi Department of Corrections on behalf of 152 inmates at a state prison, alleging “barbaric” conditions. Parchman prison is accused of “abhorrent conditions, abuse and constant violence, inadequate health care and mental health care, and overuse of isolation … the people confined at Parchman live a miserable and hopeless existence confronted daily by imminent risk of substantial harm in violation of their rights under the US Constitution”. Among the problems detailed by the lawsuit and an accompanying documentary film made by Jay-Z’s company Roc Nation are a lack of staffing that has allowed prisoner violence to flourish, sewage-filled cells, contaminated food and water, and a lack of adequate healthcare. Nine inmates have died at the prison so far in 2020. The suit calls for the Department of Corrections to eliminate health and safety risks within 90 days. The department wouldn’t comment on the suit, but has previously said that violence is gang-related rather than linked to staffing issues. It is the second lawsuit brought against the prison by Jay-Z, in tandem with fellow rapper Yo Gotti – the pair filed a suit on behalf of 29 other inmates in January. Poetic justice: how Jay-Z became a civil rights champion Read more Jay-Z has frequently involved himself in African American civil rights cases using his philanthropy arm Team Roc, including those of other figures from the rap world. He intervened over 21 Savage’s detainment by immigration officials, and the sentencing of Meek Mill following a probation violation, saying: “What’s happening to Meek Mill is just one example of how our criminal justice system entraps and harasses hundreds of thousands of black people every day.” He has also reportedly bailed out protesters in Baltimore and Ferguson who were detained during anti-police brutality demonstrations, and has taken on dozens of other cases with civil rights lawyer Alex Spiro.

www.theguardian.com

left

gjh1lIvqRGhAzkUt

test

6j84sZbSp78k0ZCO

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/cpac-battles-socialism/

CPAC Battles Socialism

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

What an extraordinary few days . With conservatives at CPAC set to take on socialism . Thousands of conservatives filled the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center at the National Harbor in Maryland for the annual gathering of the Conservative Political Action Conference . There were over a hundred events crowding the calendar , the focus the deadly serious issues of our day , with socialism at the very top of the list . To list a few of the topics discussed : I could go on . All of this punctuated with appearances and quite serious speeches or conversations from both the President and Vice President of the United States , the President ’ s Director of the National Economic Council Larry Kudlow , and media conservatives like Laura Ingraham , Mark Levin , and the Wall Street Journal ’ s Kim Strassel . Plus a number of senators and congressmen , including Texas Senator Ted Cruz , Utah ’ s Senator Mike Lee , and Representatives Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan . In short , it was a stellar several days organized by the American Conservative Union ’ s Matt Schlapp and his team . But over in the liberal media ? Here ’ s what CNN political analyst Julian Zelizer headlined : CPAC used to be about conservative ideas — now it ’ s just a circus The CPAC that has been on display this week is a far cry from what some of the more serious conservatives of the 1970s had in mind . The event has become a political circus filled with conspiracy theories , cranks and far-right extremism . The past few days have featured speakers from Fox News and the Trump world spewing out the most outrageous statements they could think of making . Say what ? I have no idea if Professor Zelizer was actually there in real time or not . But to say something like this that is so laughably , provably untrue only underscores that various figures on the American Left would rather ignore reality than have a serious discussion of issues . Does CNN ’ s Zelizer really believe that the presence of CNN host Van Jones on center stage at CPAC for a quite serious and respectful conversation about criminal justice reform was a “ political circus ” ? Really ? Really ? Not to be lost sight of here is that the Democrats are supporting out and out socialism . And one suspects that the fact CPAC conservatives — not to mention President Trump — are more than prepared to take on that fight is what so disturbs the Left . That the fight against socialism by conservatives is on was abundantly clear at CPAC . As Breitbart reported , the President ’ s chief economic adviser Larry Kudlow — he a former Reagan aide — said as follows : Kudlow called on the audience , their friends , and their neighbors to “ put socialism on trial. ” He said : “ I don ’ t want us to stand idly by . I don ’ t want to let this stuff fester . I want it challenged , I want it debated , I want it rebutted , and I want to convict socialism . President Trump has already started this leadership , ” he said before reciting some of the president ’ s rebuke of socialism including the State of the Union Address affirmation , “ tonight we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country. ” He additionally cited the president ’ s remarks in Florida recently against socialism ’ s promises of a better future , when in reality it brings back the darkest chapters of the past . “ I ask you to join president Trump and me and the rest of us to put socialism on trial and convict it , ” Kudlow repeated . ” Doubtless it was statements like that that outraged CNN ’ s political analyst . Then there was the reaction from Never Trumpland . Mediate reported that over on MSNBC “ GOP strategist Evan Siegfried lamented Friday that the Conservative Political Action Conference has , traded away intellectualism for provocateurs and right wing firebrands. ” Say what ? Apparently Siegfried is concerned about Turning Point USA ’ s Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens , both of them doing outstanding work in standing up for conservative principle . But , in the typical style of Never Trumpers , Siegfried simply ignored the presence on stage of former and current GOP governors , a baker ’ s dozen of U.S . Senators and Congressmen , HUD Secretary Dr. Ben Carson , Labor Secretary Alex Acosta , Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross , Israel ’ s former Ambassador Dore Gold of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs , and author and Asia expert Gordon Chang . Also on stage was the Polish Ambassador to the United States and a member of the European Parliament . ( The senators , by the way , besides Ted Cruz and Mike Lee , included Lindsey Graham , Joni Ernst , Kevin Cramer and Josh Hawley , now apparently classed by Siegfried as “ provocateurs and right wing firebrands. ” ) These names only scratch the surface of a longer list of journalists and think tank policy experts who held center stage for a speech or panel . Then there is GOP strategist Rick Tyler , once an aide in the Ted Cruz presidential campaign — that would be the self-same Ted Cruz who was the featured CPAC guest in a conversation about border security . With Tyler saying on MSNBC of CPAC , as reported by RawStory : “ It used to be the confab of conservatives who would get together once a year but it ’ s not CPAC anymore — it hasn ’ t been since 2016 . It ’ s now Trump-pac and should be TPAC. ” Tyler added : “ The people there talk about being pro-tariffs , anti-justice , anti-law enforcement , anti-immigrant , anti-Muslim , pro-Russia , pro-autocrat , ” he continued . “ It ’ s unrecognizable what Donald Trump has done to the party and what he ’ s done to the conservative movement — it ’ s a shame. ” … “ Rest in peace , ” he lamented . “ No , it ’ s over . The problem is that the Republican Party has no grounding governing philosophy anymore because they ’ ve signed on to all these things as I just mentioned that were antithetical to the conservative movement . ” Huh ? I was at CPAC and I saw every evidence of conservatives with a solid “ grounding governing philosophy ” of conservatism . As was true of all the people listed above who took the stage . No one I heard or spoke to was “ anti-immigrant. ” Anti-illegal immigration — yes . Does Tyler seriously believe in open borders ? This nation , as CPACers are well aware , is 100 % composed of the descendants of immigrants . CPAC attendees — like Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump — believe in the decidedly un-radical idea that there is a process to immigrate into this country . Indeed , President Trump quite specifically said this at CPAC — there is a legal process to immigrate . It needs to be followed and respected . There is nothing remotely “ anti-immigrant ” in saying that . Not to mention that the person who spoke about illegal immigration and the crisis at the border was Ted Cruz… Tyler ’ s former boss who is , yes indeed , the son of a legal immigrant . Bizarrely , Tyler also blasted conservatives for being “ pro-tariffs ” — leaving out entirely that Trump uses tariffs to fight for a free trade that is truly free and fair . If another country levies a tariff on an American product — and the U.S. doesn ’ t respond equally ? That is not “ free trade ” — that is crazy . Apparently Tyler forgets this headline from 1983 in the New York Times : In an unusually strong protectionist action , President Reagan today ordered a tenfold increase in tariffs for imported heavyweight motorcycles . You read that right . President Reagan , just like President Trump , was perfectly willing to use tariffs to get a better free trade deal . And as reported over the weekend the Trump strategy is clearly working . Here is the headline from the Wall Street Journal : U.S. , China Close In on Trade Deal Both countries could lift some tariffs imposed last year , and Beijing would agree to ease restrictions on American products And by the way , the use of tariffs is literally as old as the Republican Party — a staple of the political careers of Republicans with names like presidents Lincoln , McKinley , and Coolidge . Last but not least , no one that I heard or spoke to at CPAC was “ anti-Muslim. ” Anti-radical Islamist ? Yes . Anti-Muslim ? No . Neither was anyone there that I heard remotely “ pro-autocrat ” or “ pro-Russia . ” The real hard fact here is that CPAC 2019 was filled to overflowing with Americans from all over the country who came and spent hours on end listening to — and participating in — quite serious discussions from a very long list of serious conservative intellectuals , policy experts , governors , senators , congressmen , journalists , and activists . Under discussion was an equally very long list of issues confronting America today . Were Trump supporters in evidence ? You bet . There were red hats all over the place . Why ? Because they believe in all the things conservatives always have believed — and that President Trump , like President Reagan before him — has supported . That would include things like appointing conservatives to the Supreme Court and the appellate and district courts , American energy independence ( drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ) , tax cuts , deregulation , opposing abortion , defeating radical Islam , and so much more . Yet in a clearly deceptive manner , the CPAC critics deliberately misrepresent what and who participated at CPAC . The critics from the Left fear the attack on socialism . The Never Trumpers are massively infected with TDS — Trump Derangement Syndrome . If Donald Trump supports the very same philosophy and issues that Ronald Reagan supported — well , you can now count them out . As CPAC 2019 has vividly illustrated , the fight against socialism — and TDS — is on .

What an extraordinary few days. With conservatives at CPAC set to take on socialism. Thousands of conservatives filled the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center at the National Harbor in Maryland for the annual gathering of the Conservative Political Action Conference. There were over a hundred events crowding the calendar, the focus the deadly serious issues of our day, with socialism at the very top of the list. To list a few of the topics discussed: Marxism and the Green New Deal The Dignity of the Person The Deficit Transportation issues Energy Issues Religious Freedom Gun Control Criminal Justice Reform The Economy and Free Markets Labor issues Protecting the Freedom of Jerusalem Data and Technology issues Journalism Property Rights China Native American Tribal Sovereignty South Korean Freedom Anti-Semitism The State of the U.S. Military Abortion America’s Role in Syria Border Sovereignty Israel and the Middle East Censorship Healthcare I could go on. All of this punctuated with appearances and quite serious speeches or conversations from both the President and Vice President of the United States, the President’s Director of the National Economic Council Larry Kudlow, and media conservatives like Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, and the Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel. Plus a number of senators and congressmen, including Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Utah’s Senator Mike Lee, and Representatives Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan. In short, it was a stellar several days organized by the American Conservative Union’s Matt Schlapp and his team. But over in the liberal media? Here’s what CNN political analyst Julian Zelizer headlined: CPAC used to be about conservative ideas — now it’s just a circus Among other things, Zelizer said this: The CPAC that has been on display this week is a far cry from what some of the more serious conservatives of the 1970s had in mind. The event has become a political circus filled with conspiracy theories, cranks and far-right extremism. The past few days have featured speakers from Fox News and the Trump world spewing out the most outrageous statements they could think of making. Say what? I have no idea if Professor Zelizer was actually there in real time or not. But to say something like this that is so laughably, provably untrue only underscores that various figures on the American Left would rather ignore reality than have a serious discussion of issues. Does CNN’s Zelizer really believe that the presence of CNN host Van Jones on center stage at CPAC for a quite serious and respectful conversation about criminal justice reform was a “political circus”? Really? Really? Not to be lost sight of here is that the Democrats are supporting out and out socialism. And one suspects that the fact CPAC conservatives — not to mention President Trump — are more than prepared to take on that fight is what so disturbs the Left. That the fight against socialism by conservatives is on was abundantly clear at CPAC. As Breitbart reported, the President’s chief economic adviser Larry Kudlow — he a former Reagan aide — said as follows: Kudlow called on the audience, their friends, and their neighbors to “put socialism on trial.” He said: “I don’t want us to stand idly by. I don’t want to let this stuff fester. I want it challenged, I want it debated, I want it rebutted, and I want to convict socialism. President Trump has already started this leadership,” he said before reciting some of the president’s rebuke of socialism including the State of the Union Address affirmation, “tonight we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.” He additionally cited the president’s remarks in Florida recently against socialism’s promises of a better future, when in reality it brings back the darkest chapters of the past. “I ask you to join president Trump and me and the rest of us to put socialism on trial and convict it,” Kudlow repeated.” Doubtless it was statements like that that outraged CNN’s political analyst. Then there was the reaction from Never Trumpland. Mediate reported that over on MSNBC “GOP strategist Evan Siegfried lamented Friday that the Conservative Political Action Conference has, traded away intellectualism for provocateurs and right wing firebrands.” Say what? Apparently Siegfried is concerned about Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens, both of them doing outstanding work in standing up for conservative principle. But, in the typical style of Never Trumpers, Siegfried simply ignored the presence on stage of former and current GOP governors, a baker’s dozen of U.S. Senators and Congressmen, HUD Secretary Dr. Ben Carson, Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Israel’s former Ambassador Dore Gold of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and author and Asia expert Gordon Chang. Also on stage was the Polish Ambassador to the United States and a member of the European Parliament. (The senators, by the way, besides Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, included Lindsey Graham, Joni Ernst, Kevin Cramer and Josh Hawley, now apparently classed by Siegfried as “provocateurs and right wing firebrands.”) These names only scratch the surface of a longer list of journalists and think tank policy experts who held center stage for a speech or panel. Then there is GOP strategist Rick Tyler, once an aide in the Ted Cruz presidential campaign — that would be the self-same Ted Cruz who was the featured CPAC guest in a conversation about border security. With Tyler saying on MSNBC of CPAC, as reported by RawStory: “It used to be the confab of conservatives who would get together once a year but it’s not CPAC anymore — it hasn’t been since 2016. It’s now Trump-pac and should be TPAC.” Tyler added: “The people there talk about being pro-tariffs, anti-justice, anti-law enforcement, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, pro-Russia, pro-autocrat,” he continued. “It’s unrecognizable what Donald Trump has done to the party and what he’s done to the conservative movement — it’s a shame.”… “Rest in peace,” he lamented. “No, it’s over. The problem is that the Republican Party has no grounding governing philosophy anymore because they’ve signed on to all these things as I just mentioned that were antithetical to the conservative movement.” Huh? I was at CPAC and I saw every evidence of conservatives with a solid “grounding governing philosophy” of conservatism. As was true of all the people listed above who took the stage. No one I heard or spoke to was “anti-immigrant.” Anti-illegal immigration — yes. Does Tyler seriously believe in open borders? This nation, as CPACers are well aware, is 100% composed of the descendants of immigrants. CPAC attendees — like Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump — believe in the decidedly un-radical idea that there is a process to immigrate into this country. Indeed, President Trump quite specifically said this at CPAC — there is a legal process to immigrate. It needs to be followed and respected. There is nothing remotely “anti-immigrant” in saying that. Not to mention that the person who spoke about illegal immigration and the crisis at the border was Ted Cruz… Tyler’s former boss who is, yes indeed, the son of a legal immigrant. Bizarrely, Tyler also blasted conservatives for being “pro-tariffs” — leaving out entirely that Trump uses tariffs to fight for a free trade that is truly free and fair. If another country levies a tariff on an American product — and the U.S. doesn’t respond equally? That is not “free trade” — that is crazy. Apparently Tyler forgets this headline from 1983 in the New York Times: U.S. RAISES TARIFF FOR MOTORCYCLES The story begins: In an unusually strong protectionist action, President Reagan today ordered a tenfold increase in tariffs for imported heavyweight motorcycles. You read that right. President Reagan, just like President Trump, was perfectly willing to use tariffs to get a better free trade deal. And as reported over the weekend the Trump strategy is clearly working. Here is the headline from the Wall Street Journal: U.S., China Close In on Trade Deal Both countries could lift some tariffs imposed last year, and Beijing would agree to ease restrictions on American products And by the way, the use of tariffs is literally as old as the Republican Party — a staple of the political careers of Republicans with names like presidents Lincoln, McKinley, and Coolidge. Last but not least, no one that I heard or spoke to at CPAC was “anti-Muslim.” Anti-radical Islamist? Yes. Anti-Muslim? No. Neither was anyone there that I heard remotely “pro-autocrat” or “pro-Russia.” The real hard fact here is that CPAC 2019 was filled to overflowing with Americans from all over the country who came and spent hours on end listening to — and participating in — quite serious discussions from a very long list of serious conservative intellectuals, policy experts, governors, senators, congressmen, journalists, and activists. Under discussion was an equally very long list of issues confronting America today. Were Trump supporters in evidence? You bet. There were red hats all over the place. Why? Because they believe in all the things conservatives always have believed — and that President Trump, like President Reagan before him — has supported. That would include things like appointing conservatives to the Supreme Court and the appellate and district courts, American energy independence (drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), tax cuts, deregulation, opposing abortion, defeating radical Islam, and so much more. Yet in a clearly deceptive manner, the CPAC critics deliberately misrepresent what and who participated at CPAC. The critics from the Left fear the attack on socialism. The Never Trumpers are massively infected with TDS — Trump Derangement Syndrome. If Donald Trump supports the very same philosophy and issues that Ronald Reagan supported — well, you can now count them out. Shocking? Not anymore. As CPAC 2019 has vividly illustrated, the fight against socialism — and TDS — is on.

www.spectator.org

right

6j84sZbSp78k0ZCO

test

WKcZ2Ac4sMJIfEr5

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/a-most-expected-backlash/

A Most Expected Backlash

Scott Mckay, J.T. Young, Robert Stacy Mccain, David Catron

There is an essential read by Steve Sailer at Taki ’ s Magazine from a week ago which might well explain the cultural and political landscape better than anything else you ’ ve seen in recent vintage . It ’ s entitled “ A Half Century of Amnesia , ” and you should take the time to have a look . Sailer makes several important points , which could very easily be lost to readers not courageous enough to wade through obvious , though perhaps politically incorrect , facts , in recognizing the current cultural atmosphere which has not only given us Donald Trump in the White House but an apparent brewing sea change in the culture which the academic and media-elite Left simply isn ’ t recognizing ( Caitlan Flanagan ’ s surprising piece on Jordan Peterson ’ s growing celebrity at the Atlantic notwithstanding ) . Chief among those is Sailer ’ s central point ; namely that the Left has declared war on straight American white people for decades — and there is a natural price to pay for that hostility . That sounds like a wild accusation , and it certainly feels strange to levy it , but how can anyone disagree ? This is a season , after all , in which the New York Times has gone totally off the deep end — embracing as part of its editorial staff a stunning mediocrity of a writer named Sarah Jeong whose Twitter is a fountain of anti-white racism so dependable as to put half of Yellowstone to shame , and which not so long ago ran a piece in its sports section decrying The Unbearable Whiteness of Baseball , decrying the fact that Major League rosters contain a proportion of white players which conforms to the population as a whole . This is , in case you ’ re not aware , the purported newspaper of record for the United States of America — and in its pages can be found practically daily expositions of virulent bigotry toward the nation ’ s majority population . According to Sailer , it ’ s idiocy to believe , as the Left does — and he quotes liberally from a quite educational Vox piece by Ezra Klein which outlines this belief — that ordinary white Americans will be told again and again by our betters in the Democrat Party that America , via mass immigration , is to be made a majority-minority country and that the “ privilege ” afforded to whites as the majority population will soon be stripped away and justifiably so , and no reaction should be expected . From Klein ’ s piece… So here , then , is what we know : Even gentle , unconscious exposure to reminders that America is diversifying — and particularly to the idea that America is becoming a majority-minority nation — pushes whites toward more conservative policy opinions and more support of the Republican Party . Understand — Klein doesn ’ t write this as a warning to Democrats that pushing immigration policies fundamentally altering the demographics of America will be seen as a bad idea by the majority population of the country . Klein writes it more as a curiosity , or as an indictment of the “ bitter clingers ” out there who can ’ t get with the inevitable program . Sailer , chuckling at Klein ’ s arrogance , notes how ridiculous it all is . How obvious that if you make manifest your intention to replace the current majority with a new one , that the current majority might find your plan objectionable ? He recalls that back after the bare-minimum Republican electoral win in 2000 he suggested the Republican Party merely needed to push its share of the white vote from 54 to 57 percent in the country in order to retake a solid majority of American voters ( this idea was opposed by the GOP establishment and then-president George W. Bush ’ s guru Karl Rove , who believed the key to the party ’ s success could be found in co-opting the Hispanic vote ) . Fast forward 16 years , and Donald Trump fulfilled Sailer ’ s prophecy by winning 58 percent of the white vote , a number which might very well be a low mark for future elections , on the way to the White House . Trump didn ’ t win the popular vote , you might argue , but he is in fact the president . That victory is not evidence of some Republican strategy to radicalize race in America , mind you , despite what you might see from the crowd at MSNBC or the Nation . While some of Trump ’ s supporters might be a bit more aggressive in pushing a defense of traditional majority ( white , if you will ) American culture , what activates the President ’ s base of support is less some sort of white identitarian message than a reaction to the opposite which surges through today ’ s Democrat Party . Who ’ s the white Republican answer to Joy Reid on cable news , after all ? And by the by , Trump ’ s approval rate among blacks is a lot higher than that of his recent Republican predecessors , indicating all of this is less about race than is advertised . When DNC chairman Thomas Perez takes to the airwaves to tout the obviously intellectually-challenged Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as his party ’ s “ future ” despite her clear lack of facility with economics or civics and her combination of Venezuelan-style socialism with an ethnic appeal to non-white voters , and particularly when Ocasio-Cortez throws out the most obnoxious statements about how white upper-middle class soccer moms are “ not America anymore , ” it isn ’ t required for a single Republican to talk about race for white voters to understand the lay of the land . If you want someone ’ s vote , you have to make them understand that you don ’ t hate them and you ’ re not out to get them . Isn ’ t that the lecture the GOP has received ad nauseam — and perhaps rightfully so — by black and Hispanic advocates ? Well ? Why wouldn ’ t that similarly apply to Democrats and white people ? Particularly given the narrative that America will soon transform itself from its 60-something-percent white population to majority-minority status . Talk enough about the coming Browning Of America , and that population will eventually believe it and act accordingly as they see their interests . This is mere human nature , after all . Anti-white triumphalism , as Sailer notes , is merely advertising of a threat to the collective interest of Americans of pallor and it ’ s bound to bring these uncomfortable subjects to the fore within that population . And what on earth makes anyone believe that a population constantly demonized as brutal and racist and whose achievements are assailed as the products of exploitation and violence would stand aside , allowing itself to be marginalized through immigration ? Should it not be fairly obvious that at some point those horrible white people in America would simply choose to put a stop to the nation ’ s open-borders policies which have transformed the country from immigrants being a five percent share of the population in the 1970s to a current 14 percent share ? Right or wrong , should anyone be surprised to see such a shift as Trump ’ s presidency has made manifest ? And while we ’ re at it , since when was it an immutable fact that America would have an ever-growing population of immigrants ? Our history is of ebb and flow where that ’ s concerned , and until the past 50 years the ebb and flow never fundamentally altered the racial balance of the country . Wasn ’ t it a bit presumptuous that current trends would continue forever without some degree of pushback ? This surely all sounds horribly racist , to certain ears . But it isn ’ t intended that way — it ’ s simply an observation about human nature . Certainly Sarah Jeong ’ s presence at the Times editorial board will make that paper less popular among those readers whose ethnicities she has attacked , and those readers will surely show how unimpressed they are with the epithets thrown their way by their consumer decisions . How is one to believe electoral results will differ when the Left proceeds to double down on Jeong ’ s racism ? That ’ s precisely what happened when National Review ’ s David French addressed the Jeong matter — sanely — and was met with a semi-literate anti-white screed from Medium ’ s Ezinne Ukoha denying the entire existence of anti-white racism . Does anyone believe this kind of argumentation will be persuasive ? You can ’ t insult a group of people repeatedly , aggressively , the way the Left in its mob mentality insists upon doing to the majority of America and not expect consequences . Those will come . And in its rampant enthusiasm the Left has apparently decided to take a swing at some 60-plus percent of the population — a decent chunk of which has heretofore been sympathetic to its policies . That won ’ t continue when idiocy like intersectionality — white people are allowed to have an opinion only after people of other races have had their say , and only after going through a progression prioritizing the disabled over the abled , homosexual before straight , and transgendered before , er , gendered — or Critical Race Theory “ black people can ’ t be racist ” claptrap like that espoused by Ukoha is the order of the day on the Left . When it ’ s not acceptable to express concern about jihadist training camps teaching malnourished and abused kids to be school shooters because to do so implies bigotry against Muslims , while at the same time the NYT smart set castigates Mike Pence for his flyover-country Christianity and dubs him a threat to the peace therefrom , how could it be a surprise when ordinary white people , many of whom might well have voted for Barack Obama in what they thought was a show of good faith to the rest of America , simply don ’ t care anymore ? The answer is it ’ s not a surprise . The answer is you ’ re going to get a growing # WalkAway movement . We ’ re not so far from Labor Day , which is the traditional mark on the calendar when voters begin to pay attention to coming elections . You ’ ve no doubt heard plenty about a supposed Blue Wave in this fall ’ s midterms , and Democrats are counting lots of chickens which have not yet hatched . But don ’ t be surprised when you see that Blue Wave dissipate as Election Day nears across America — and particularly in districts where the white vote is dispositive . As Andrew Breitbart said , politics is downstream from culture . But both culturally and politically , the Left in America has been on a determined attack against traditional white America . Millions of Americans — people of pallor , if you will — who hate even being defined by the color of their skin will nonetheless take up identity politics if they feel they ’ re pushed to do so because someone is calling them racists simply because of their ethnicity , and demanding they forfeit their economic and/or social status — status they may not even be satisfied with as is — accordingly . They will inevitably respond to this , and negatively . And if they do , the Democrats will have only themselves to blame for the results .

There is an essential read by Steve Sailer at Taki’s Magazine from a week ago which might well explain the cultural and political landscape better than anything else you’ve seen in recent vintage. It’s entitled “A Half Century of Amnesia,” and you should take the time to have a look. Sailer makes several important points, which could very easily be lost to readers not courageous enough to wade through obvious, though perhaps politically incorrect, facts, in recognizing the current cultural atmosphere which has not only given us Donald Trump in the White House but an apparent brewing sea change in the culture which the academic and media-elite Left simply isn’t recognizing (Caitlan Flanagan’s surprising piece on Jordan Peterson’s growing celebrity at the Atlantic notwithstanding). Chief among those is Sailer’s central point; namely that the Left has declared war on straight American white people for decades — and there is a natural price to pay for that hostility. That sounds like a wild accusation, and it certainly feels strange to levy it, but how can anyone disagree? This is a season, after all, in which the New York Times has gone totally off the deep end — embracing as part of its editorial staff a stunning mediocrity of a writer named Sarah Jeong whose Twitter is a fountain of anti-white racism so dependable as to put half of Yellowstone to shame, and which not so long ago ran a piece in its sports section decrying The Unbearable Whiteness of Baseball, decrying the fact that Major League rosters contain a proportion of white players which conforms to the population as a whole. This is, in case you’re not aware, the purported newspaper of record for the United States of America — and in its pages can be found practically daily expositions of virulent bigotry toward the nation’s majority population. According to Sailer, it’s idiocy to believe, as the Left does — and he quotes liberally from a quite educational Vox piece by Ezra Klein which outlines this belief — that ordinary white Americans will be told again and again by our betters in the Democrat Party that America, via mass immigration, is to be made a majority-minority country and that the “privilege” afforded to whites as the majority population will soon be stripped away and justifiably so, and no reaction should be expected. From Klein’s piece… So here, then, is what we know: Even gentle, unconscious exposure to reminders that America is diversifying — and particularly to the idea that America is becoming a majority-minority nation — pushes whites toward more conservative policy opinions and more support of the Republican Party. Understand — Klein doesn’t write this as a warning to Democrats that pushing immigration policies fundamentally altering the demographics of America will be seen as a bad idea by the majority population of the country. Klein writes it more as a curiosity, or as an indictment of the “bitter clingers” out there who can’t get with the inevitable program. Sailer, chuckling at Klein’s arrogance, notes how ridiculous it all is. How obvious that if you make manifest your intention to replace the current majority with a new one, that the current majority might find your plan objectionable? He recalls that back after the bare-minimum Republican electoral win in 2000 he suggested the Republican Party merely needed to push its share of the white vote from 54 to 57 percent in the country in order to retake a solid majority of American voters (this idea was opposed by the GOP establishment and then-president George W. Bush’s guru Karl Rove, who believed the key to the party’s success could be found in co-opting the Hispanic vote). Fast forward 16 years, and Donald Trump fulfilled Sailer’s prophecy by winning 58 percent of the white vote, a number which might very well be a low mark for future elections, on the way to the White House. Trump didn’t win the popular vote, you might argue, but he is in fact the president. That victory is not evidence of some Republican strategy to radicalize race in America, mind you, despite what you might see from the crowd at MSNBC or the Nation. While some of Trump’s supporters might be a bit more aggressive in pushing a defense of traditional majority (white, if you will) American culture, what activates the President’s base of support is less some sort of white identitarian message than a reaction to the opposite which surges through today’s Democrat Party. Who’s the white Republican answer to Joy Reid on cable news, after all? Sorry, you’ll have to answer more quickly. And by the by, Trump’s approval rate among blacks is a lot higher than that of his recent Republican predecessors, indicating all of this is less about race than is advertised. When DNC chairman Thomas Perez takes to the airwaves to tout the obviously intellectually-challenged Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as his party’s “future” despite her clear lack of facility with economics or civics and her combination of Venezuelan-style socialism with an ethnic appeal to non-white voters, and particularly when Ocasio-Cortez throws out the most obnoxious statements about how white upper-middle class soccer moms are “not America anymore,” it isn’t required for a single Republican to talk about race for white voters to understand the lay of the land. If you want someone’s vote, you have to make them understand that you don’t hate them and you’re not out to get them. Isn’t that the lecture the GOP has received ad nauseam — and perhaps rightfully so — by black and Hispanic advocates? Well? Why wouldn’t that similarly apply to Democrats and white people? Particularly given the narrative that America will soon transform itself from its 60-something-percent white population to majority-minority status. Talk enough about the coming Browning Of America, and that population will eventually believe it and act accordingly as they see their interests. This is mere human nature, after all. Anti-white triumphalism, as Sailer notes, is merely advertising of a threat to the collective interest of Americans of pallor and it’s bound to bring these uncomfortable subjects to the fore within that population. And what on earth makes anyone believe that a population constantly demonized as brutal and racist and whose achievements are assailed as the products of exploitation and violence would stand aside, allowing itself to be marginalized through immigration? Should it not be fairly obvious that at some point those horrible white people in America would simply choose to put a stop to the nation’s open-borders policies which have transformed the country from immigrants being a five percent share of the population in the 1970s to a current 14 percent share? Right or wrong, should anyone be surprised to see such a shift as Trump’s presidency has made manifest? And while we’re at it, since when was it an immutable fact that America would have an ever-growing population of immigrants? Our history is of ebb and flow where that’s concerned, and until the past 50 years the ebb and flow never fundamentally altered the racial balance of the country. Wasn’t it a bit presumptuous that current trends would continue forever without some degree of pushback? This surely all sounds horribly racist, to certain ears. But it isn’t intended that way — it’s simply an observation about human nature. Certainly Sarah Jeong’s presence at the Times editorial board will make that paper less popular among those readers whose ethnicities she has attacked, and those readers will surely show how unimpressed they are with the epithets thrown their way by their consumer decisions. How is one to believe electoral results will differ when the Left proceeds to double down on Jeong’s racism? That’s precisely what happened when National Review’s David French addressed the Jeong matter — sanely — and was met with a semi-literate anti-white screed from Medium’s Ezinne Ukoha denying the entire existence of anti-white racism. Does anyone believe this kind of argumentation will be persuasive? You can’t insult a group of people repeatedly, aggressively, the way the Left in its mob mentality insists upon doing to the majority of America and not expect consequences. Those will come. And in its rampant enthusiasm the Left has apparently decided to take a swing at some 60-plus percent of the population — a decent chunk of which has heretofore been sympathetic to its policies. That won’t continue when idiocy like intersectionality — white people are allowed to have an opinion only after people of other races have had their say, and only after going through a progression prioritizing the disabled over the abled, homosexual before straight, and transgendered before, er, gendered — or Critical Race Theory “black people can’t be racist” claptrap like that espoused by Ukoha is the order of the day on the Left. When it’s not acceptable to express concern about jihadist training camps teaching malnourished and abused kids to be school shooters because to do so implies bigotry against Muslims, while at the same time the NYT smart set castigates Mike Pence for his flyover-country Christianity and dubs him a threat to the peace therefrom, how could it be a surprise when ordinary white people, many of whom might well have voted for Barack Obama in what they thought was a show of good faith to the rest of America, simply don’t care anymore? The answer is it’s not a surprise. The answer is you’re going to get a growing #WalkAway movement. We’re not so far from Labor Day, which is the traditional mark on the calendar when voters begin to pay attention to coming elections. You’ve no doubt heard plenty about a supposed Blue Wave in this fall’s midterms, and Democrats are counting lots of chickens which have not yet hatched. But don’t be surprised when you see that Blue Wave dissipate as Election Day nears across America — and particularly in districts where the white vote is dispositive. As Andrew Breitbart said, politics is downstream from culture. But both culturally and politically, the Left in America has been on a determined attack against traditional white America. Millions of Americans — people of pallor, if you will — who hate even being defined by the color of their skin will nonetheless take up identity politics if they feel they’re pushed to do so because someone is calling them racists simply because of their ethnicity, and demanding they forfeit their economic and/or social status — status they may not even be satisfied with as is — accordingly. They will inevitably respond to this, and negatively. And if they do, the Democrats will have only themselves to blame for the results.

www.spectator.org

right

WKcZ2Ac4sMJIfEr5

test

1Qsy460ruzlWpj9W

nuclear_weapons

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44240047

North Korea nuclear test tunnels at Punggye-ri 'destroyed'

North Korea appears to have blown up tunnels at its only nuclear test site , in a move to reduce regional tensions . Foreign reporters at the Punggye-ri site in the north-east said they had witnessed a huge blast . Pyongyang later said the site had been dismantled . The move by the North was seen as part of a diplomatic rapprochement with South Korea and the US . But scientists believe it partially collapsed after the last test in September 2017 , rendering it unusable . It came ahead of a planned summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore on 12 June , which has now been cancelled by Mr Trump . Independent inspectors were not allowed to witness the process of the dismantling of the Punggye-ri site in the mountainous region of the country , and some worry it could be easily reversible , the BBC 's Laura Bicker reports . Three tunnels were collapsed in a series of explosions in front of about 20 handpicked international journalists . Two blasts were reportedly carried out in the morning , and four in the afternoon . Tom Cheshire of Sky News was among the journalists present . He said the doors to the tunnels were `` theatrically rigged '' with `` wires everywhere '' . `` We hiked up into the mountains and watched the detonation from about 500 metres [ 550 yards ] away , '' he said . `` They counted it down : three , two , one . There was a huge explosion , you could feel it . Dust came at you , the heat came at you . It was extremely loud . '' North Korea 's Nuclear Weapons Institute later said in a statement that the dismantling of the site `` was done in such a way as to make all the tunnels of the test ground collapse by explosion and completely close the tunnel entrances '' , NK News website says . `` It has been confirmed that there were neither leakage of radioactive materials nor any adverse impact on the surrounding ecological environment . '' `` [ We ] expect it to serve as a chance for complete denuclearisation going forward , '' Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesman Noh Kyu-duk was quoted as saying by Yonhap news agency . Analysis by Mark Fitzpatrick , executive director , International Institute for Strategic Studies-Americas Destruction of the nuclear testing tunnels at Punggye-ri is a demonstrable , tangible step toward the denuclearisation goal that leader Kim Jong-un agreed to at the 27 April Panmunjom Summit . However , North Korea should have allowed experts from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization to observe the tunnel collapse . Not doing so signalled disinterest in verification standards that will be required for any denuclearisation agreement with the US . This harks back to the situation in mid-2008 , when , with cameras rolling , North Korea destroyed the cooling tower of its plutonium-production reactor in Yongbyon , but a few months later refused to accept verification requirements to prove that its declaration of plutonium production was complete and correct . Negotiations collapsed and North Korea went on to re-use the reactor after installing a different cooling system . Similarly , North Korea could easily construct new tunnels to resume nuclear testing . Still , the collapse of three existing tunnels , two of which appeared to still be operable , is a welcome first move . It will undoubtedly want something in exchange before it takes more steps . North Korea has conducted six nuclear tests since 2006 in a system of tunnels dug below Mount Mantap . It is thought to have been the North 's main nuclear facility and until now the only active nuclear testing site in the world . It is located about 370km ( 230 miles ) north-east of Pyongyang . Test devices are buried deep at the end of the tunnels , which end in a hook . The tunnel gets backfilled to prevent radioactive leakage and then the device is detonated . What would it take for North Korea to truly denuclearise ? Pyongyang 's reported dismantling of the site is seen by analysts as a first step . But it could indicate that it believes its nuclear programme has made sufficient progress and full testing is no longer needed , Catherine Dill from the Middlebury Institute of International Studies ( MIIS ) says . She says North Korea 's nuclear weapons programme also goes far beyond the existence of one site . Satellite imagery will be used by governments and independent experts to monitor for activity , new buildings and equipment , which might indicate that North Korea plans to resume testing . Satellite imagery may not help if North Korea clandestinely opens a new nuclear test site , Ms Dill says , as it has many other mountains that could be used . But if that were the case , it would be unable to hide any new underground tests , as the resulting seismic tremors would be detected . Earlier on Thursday - ahead of the cancelled of the planned US-North Korea summit - North Korean official Choe Son-hui dismissed remarks by US Vice-President Mike Pence as `` stupid '' . Ms Choe , who has been involved in several diplomatic interactions with the US over the past decade , said the North would not `` beg '' for dialogue and warned of a `` nuclear showdown '' if diplomacy failed . Her comments came after Mr Pence warned that North Korea `` may end like Libya '' - where then-leader Muammar Gaddafi was killed by rebels in 2011 after renouncing nuclear weapons eight years earlier .

Image copyright Reuters Image caption A satellite image of the Punggye-ri site before the detonations North Korea appears to have blown up tunnels at its only nuclear test site, in a move to reduce regional tensions. Foreign reporters at the Punggye-ri site in the north-east said they had witnessed a huge blast. Pyongyang later said the site had been dismantled. The move by the North was seen as part of a diplomatic rapprochement with South Korea and the US. But scientists believe it partially collapsed after the last test in September 2017, rendering it unusable. It came ahead of a planned summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore on 12 June, which has now been cancelled by Mr Trump. Independent inspectors were not allowed to witness the process of the dismantling of the Punggye-ri site in the mountainous region of the country, and some worry it could be easily reversible, the BBC's Laura Bicker reports. What happened on Thursday? Three tunnels were collapsed in a series of explosions in front of about 20 handpicked international journalists. Two blasts were reportedly carried out in the morning, and four in the afternoon. Tom Cheshire of Sky News was among the journalists present. He said the doors to the tunnels were "theatrically rigged" with "wires everywhere". "We hiked up into the mountains and watched the detonation from about 500 metres [550 yards] away," he said. "They counted it down: three, two, one. There was a huge explosion, you could feel it. Dust came at you, the heat came at you. It was extremely loud." North Korea's Nuclear Weapons Institute later said in a statement that the dismantling of the site "was done in such a way as to make all the tunnels of the test ground collapse by explosion and completely close the tunnel entrances", NK News website says. "It has been confirmed that there were neither leakage of radioactive materials nor any adverse impact on the surrounding ecological environment." The South Korean government welcomed the news. "[We] expect it to serve as a chance for complete denuclearisation going forward," Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesman Noh Kyu-duk was quoted as saying by Yonhap news agency. 'A welcome first move' Analysis by Mark Fitzpatrick, executive director, International Institute for Strategic Studies-Americas Destruction of the nuclear testing tunnels at Punggye-ri is a demonstrable, tangible step toward the denuclearisation goal that leader Kim Jong-un agreed to at the 27 April Panmunjom Summit. However, North Korea should have allowed experts from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization to observe the tunnel collapse. Not doing so signalled disinterest in verification standards that will be required for any denuclearisation agreement with the US. This harks back to the situation in mid-2008, when, with cameras rolling, North Korea destroyed the cooling tower of its plutonium-production reactor in Yongbyon, but a few months later refused to accept verification requirements to prove that its declaration of plutonium production was complete and correct. Negotiations collapsed and North Korea went on to re-use the reactor after installing a different cooling system. Similarly, North Korea could easily construct new tunnels to resume nuclear testing. Still, the collapse of three existing tunnels, two of which appeared to still be operable, is a welcome first move. It will undoubtedly want something in exchange before it takes more steps. What do we know about the site? North Korea has conducted six nuclear tests since 2006 in a system of tunnels dug below Mount Mantap. It is thought to have been the North's main nuclear facility and until now the only active nuclear testing site in the world. It is located about 370km (230 miles) north-east of Pyongyang. Image copyright CNES - National Centre for Space Studies via Airb Test devices are buried deep at the end of the tunnels, which end in a hook. The tunnel gets backfilled to prevent radioactive leakage and then the device is detonated. What would it take for North Korea to truly denuclearise? Pyongyang's reported dismantling of the site is seen by analysts as a first step. But it could indicate that it believes its nuclear programme has made sufficient progress and full testing is no longer needed, Catherine Dill from the Middlebury Institute of International Studies (MIIS) says. She says North Korea's nuclear weapons programme also goes far beyond the existence of one site. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Viewpoint: Why Trump's summit strategy was so unusual Satellite imagery will be used by governments and independent experts to monitor for activity, new buildings and equipment, which might indicate that North Korea plans to resume testing. Satellite imagery may not help if North Korea clandestinely opens a new nuclear test site, Ms Dill says, as it has many other mountains that could be used. But if that were the case, it would be unable to hide any new underground tests, as the resulting seismic tremors would be detected. What about the recent US-North Korea row? Earlier on Thursday - ahead of the cancelled of the planned US-North Korea summit - North Korean official Choe Son-hui dismissed remarks by US Vice-President Mike Pence as "stupid". Ms Choe, who has been involved in several diplomatic interactions with the US over the past decade, said the North would not "beg" for dialogue and warned of a "nuclear showdown" if diplomacy failed. Image copyright Reuters Image caption Mike Pence is a "political dummy", says North Korea Her comments came after Mr Pence warned that North Korea "may end like Libya" - where then-leader Muammar Gaddafi was killed by rebels in 2011 after renouncing nuclear weapons eight years earlier.

www.bbc.com

center

1Qsy460ruzlWpj9W

test

Ybfu7hnnoe45zKuK

politics

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/18/christie-skips-town-leaving-scandal-behind-and-meeting-potential-donors-in-sunny-florida/

Christie skips town, leaving scandal behind and meeting potential donors in sunny Florida

2014-01-18

( CNN ) - As scandal threatens to envelop Gov . Chris Christie back in New Jersey , he 's spending the weekend in Florida , helping Republican Gov . Rick Scott fundraise around the state . It ’ s been more than a week since allegations that a massive traffic jam in the town of Fort Lee was the result of road closures on George Washington Bridge as political retaliation from Christie 's team against the town ’ s mayor . Christie 's weekend is packed with stops in Orlando , Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach . But it will be hard to say whether the scandal has dampened his star power , as all the meetings are closed-door . Traveling with Christie , Scott has shown no shyness in sticking up for him . Scott told CNN affiliate WSVN that Christie `` did the right thing . He apologized . He went to the community and apologized . And I look forward to seeing him . '' As chairman , Christie will also raise money for the Republican Governors Association and network with potential donors who could be key players if Christie decides to run for president in 2016 . The main political event is Saturday night at the home of billionaire Ken Langone , the co-founder of Home Depot . Langone told CNN he 's been flooded with requests to meet the governor , scandal or not . However , Democrats did n't miss a chance to sound off on the Christie scandal . Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is in Florida following Christie 's every move and hit the governor over the fact that all his campaign events were private . `` I think that means that Chris Christie does n't want to answer any questions or Rick Scott does n't want to be seen with Chris Christie in public – probably a little of both , '' Wasserman Schulz told CNN . Lenny Curry , Florida 's Republican Party chairman , accused Democrats of trying to turn Christie 's visit into a circus . `` I 'd say Chris Christie apologized . Chris Christie took action . He 's the head of the Republican Governors Association , and he 's down here doing his job , and that 's raising money to make sure that Rick Scott gets re-elected . ''

6 years ago (CNN) - As scandal threatens to envelop Gov. Chris Christie back in New Jersey, he's spending the weekend in Florida, helping Republican Gov. Rick Scott fundraise around the state. It’s been more than a week since allegations that a massive traffic jam in the town of Fort Lee was the result of road closures on George Washington Bridge as political retaliation from Christie's team against the town’s mayor. Christie's weekend is packed with stops in Orlando, Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach. But it will be hard to say whether the scandal has dampened his star power, as all the meetings are closed-door. Follow @politicalticker Traveling with Christie, Scott has shown no shyness in sticking up for him. Scott told CNN affiliate WSVN that Christie "did the right thing. He apologized. He went to the community and apologized. And I look forward to seeing him." As chairman, Christie will also raise money for the Republican Governors Association and network with potential donors who could be key players if Christie decides to run for president in 2016. The main political event is Saturday night at the home of billionaire Ken Langone, the co-founder of Home Depot. Langone told CNN he's been flooded with requests to meet the governor, scandal or not. However, Democrats didn't miss a chance to sound off on the Christie scandal. Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is in Florida following Christie's every move and hit the governor over the fact that all his campaign events were private. "I think that means that Chris Christie doesn't want to answer any questions or Rick Scott doesn't want to be seen with Chris Christie in public – probably a little of both," Wasserman Schulz told CNN. Lenny Curry, Florida's Republican Party chairman, accused Democrats of trying to turn Christie's visit into a circus. "I'd say Chris Christie apologized. Chris Christie took action. He's the head of the Republican Governors Association, and he's down here doing his job, and that's raising money to make sure that Rick Scott gets re-elected."

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

Ybfu7hnnoe45zKuK

test

CXBPnOKCIbp0iFG3

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-truth/trump-derides-fake-hearing-but-says-cohen-truthful-on-no-collusion-idUSKCN1QH0UI

Trump derides 'fake' hearing but says Cohen truthful on 'no collusion'

2019-02-28

HANOI ( ███ ) - President Donald Trump criticized his former attorney Michael Cohen on Thursday for lying in testimony to Congress but found reason to praise him , too , for not alleging Trump ’ s campaign colluded with Russia in 2016 . U.S. President Donald Trump holds a news conference after his summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the JW Marriott hotel in Hanoi , Vietnam , February 28 , 2019 . ███/Leah Millis Trump , speaking at a news conference in Vietnam after failing to achieve a peace deal with North Korea ’ s Kim Jong Un , called the blockbuster hearing back in Washington fake and said it should not have been scheduled during his trip . “ He lied a lot , but it was very interesting because he didn ’ t lie about one thing , he said no collusion with the Russian hoax , ” Trump said . “ I wonder why he didn ’ t lie about that too like he did about everything else . I was actually impressed that he didn ’ t say , ‘ well , I think there was collusion for this reason or that ’ . He didn ’ t say that . ” Cohen testified on Wednesday , calling Trump a “ conman ” who knew in advance about the release of stolen emails aimed at hurting his Democratic rival in the 2016 election campaign . Trump criticized the timing of the hearing saying it should not have been happened while he was on an important trip . “ Having a fake hearing like that and having it in the middle of this very important summit is really a terrible thing . They could have made it two days later or next week , ” he said . “ But having it during this very important summit is sort of incredible . ” Trump has called an investigation into possible collusion between Moscow and his presidential campaign a “ witch hunt ” . Cohen , 52 , was a close aide of Trump for years and his testimony could increase the legal and political pressure on the Republican president . But Cohen did not appear to disclose a “ smoking gun ” that could sink his former boss . Cohen said he had no direct evidence that Trump or his campaign colluded with Moscow during the election campaign . Possible collusion is a key theme of Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s Russia investigation , which has dogged the president during his two years in office . Trump has repeatedly denied the allegation as has the Kremlin .

HANOI (Reuters) - President Donald Trump criticized his former attorney Michael Cohen on Thursday for lying in testimony to Congress but found reason to praise him, too, for not alleging Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia in 2016. U.S. President Donald Trump holds a news conference after his summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the JW Marriott hotel in Hanoi, Vietnam, February 28, 2019. REUTERS/Leah Millis Trump, speaking at a news conference in Vietnam after failing to achieve a peace deal with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, called the blockbuster hearing back in Washington fake and said it should not have been scheduled during his trip. “He lied a lot, but it was very interesting because he didn’t lie about one thing, he said no collusion with the Russian hoax,” Trump said. “I wonder why he didn’t lie about that too like he did about everything else. I was actually impressed that he didn’t say, ‘well, I think there was collusion for this reason or that’. He didn’t say that.” Cohen testified on Wednesday, calling Trump a “conman” who knew in advance about the release of stolen emails aimed at hurting his Democratic rival in the 2016 election campaign. Trump criticized the timing of the hearing saying it should not have been happened while he was on an important trip. “Having a fake hearing like that and having it in the middle of this very important summit is really a terrible thing. They could have made it two days later or next week,” he said. “But having it during this very important summit is sort of incredible.” Trump has called an investigation into possible collusion between Moscow and his presidential campaign a “witch hunt”. Cohen, 52, was a close aide of Trump for years and his testimony could increase the legal and political pressure on the Republican president. But Cohen did not appear to disclose a “smoking gun” that could sink his former boss. Cohen said he had no direct evidence that Trump or his campaign colluded with Moscow during the election campaign. Possible collusion is a key theme of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, which has dogged the president during his two years in office. Trump has repeatedly denied the allegation as has the Kremlin.

www.reuters.com

center

CXBPnOKCIbp0iFG3

test

rcd0PiLnuOGZWJu7

great_britain

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/23/wilders-britain-liberate-europe-revolutionary-brexit-vote/

Britain ‘Could Liberate Europe Again’ From ‘Totalitarian Monster’ By Brexiting Says Dutch Election Frontrunner

2016-05-23

Oliver Jj Lane

Britain voting to leave the European Union next month could trigger a wave of similar freedom movements across Europe and effectively “ liberate ” the continent , and control from Brussels is not unlike former Communist rule from Moscow for many , Dutch Freedom leader Geert Wilders has said . Speaking to Britain ’ s Sunday Telegraph , Eurosceptic and counter-Islamification campaigner Mr. Wilders said Britain would lead by example by voting to leave the European Union , and in doing so would “ liberate Europe ” for the second time in a century , making clear reference to Britain ’ s key role in resisting German expansionism during the Second World War . Mr. Wilders said : “ Like in the 1940s , once again Britain could help liberate Europe from another totalitarian monster , this time called ‘ Brussels ’ . Again , we could be saved by the British… If people see that a country can leave , and the lights do not go out , there is not a war , and a country does not go bankrupt , but even flourishes . If Britain proves that this theory can become a reality , it would have an enormous effect . ” Several countries are thought to be likely candidates for similar referendums to Britain , should she succeed in her bid to break free from the Union . Austria and Poland are thought to be possibilities , and Mr. Wilders added the Netherlands to the list . Speaking of the ‘ Patriotic Spring ’ coming in Europe , a reaction to the authoritarian and undemocratic European Union , Mr. Wilders said the “ genie ” of populist , pro-freedom politics was “ now out of the bottle ” . Mr. Wilders leads the Netherland ’ s Party for Freedom , and frequently uses the metaphor of spring blossoming to describe an awakening interest in the West in self-determinism , freedom , and national identity . His party consistently tops the polls in Holland , yet the other parties in parliament , both mainstream and alternative , shun him as a pariah and have sworn to keep him out of government even if he forms the largest party at next year ’ s elections . Writing exclusively for Breitbart earlier this year , he hailed a ‘ Patriotic Spring ’ and drew comparisons to 1980s Communist Europe , when “ Poland struggled to be Poland ” . Mr. Wilders wrote he saw the same thing happening in Europe and the United States again today . On the spreading discontent with the centralisation of political authority in Brussels , Mr. Wilders said yesterday the Eastern European states were most sensitive to totalitarianism , having only recently liberated themselves . He remarked : “ The eastern Europeans have already experienced what it is like to live under totalitarianism , they know what Moscow rule meant . Nobody knows that better than the Poles , the Czechs the Slovaks and the Hungarians . “ So they know , when they see another totalitarian monster – this time it ’ s dressed up a little differently ; this time it ’ s called Brussels instead of Moscow – but it still wants to take their national sovereignty and identity and change their country . And people are saying : ‘ enough is enough ’ . ” Brexit isn ’ t the only forthcoming political event Mr. Wilders has a keen eye on . Citizens of Austria voted yesterday to elect a new president , in a straight run-off between a left-Green candidate and right-wing populist Freedom Party candidate Norbert Hofer . The latest counts last night showed the pair perfectly matched at 50 per cent each , with just the postal votes to count this morning . Mr. Wilders said of the contest : “ Just like a Brexit , a Freedom Party victory would be an enormous incentive for people all over Europe to see that we are not parties on the fringe of politics , that we are not only the biggest party in respective countries but even provide the head of state , the elected President . “ It ’ s a reality and you ’ d better face it and deal with it . This will be the future in many European countries ” . Mr. Wilders ’ remarks echo those he made in an exclusive interview with Breitbart London last year . When asked on his thoughts about the British referendum on the European Union — at that point still 18 months away — Mr. Wilders said : “ I am inspired by the British referendum , and I hope it will inspire the rest of Europe when Britain votes to leave the European Union . You are lucky enough to be out of the Eurozone – in Holland we have had billions in austerity measures , taxes being raised , just to pay for the countries in Southern Europe who are unwilling to raise taxes . It is a wealth transfer union . “ The European project has very little support outside of the political elite . Holland is like the United Kingdom , with so many laws coming from the European Union instead of our parliament or cabinet . Europe should be a continent of nation states who are free trading , with our own identities , not a bunch of Eurocrats nobody voted for . “ I really hope the people of the United Kingdom don ’ t vote against Europe – but vote against the European Union ! That would inspire us Dutch , and the UK would be followed out by many other countries . ” Listen to the discussion of this article on ███ Daily on SiriusXM :

Britain voting to leave the European Union next month could trigger a wave of similar freedom movements across Europe and effectively “liberate” the continent, and control from Brussels is not unlike former Communist rule from Moscow for many, Dutch Freedom leader Geert Wilders has said. Speaking to Britain’s Sunday Telegraph, Eurosceptic and counter-Islamification campaigner Mr. Wilders said Britain would lead by example by voting to leave the European Union, and in doing so would “liberate Europe” for the second time in a century, making clear reference to Britain’s key role in resisting German expansionism during the Second World War. Mr. Wilders said: “Like in the 1940s, once again Britain could help liberate Europe from another totalitarian monster, this time called ‘Brussels’. Again, we could be saved by the British… If people see that a country can leave, and the lights do not go out, there is not a war, and a country does not go bankrupt, but even flourishes. If Britain proves that this theory can become a reality, it would have an enormous effect.” Several countries are thought to be likely candidates for similar referendums to Britain, should she succeed in her bid to break free from the Union. Austria and Poland are thought to be possibilities, and Mr. Wilders added the Netherlands to the list. Speaking of the ‘Patriotic Spring’ coming in Europe, a reaction to the authoritarian and undemocratic European Union, Mr. Wilders said the “genie” of populist, pro-freedom politics was “now out of the bottle”. Mr. Wilders leads the Netherland’s Party for Freedom, and frequently uses the metaphor of spring blossoming to describe an awakening interest in the West in self-determinism, freedom, and national identity. His party consistently tops the polls in Holland, yet the other parties in parliament, both mainstream and alternative, shun him as a pariah and have sworn to keep him out of government even if he forms the largest party at next year’s elections. Writing exclusively for Breitbart earlier this year, he hailed a ‘Patriotic Spring’ and drew comparisons to 1980s Communist Europe, when “Poland struggled to be Poland”. Mr. Wilders wrote he saw the same thing happening in Europe and the United States again today. On the spreading discontent with the centralisation of political authority in Brussels, Mr. Wilders said yesterday the Eastern European states were most sensitive to totalitarianism, having only recently liberated themselves. He remarked: “The eastern Europeans have already experienced what it is like to live under totalitarianism, they know what Moscow rule meant. Nobody knows that better than the Poles, the Czechs the Slovaks and the Hungarians. “So they know, when they see another totalitarian monster – this time it’s dressed up a little differently; this time it’s called Brussels instead of Moscow – but it still wants to take their national sovereignty and identity and change their country. And people are saying: ‘enough is enough’.” Brexit isn’t the only forthcoming political event Mr. Wilders has a keen eye on. Citizens of Austria voted yesterday to elect a new president, in a straight run-off between a left-Green candidate and right-wing populist Freedom Party candidate Norbert Hofer. The latest counts last night showed the pair perfectly matched at 50 per cent each, with just the postal votes to count this morning. Mr. Wilders said of the contest: “Just like a Brexit, a Freedom Party victory would be an enormous incentive for people all over Europe to see that we are not parties on the fringe of politics, that we are not only the biggest party in respective countries but even provide the head of state, the elected President. “It’s a reality and you’d better face it and deal with it. This will be the future in many European countries”. Mr. Wilders’ remarks echo those he made in an exclusive interview with Breitbart London last year. When asked on his thoughts about the British referendum on the European Union — at that point still 18 months away — Mr. Wilders said: “I am inspired by the British referendum, and I hope it will inspire the rest of Europe when Britain votes to leave the European Union. You are lucky enough to be out of the Eurozone – in Holland we have had billions in austerity measures, taxes being raised, just to pay for the countries in Southern Europe who are unwilling to raise taxes. It is a wealth transfer union. “The European project has very little support outside of the political elite. Holland is like the United Kingdom, with so many laws coming from the European Union instead of our parliament or cabinet. Europe should be a continent of nation states who are free trading, with our own identities, not a bunch of Eurocrats nobody voted for. “I really hope the people of the United Kingdom don’t vote against Europe – but vote against the European Union! That would inspire us Dutch, and the UK would be followed out by many other countries.” Listen to the discussion of this article on Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM:

www.breitbart.com

right

rcd0PiLnuOGZWJu7

test

3VIZ0JPmBXyXTc7d

media_bias

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/the-insufferable-nostalgia-of-a-lying-press/

The Insufferable Nostalgia of a Lying Press

George Neumayr, Debra J. Saunders, Geoff Shepard, Nic Rowan, Stuart Schwartz, Dov Fischer, Daniel J. Flynn

From Hollywood comes a steady stream of movies casting powerful liberals as embattled and marginalized conservatives as menacing . Hollywood ’ s latest tribute to a hopelessly entitled press , The Post , is in that vein . Meryl Streep plays an astonishingly brave and nervy Katharine Graham , willing to risk her fortune and even her freedom to publish the Pentagon Papers in the Washington Post . It is a feel-good film for the kind of press liberals who consider Trump ’ s mere tweets a singular and monstrous threat to their freedom . The film borrows from the Nixon tapes to make it seem like his impotent ravings imperiled her paper . But most of those rantings don ’ t even pertain to the Pentagon Papers , and in the one tape that does Nixon sounds remarkably blasé . If director Steven Spielberg had included the whole conversation with Al Haig in the movie , viewers would have heard the two agreeing that the disclosure of the Pentagon Papers primarily threatened to tarnish the legacy of the Kennedy administration . Nixon , after all , ended the war that Post editor Ben Bradlee ’ s close chum JFK started . Yet to most casual viewers , Nixon will appear as the president who had the most to hide . The subtext of the film , of course , is that Trump stands as the new Nixon . According to press reports , Meryl Streep and Spielberg squeezed into their visit to Washington , D.C. ( for the premiere ) a dinner with the Obamas , and Tom Hanks has stoutly rejected a hypothetical question from a reporter about a screening at the White House . Trump , we ’ re supposed to take from this posturing , is a unique threat to the press . But what has he done to it again ? Nothing , save criticize it . Has he wiretapped any reporters ? No , the dinner mate of Streep and Spielberg did that . Obama ’ s uber-progressive attorney general Eric Holder had Fox News reporter James Rosen investigated for talking to a State Department official . Rosen was labeled a “ criminal co-conspirator ” under the Espionage Act , a law that liberals , as we ’ ve seen from the Mueller investigation and the Flynn entrapment , like to use against conservatives but otherwise treat as antiquated and absurd . In The Post , the Nixon administration ’ s invoking of that law is presented as self-serving and tyrannical . But these days the admirers of Daniel Ellsberg and his media conduits rejoice at its partisan applications . In power , liberals love wiretappings , entrapments , and quarantining undesirable press ( Obama wanted Fox News excluded from press briefings ) ; out of power , all of that suddenly becomes evidence of a government run amok . It is fitting that smug and privileged celebrities play such phony heroes as Graham and Bradlee . They share a lot in common . Streep ’ s Graham frets over doing time in the slammer , which is about as convincing as Streep ’ s award show speeches in which she portrays multimillionaire “ artists ” as the ostracized kin of illegal immigrants . Liberals love to turn bullies into victims and victims into bullies . The real complaint underlying Hollywood ’ s hagiography is that liberals don ’ t possess one hundred percent of the power in America . All of their whining about “ tyranny ” is just a projection of their own desire for it . They want checks on everyone ’ s power but their own . It is out of that sense of entitlement that their Trump hysteria has grown , mushrooming to the point where they feel terrorized by a tweet . The unstated premise of movies like The Post is that the press deserves more public trust than elected government officials . Why ? The press is as corrupt as any other player in politics , and it is unelected . One of the fatuous lines from the movie , which audiences are supposed to clap at excitedly , is that the press serves the “ governed , not government. ” What does that even mean in a democracy , where the governed are the government ? That the press ’ s role is inherently subversive and destructive unless its buddies are in power ? In a democracy of , by , and for the people , a press with any sense of proportion and perspective would not freak out at criticism from a duly elected president . It would not hype that up into a “ crisis ” and celebrate Hollywood for drawing parallels between Nixon and Trump . It would accept that arrangement as the normal functioning of democracy . Instead , the press has spent the last year lecturing the American people on its “ abnormal ” choice of a leader , all the while fantasizing about the much greater abnormality of an undeclared fourth branch of government operating like a political party without scrutiny .

From Hollywood comes a steady stream of movies casting powerful liberals as embattled and marginalized conservatives as menacing. Hollywood’s latest tribute to a hopelessly entitled press, The Post, is in that vein. Meryl Streep plays an astonishingly brave and nervy Katharine Graham, willing to risk her fortune and even her freedom to publish the Pentagon Papers in the Washington Post. It is a feel-good film for the kind of press liberals who consider Trump’s mere tweets a singular and monstrous threat to their freedom. The film borrows from the Nixon tapes to make it seem like his impotent ravings imperiled her paper. But most of those rantings don’t even pertain to the Pentagon Papers, and in the one tape that does Nixon sounds remarkably blasé. If director Steven Spielberg had included the whole conversation with Al Haig in the movie, viewers would have heard the two agreeing that the disclosure of the Pentagon Papers primarily threatened to tarnish the legacy of the Kennedy administration. Nixon, after all, ended the war that Post editor Ben Bradlee’s close chum JFK started. Yet to most casual viewers, Nixon will appear as the president who had the most to hide. The subtext of the film, of course, is that Trump stands as the new Nixon. According to press reports, Meryl Streep and Spielberg squeezed into their visit to Washington, D.C. (for the premiere) a dinner with the Obamas, and Tom Hanks has stoutly rejected a hypothetical question from a reporter about a screening at the White House. Trump, we’re supposed to take from this posturing, is a unique threat to the press. But what has he done to it again? Nothing, save criticize it. Has he wiretapped any reporters? No, the dinner mate of Streep and Spielberg did that. Obama’s uber-progressive attorney general Eric Holder had Fox News reporter James Rosen investigated for talking to a State Department official. Rosen was labeled a “criminal co-conspirator” under the Espionage Act, a law that liberals, as we’ve seen from the Mueller investigation and the Flynn entrapment, like to use against conservatives but otherwise treat as antiquated and absurd. In The Post, the Nixon administration’s invoking of that law is presented as self-serving and tyrannical. But these days the admirers of Daniel Ellsberg and his media conduits rejoice at its partisan applications. In power, liberals love wiretappings, entrapments, and quarantining undesirable press (Obama wanted Fox News excluded from press briefings); out of power, all of that suddenly becomes evidence of a government run amok. It is fitting that smug and privileged celebrities play such phony heroes as Graham and Bradlee. They share a lot in common. Streep’s Graham frets over doing time in the slammer, which is about as convincing as Streep’s award show speeches in which she portrays multimillionaire “artists” as the ostracized kin of illegal immigrants. Liberals love to turn bullies into victims and victims into bullies. The real complaint underlying Hollywood’s hagiography is that liberals don’t possess one hundred percent of the power in America. All of their whining about “tyranny” is just a projection of their own desire for it. They want checks on everyone’s power but their own. It is out of that sense of entitlement that their Trump hysteria has grown, mushrooming to the point where they feel terrorized by a tweet. The unstated premise of movies like The Post is that the press deserves more public trust than elected government officials. Why? The press is as corrupt as any other player in politics, and it is unelected. One of the fatuous lines from the movie, which audiences are supposed to clap at excitedly, is that the press serves the “governed, not government.” What does that even mean in a democracy, where the governed are the government? That the press’s role is inherently subversive and destructive unless its buddies are in power? In a democracy of, by, and for the people, a press with any sense of proportion and perspective would not freak out at criticism from a duly elected president. It would not hype that up into a “crisis” and celebrate Hollywood for drawing parallels between Nixon and Trump. It would accept that arrangement as the normal functioning of democracy. Instead, the press has spent the last year lecturing the American people on its “abnormal” choice of a leader, all the while fantasizing about the much greater abnormality of an undeclared fourth branch of government operating like a political party without scrutiny.

www.spectator.org

right

3VIZ0JPmBXyXTc7d

test

o2fN4uERGL363uh0

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/30/fake-news-media-pushes-bogus-survey-as-proof-trump-causes-bullying/

Fake News: Media Pushes Bogus Survey As Proof Trump Causes Bullying

2016-11-30

Multiple U.S. media outlets are citing an online survey by the Southern Poverty Law Center ( SPLC ) as proof Donald Trump ’ s election is causing a surge of bullying in schools . But the survey is flawed in several obvious ways , and shouldn ’ t be taken as proof of anything at all . Even before Trump had secured the Republican nomination for president , SPLC was aggressively promoting the idea that a “ Trump Effect ” was causing a rise in bullying in American schools . The claim was even repeated by Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail . Now , in the wake of Trump ’ s victory , SPLC is doubling down on the idea , using a survey of American teachers in which it asks them what has been happening in their schools since Election Day . “ The survey data indicate that the results of the election are having a profoundly negative impact on schools and students , ” SPLC said in a Monday report on the survey . “ Ninety percent of educators report that school climate has been negatively affected … A full 80 percent describe heightened anxiety and concern on the part of students worried about the impact of the election on themselves and their families . ” If SPLC ’ s survey represented the genuine , nearly-unanimous sentiment of American teachers , it would warrant a great deal of concern . But the survey , in fact , isn ’ t even close to scientific . Instead , it ’ s simply a collection of anecdotes from a self-selecting group of teachers who are almost certainly on the political left and overwhelmingly hostile to Trump . SPLC ’ s own description of the survey is clear about its nature : The results of this survey are not scientific . The respondents were not selected in a manner to ensure a representative sample ; those who responded may have been more likely to perceive problems than those who did not . But it is the largest collection of educator responses that has been collected ; the tremendous number of responses as well as the overwhelming confirmation of what has been anecdotally reported in the media can not be ignored or dismissed . There are more than three million teachers in the United States . Despite SPLC ’ s rhetoric about the “ tremendous response ” to their survey , the 10,000 responses they received represents less than one-third of one percent of all teachers . Responses to the survey were solicited through left-leaning publications and organizations like Teaching Tolerance and the American Federation of Teachers , a major teachers union that was one of the first unions in the country to endorse Hillary Clinton for president . Unsurprisingly then , teachers who responded are likely left-leaning themselves , hostile towards Trump , and more likely to attribute negative events at school to some kind of “ Trump effect . ” But beyond that , there isn ’ t even any guarantee that the survey respondents are real on a basic level . The SurveyMonkey survey used to collect SPLC ’ s data can be answered by anybody , and respondents can submit answers anonymously , using fake data , or while pretending to be somebody else . There ’ s also nothing to stop a person from responding more than once . But these obvious flaws haven ’ t stopped the survey from being enthusiastically picked up by the media . Politico ’ s Morning Education newsletter said the “ vast majority of educators ” saw a negative outcome from the election ; it never noted the survey ’ s un-representative nature . NBC News , BuzzFeed , Vice , Newsweek , the BBC and more all made similar claims , simply repeating SPLC ’ s narrative without ever mentioning the survey ’ s clear shortcomings . None of the news sites listed above noted that the survey was unscientific , and some didn ’ t even note that SPLC is a left-leaning organization . It ’ s possible that Donald Trump ’ s election has , in some cases , helped cause a surge in bullying . But SPLC ’ s survey is hardly strong proof of it , and citing it like it is is fake news .

Multiple U.S. media outlets are citing an online survey by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as proof Donald Trump’s election is causing a surge of bullying in schools. But the survey is flawed in several obvious ways, and shouldn’t be taken as proof of anything at all. Even before Trump had secured the Republican nomination for president, SPLC was aggressively promoting the idea that a “Trump Effect” was causing a rise in bullying in American schools. The claim was even repeated by Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail. Now, in the wake of Trump’s victory, SPLC is doubling down on the idea, using a survey of American teachers in which it asks them what has been happening in their schools since Election Day. “The survey data indicate that the results of the election are having a profoundly negative impact on schools and students,” SPLC said in a Monday report on the survey. “Ninety percent of educators report that school climate has been negatively affected … A full 80 percent describe heightened anxiety and concern on the part of students worried about the impact of the election on themselves and their families.” If SPLC’s survey represented the genuine, nearly-unanimous sentiment of American teachers, it would warrant a great deal of concern. But the survey, in fact, isn’t even close to scientific. Instead, it’s simply a collection of anecdotes from a self-selecting group of teachers who are almost certainly on the political left and overwhelmingly hostile to Trump. SPLC’s own description of the survey is clear about its nature: The results of this survey are not scientific. The respondents were not selected in a manner to ensure a representative sample; those who responded may have been more likely to perceive problems than those who did not. But it is the largest collection of educator responses that has been collected; the tremendous number of responses as well as the overwhelming confirmation of what has been anecdotally reported in the media cannot be ignored or dismissed. There are more than three million teachers in the United States. Despite SPLC’s rhetoric about the “tremendous response” to their survey, the 10,000 responses they received represents less than one-third of one percent of all teachers. Responses to the survey were solicited through left-leaning publications and organizations like Teaching Tolerance and the American Federation of Teachers, a major teachers union that was one of the first unions in the country to endorse Hillary Clinton for president. Unsurprisingly then, teachers who responded are likely left-leaning themselves, hostile towards Trump, and more likely to attribute negative events at school to some kind of “Trump effect.” But beyond that, there isn’t even any guarantee that the survey respondents are real on a basic level. The SurveyMonkey survey used to collect SPLC’s data can be answered by anybody, and respondents can submit answers anonymously, using fake data, or while pretending to be somebody else. There’s also nothing to stop a person from responding more than once. But these obvious flaws haven’t stopped the survey from being enthusiastically picked up by the media. Politico’s Morning Education newsletter said the “vast majority of educators” saw a negative outcome from the election; it never noted the survey’s un-representative nature. NBC News, BuzzFeed, Vice, Newsweek, the BBC and more all made similar claims, simply repeating SPLC’s narrative without ever mentioning the survey’s clear shortcomings. None of the news sites listed above noted that the survey was unscientific, and some didn’t even note that SPLC is a left-leaning organization. It’s possible that Donald Trump’s election has, in some cases, helped cause a surge in bullying. But SPLC’s survey is hardly strong proof of it, and citing it like it is is fake news. Follow Blake on Twitter Send tips to blake@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

www.dailycaller.com

right

o2fN4uERGL363uh0

test

HUUqPnUkjkCCWbaz

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/ex-trump-aide-manaforts-taxes-to-be-focus-of-trial-on-friday-idUSKBN1KO19Y

Ex-Trump aide Manafort's taxes to be focus of trial on Friday

2018-08-04

Sarah N. Lynch

ALEXANDRIA , Va. ( ███ ) - An accountant for U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s one-time campaign chairman Paul Manafort admitted in trial testimony on Friday that she helped backdate documents and falsify financial records at Manafort and his business partner ’ s request to reduce his tax burden and help him qualify for loans . Cynthia Laporta , who prepared Manafort ’ s tax returns starting in 2014 , told a jury in federal court in Alexandria , Virginia , that she was testifying under an immunity agreement with the government to avoid being prosecuted as Manafort was charged with bank fraud and tax fraud . One member of the jury nodded in apparent agreement when U.S. District Judge T.S . Ellis cut off the prosecution ’ s questioning to ask her if she was afraid of being prosecuted herself . “ Correct , ” answered Laporta , explaining that she went along with accounting maneuvers suggested by Manafort and his longtime business associate Rick Gates because she did not want to create problems for her firm or lose a top client . “ I very much regret it , ” Laporta said on the trial ’ s fourth day as prosecutors build their case that Manafort hid tens of millions of dollars he earned working for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine to evade taxes . Laporta , the 14th witness to testify for the prosecution , was the most damaging yet for Manafort in the first trial arising from Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election . Manafort has pleaded not guilty to 18 counts of bank and tax fraud and failing to disclose foreign bank accounts , charges that largely pre-date the five months Manafort worked for Trump , some of them as campaign chairman . Once the jury had been dismissed for the day , Ellis gave defense lawyers a green light for detailed cross examination of Laporta on Monday . “ You are not limited in your cross examination of her , ” Ellis said . Both Laporta and fellow accountant Philip Ayliff , her predecessor who handled Manafort ’ s tax filings at the firm KWC , testified that they had no knowledge that Manafort controlled foreign bank accounts . The government has provided trial evidence of Manafort controlling a web of overseas accounts in Cyprus and elsewhere . Such accounts must be reported to tax authorities if they contain $ 10,000 or more . Laporta also detailed multiple examples in which Manafort and Gates sought to doctor financial records . One instance involved classifying revenue from a Cyprus-based company as a loan to lower his taxable income , Laporta testified . “ It ’ s hard-hitting testimony that creates an uphill battle for the defense , but that ’ s what cross examination is for , ” said Andrew Boutros , a former federal prosecutor who is now a white collar defense lawyer . “ I don ’ t know if there is enough to convict him right now , but they ’ re laying the groundwork for it . ” A conviction would give momentum to Mueller ’ s probe , in which 32 people and three companies have been indicted or pleaded guilty . Trump , angered by any questions about the legitimacy of his election win , has called Mueller ’ s investigation a witch hunt and wants it to be shut down . After spending the first two days of the trial laying out Manafort ’ s lavish spending , the prosecution is now digging into how he accounted for the more than $ 60 million he made in Ukraine and his efforts to allegedly mislead banks to get loans once the income from Ukraine dropped off precipitously in 2014 . Manafort ’ s attorneys have signaled they will seek to blame Gates , who was Trump ’ s deputy campaign chairman in 2016 . Gates pleaded guilty in February and is expected to testify against Manafort , possibly next week . Prosecutor Uzo Asonye focused some of his questioning on money transfers from a Cyprus-based company called Telmar Investments Ltd , which records showed had paid Manafort ’ s firm more than $ 5 million for consulting work . That income posed a problem for Manafort when it came time to prepare his business tax returns in September 2015 , Laporta testified . She said Gates told her in a conference call the income level “ was too high ” and proposed reclassifying a portion of it as a loan . Laporta said she knew it was “ inappropriate ” but agreed to alter the records to show that Manafort ’ s firm received a $ 900,000 loan from Telmar in 2014 , a change that would save Manafort nearly a half million dollars in taxes , Laporta said . Manafort signed an agreement to account for that loan that was backdated , according to Laporta and an exhibit shown to the jury . Trial consultant Roy Futterman , who is following the trial but not involved in it , said , “ The prosecution is doing a very good job of keeping a brisk pace , putting witnesses on for short direct examinations , keeping it lively and keeping very tight messages for each witness . ” Manafort ’ s attorneys do not seem to have scored a lot of points on cross-examination , Futterman said , but added that the witnesses who have testified so far are not “ the main targets . ” Earlier on Friday prosecutors asked Ayliff about Manafort ’ s accounting of a $ 1.5 million transfer in 2012 from Peranova Holdings Ltd as a loan , even as records showed that no interest or principal was paid on it in subsequent years . Peranova is one of numerous Cypriot entities that prosecutors have said Manafort controlled . Ayliff testified that KWC did not know Manafort controlled Peranova , and that if the transfer was a payment related to his consulting work in Ukraine it would have been treated as income - not as a loan - on his tax returns .

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - An accountant for U.S. President Donald Trump’s one-time campaign chairman Paul Manafort admitted in trial testimony on Friday that she helped backdate documents and falsify financial records at Manafort and his business partner’s request to reduce his tax burden and help him qualify for loans. Cynthia Laporta, who prepared Manafort’s tax returns starting in 2014, told a jury in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, that she was testifying under an immunity agreement with the government to avoid being prosecuted as Manafort was charged with bank fraud and tax fraud. One member of the jury nodded in apparent agreement when U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis cut off the prosecution’s questioning to ask her if she was afraid of being prosecuted herself. “Correct,” answered Laporta, explaining that she went along with accounting maneuvers suggested by Manafort and his longtime business associate Rick Gates because she did not want to create problems for her firm or lose a top client. “I very much regret it,” Laporta said on the trial’s fourth day as prosecutors build their case that Manafort hid tens of millions of dollars he earned working for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine to evade taxes. Laporta, the 14th witness to testify for the prosecution, was the most damaging yet for Manafort in the first trial arising from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. Manafort has pleaded not guilty to 18 counts of bank and tax fraud and failing to disclose foreign bank accounts, charges that largely pre-date the five months Manafort worked for Trump, some of them as campaign chairman. Once the jury had been dismissed for the day, Ellis gave defense lawyers a green light for detailed cross examination of Laporta on Monday. “You are not limited in your cross examination of her,” Ellis said. Both Laporta and fellow accountant Philip Ayliff, her predecessor who handled Manafort’s tax filings at the firm KWC, testified that they had no knowledge that Manafort controlled foreign bank accounts. The government has provided trial evidence of Manafort controlling a web of overseas accounts in Cyprus and elsewhere. Such accounts must be reported to tax authorities if they contain $10,000 or more. Laporta also detailed multiple examples in which Manafort and Gates sought to doctor financial records. One instance involved classifying revenue from a Cyprus-based company as a loan to lower his taxable income, Laporta testified. “It’s hard-hitting testimony that creates an uphill battle for the defense, but that’s what cross examination is for,” said Andrew Boutros, a former federal prosecutor who is now a white collar defense lawyer. “I don’t know if there is enough to convict him right now, but they’re laying the groundwork for it.” A conviction would give momentum to Mueller’s probe, in which 32 people and three companies have been indicted or pleaded guilty. Trump, angered by any questions about the legitimacy of his election win, has called Mueller’s investigation a witch hunt and wants it to be shut down. FILE PHOTO: Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort arrives for arraignment on a third superseding indictment against him by Special Counsel Robert Mueller on charges of witness tampering, at U.S. District Court in Washington, U.S., June 15, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst TARGETING GATES After spending the first two days of the trial laying out Manafort’s lavish spending, the prosecution is now digging into how he accounted for the more than $60 million he made in Ukraine and his efforts to allegedly mislead banks to get loans once the income from Ukraine dropped off precipitously in 2014. Manafort’s attorneys have signaled they will seek to blame Gates, who was Trump’s deputy campaign chairman in 2016. Gates pleaded guilty in February and is expected to testify against Manafort, possibly next week. Prosecutor Uzo Asonye focused some of his questioning on money transfers from a Cyprus-based company called Telmar Investments Ltd, which records showed had paid Manafort’s firm more than $5 million for consulting work. That income posed a problem for Manafort when it came time to prepare his business tax returns in September 2015, Laporta testified. She said Gates told her in a conference call the income level “was too high” and proposed reclassifying a portion of it as a loan. Laporta said she knew it was “inappropriate” but agreed to alter the records to show that Manafort’s firm received a $900,000 loan from Telmar in 2014, a change that would save Manafort nearly a half million dollars in taxes, Laporta said. Manafort signed an agreement to account for that loan that was backdated, according to Laporta and an exhibit shown to the jury. Slideshow (2 Images) Trial consultant Roy Futterman, who is following the trial but not involved in it, said, “The prosecution is doing a very good job of keeping a brisk pace, putting witnesses on for short direct examinations, keeping it lively and keeping very tight messages for each witness.” Manafort’s attorneys do not seem to have scored a lot of points on cross-examination, Futterman said, but added that the witnesses who have testified so far are not “the main targets.” Earlier on Friday prosecutors asked Ayliff about Manafort’s accounting of a $1.5 million transfer in 2012 from Peranova Holdings Ltd as a loan, even as records showed that no interest or principal was paid on it in subsequent years. Peranova is one of numerous Cypriot entities that prosecutors have said Manafort controlled. Ayliff testified that KWC did not know Manafort controlled Peranova, and that if the transfer was a payment related to his consulting work in Ukraine it would have been treated as income - not as a loan - on his tax returns.

www.reuters.com

center

HUUqPnUkjkCCWbaz

test

Xkr7UjxO3mIMNO9G

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/11/fusion-gps-tied-to-story-used-by-clinton-campaign-to-attack-trump-week-before-the-election/

Fusion GPS Tied To Story Used By Clinton Campaign To Attack Trump Week Before The Election

2017-12-11

A new report ties Fusion GPS to a flawed ( but sensational ) story claiming nefarious ties between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank , which Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign immediately used to attack Republican nominee Donald Trump a week before the 2016 election . On October 31 , 2016 , Slate ’ s Franklin Foer wrote a story alleging secret communications between Trump ’ s company and Russian bank Alfa . Foer ’ s story cited a group of computer scientists who claimed to have proof of server pings between Alfa ’ s server and a Trump hotel server . Foer ’ s piece argued that the server pings represented a secret line of communication between Trump and the Russians . That story , which failed to pass follow-up media scrutiny , originated with Fusion GPS , The Washington Times reported on Sunday . The explanation for the server pings appears to be spam from a third-party marketing company used by Trump ’ s organization , a follow-up investigation from The Intercept revealed . “ Fusion pushed the story that a special email server existed between Trump Tower and Moscow ’ s Alfa bank , ” as part of the group ’ s efforts to plant anti-Trump stories in the media , the Times reported . ( RELATED : Wife Of Demoted DOJ Official Worked For Fusion GPS During The Campaign ) That report is consistent with previously reported facts , including that Fusion was briefing various reporters on the contents of the anti-Trump dossier . The dossier , which BuzzFeed published in February , accused Alpha ’ s partners of having a close relationship with Putin and doing favors for him . Clinton ’ s campaign and the Democratic National Committee hired Fusion GPS in April 2016 to produce opposition research on Trump , including the infamous anti-Trump dossier , which Fusion outsourced to former British spy Christopher Steele . ( RELATED : CNN ’ s Undisclosed Ties To Fusion GPS ) Fusion co-founder Glenn Simpson and Foer were both featured speakers at an elite Washington , D.C. journalism conference three weeks before the story went up . Foer , who is now an editor at The Atlantic , did not return an email seeking comment about Fusion GPS ’ role in his story . The Clinton campaign immediately used Foer ’ s hit piece , which was reportedly produced by their own opposition research firm , to accuse Trump of being too close with Russia . “ This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking Trump ’ s ties to Russia , ” Clinton campaign press secretary Jake Sullivan said at the time , calling it “ the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow . ” The campaign sent out a tweet from Hillary Clinton ’ s Twitter account attacking Trump for the story . The tweet went viral , getting more than 28,000 likes or retweets . Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank . pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU — Hillary Clinton ( @ HillaryClinton ) November 1 , 2016 Foer ’ s story was discredited soon after , including by liberal news sources like Vox and The Washington Post . A story in the Post titled , “ That secret Trump-Russia email server link is likely neither secret nor a Trump-Russia link , ” brutally dismissed the accusations in Foer ’ s story . Several outlets , it was revealed , had declined to run the same story because it wasn ’ t credible . “ At least five outlets including The Intercept have been looking at this for weeks and decided it didn ’ t add up , ” Sam Biddle , a reporter at The Intercept tweeted at the time , adding : “ The Trump/Alfa story could be true , but we all looked at the same data Foer did and it just won ’ t take you to that conclusion . ” Fusion ’ s role in the shaky story raises further questions about the credibility of the infamous anti-Trump dossier , much of which remains unconfirmed and some of which has been debunked . It also provides further evidence of Fusion ’ s ability to manufacture misleading media narratives on behalf of a client . The same day that Foer ’ s story went up on Slate , Mother Jones reporter David Corn wrote an article citing the dossier and directly quoting Steele , although neither he nor Fusion was named in the story . Senate witnesses have repeatedly described Fusion as a smear-for-hire operation that manufactures misleading or false media narratives for its clients . Fusion is reported to have paid multiple journalists as part of its Russia-related work . The names of those journalists are currently unknown . REP. JIM JORDAN EXPLAINS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE CLINTON FOUNDATION AND FUSION GPS

A new report ties Fusion GPS to a flawed (but sensational) story claiming nefarious ties between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, which Hillary Clinton’s campaign immediately used to attack Republican nominee Donald Trump a week before the 2016 election. On October 31, 2016, Slate’s Franklin Foer wrote a story alleging secret communications between Trump’s company and Russian bank Alfa. Foer’s story cited a group of computer scientists who claimed to have proof of server pings between Alfa’s server and a Trump hotel server. Foer’s piece argued that the server pings represented a secret line of communication between Trump and the Russians. That story, which failed to pass follow-up media scrutiny, originated with Fusion GPS, The Washington Times reported on Sunday. The explanation for the server pings appears to be spam from a third-party marketing company used by Trump’s organization, a follow-up investigation from The Intercept revealed. “Fusion pushed the story that a special email server existed between Trump Tower and Moscow’s Alfa bank,” as part of the group’s efforts to plant anti-Trump stories in the media, the Times reported. (RELATED: Wife Of Demoted DOJ Official Worked For Fusion GPS During The Campaign) That report is consistent with previously reported facts, including that Fusion was briefing various reporters on the contents of the anti-Trump dossier. The dossier, which BuzzFeed published in February, accused Alpha’s partners of having a close relationship with Putin and doing favors for him. Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee hired Fusion GPS in April 2016 to produce opposition research on Trump, including the infamous anti-Trump dossier, which Fusion outsourced to former British spy Christopher Steele. (RELATED: CNN’s Undisclosed Ties To Fusion GPS) Fusion co-founder Glenn Simpson and Foer were both featured speakers at an elite Washington, D.C. journalism conference three weeks before the story went up. Foer, who is now an editor at The Atlantic, did not return an email seeking comment about Fusion GPS’ role in his story. The Clinton campaign immediately used Foer’s hit piece, which was reportedly produced by their own opposition research firm, to accuse Trump of being too close with Russia. “This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking Trump’s ties to Russia,” Clinton campaign press secretary Jake Sullivan said at the time, calling it “the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow.” The campaign sent out a tweet from Hillary Clinton’s Twitter account attacking Trump for the story. The tweet went viral, getting more than 28,000 likes or retweets. Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016 Foer’s story was discredited soon after, including by liberal news sources like Vox and The Washington Post. A story in the Post titled, “That secret Trump-Russia email server link is likely neither secret nor a Trump-Russia link,” brutally dismissed the accusations in Foer’s story. Several outlets, it was revealed, had declined to run the same story because it wasn’t credible. “At least five outlets including The Intercept have been looking at this for weeks and decided it didn’t add up,” Sam Biddle, a reporter at The Intercept tweeted at the time, adding: “The Trump/Alfa story could be true, but we all looked at the same data Foer did and it just won’t take you to that conclusion.” Fusion’s role in the shaky story raises further questions about the credibility of the infamous anti-Trump dossier, much of which remains unconfirmed and some of which has been debunked. It also provides further evidence of Fusion’s ability to manufacture misleading media narratives on behalf of a client. The same day that Foer’s story went up on Slate, Mother Jones reporter David Corn wrote an article citing the dossier and directly quoting Steele, although neither he nor Fusion was named in the story. Senate witnesses have repeatedly described Fusion as a smear-for-hire operation that manufactures misleading or false media narratives for its clients. Fusion is reported to have paid multiple journalists as part of its Russia-related work. The names of those journalists are currently unknown. REP. JIM JORDAN EXPLAINS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE CLINTON FOUNDATION AND FUSION GPS Chuck Ross contributed reporting.

www.dailycaller.com

right

Xkr7UjxO3mIMNO9G

test

lnfOtOvRgej2OeFj

federal_budget

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/sequester-timeline-when-will-the-cuts-be-felt/

Sequester Timeline: When Will the Cuts Be Felt?

Chris Good

Little is known about when , exactly , the `` sequester '' will wreak its expected havoc on the nation - but the process begins on Friday . Each federal agency will implement its cuts differently , on its own timeline , and the White House Office of Management and Budget tells ███ it does not have a calendar for what cuts will happen when . The soonest-felt cuts will be to civilians working for federal contractors , who have been squeezed since late last year . Layoffs could happen right away , and President Obama will travel to a shipyard in Virginia today to highlight those cuts . But we can guess that some of the worst purported consequences - of which agency heads have warned repeatedly - will come as a result of furloughs for government workers . Mandatory days off for TSA agents and air-traffic controllers will mean logjammed air travel , and fewer border patrol agents on duty will mean a more porous border , Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano have said . Those furloughs will begin in April . March 1 - Sequestration goes into effect . Barring a large deficit-reduction deal , or an agreement to cancel the sequester altogether , President Obama will be required to issue a sequestration order before midnight on March 1 . His Office of Management and Budget ( OMB ) will submit a report to Congress . Federal agencies , which have already been drafting their sequestration plans according to OMB , will begin operating at reduced funding levels . The cuts will happen . ~March 4 - Furlough notices issued . If President Obama gives his order late at night on Friday , March 1 , agencies could give notice to employees on the following Monday , March 4 , that furloughs will be coming . Furloughed employees must be notified a month in advance , in most cases , according to Office of Personnel Management guidelines . Agencies can issue these notices before March 1 , so it 's possible federal employees will get word of furloughs this week . Agencies could also wait to issue furlough notices , hoping that a deficit deal comes quickly . March 27 - The government runs out of money , or a new funding measure is passed . The federal government is currently being funded by a temporary measure that expires March 27 . Congress and Obama will have to approve more funding in March , and while they 've previously opted to continue the same funding levels , the March 27 deadline could provide a convenient time for them to strike a deficit deal , or at least modify the sequestration law to target the cuts differently . ~April 4 - Furloughs can begin , consequences are felt . This date is not definite , but it 's a best guess . A wide array of agency-specific factors could mean different kinds of federal workers are furloughed at different times , according to an OMB official , but a 30-day notification timeline is the general rule - meaning government employees would start missing work a month after notices go out March 4 . It 's not as if the entire federal government will shut its doors . Many furloughed employees will miss one day every two weeks - the Federal Aviation Administration , for instance , plans on cutting its workforce by that amount . But if the heads of federal agencies are to be believed - and hyperbole is possible - Americans can expect longer waits in the TSA line , fewer commercial flights , a more porous border , fewer workplace inspections , less meat and poultry production , and a host of miserable consequences arising from furloughed TSA workers , air traffic controlers , border-patrol agents , and OSHA and FDA inspectors . Again , it 's not certain that these purported consequences will begin happening April 4 . Agencies have developed their own plans for implementing sequester cuts , and the timing could be different where different parts of the federal government are concerned . If any agencies have graded out their sequester plans , counting on Obama and Congress to reach a deficit bargain within a few weeks of the sequestration era , the worst of the cuts could be delayed .

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. Charles Dharapak/AP Photo Little is known about when, exactly, the "sequester" will wreak its expected havoc on the nation - but the process begins on Friday. Each federal agency will implement its cuts differently, on its own timeline, and the White House Office of Management and Budget tells ABC News it does not have a calendar for what cuts will happen when. The soonest-felt cuts will be to civilians working for federal contractors, who have been squeezed since late last year. Layoffs could happen right away, and President Obama will travel to a shipyard in Virginia today to highlight those cuts. But we can guess that some of the worst purported consequences - of which agency heads have warned repeatedly - will come as a result of furloughs for government workers. Mandatory days off for TSA agents and air-traffic controllers will mean logjammed air travel, and fewer border patrol agents on duty will mean a more porous border, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano have said. Those furloughs will begin in April. With that in mind, here's a basic timeline: March 1 - Sequestration goes into effect. Barring a large deficit-reduction deal, or an agreement to cancel the sequester altogether, President Obama will be required to issue a sequestration order before midnight on March 1. His Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will submit a report to Congress. Federal agencies, which have already been drafting their sequestration plans according to OMB, will begin operating at reduced funding levels. The cuts will happen. ~March 4 - Furlough notices issued. If President Obama gives his order late at night on Friday, March 1, agencies could give notice to employees on the following Monday, March 4, that furloughs will be coming. Furloughed employees must be notified a month in advance, in most cases, according to Office of Personnel Management guidelines. Agencies can issue these notices before March 1, so it's possible federal employees will get word of furloughs this week. Agencies could also wait to issue furlough notices, hoping that a deficit deal comes quickly. March 27 - The government runs out of money, or a new funding measure is passed. The federal government is currently being funded by a temporary measure that expires March 27. Congress and Obama will have to approve more funding in March, and while they've previously opted to continue the same funding levels, the March 27 deadline could provide a convenient time for them to strike a deficit deal, or at least modify the sequestration law to target the cuts differently. ~April 4 - Furloughs can begin, consequences are felt. This date is not definite, but it's a best guess. A wide array of agency-specific factors could mean different kinds of federal workers are furloughed at different times, according to an OMB official, but a 30-day notification timeline is the general rule - meaning government employees would start missing work a month after notices go out March 4. It's not as if the entire federal government will shut its doors. Many furloughed employees will miss one day every two weeks - the Federal Aviation Administration, for instance, plans on cutting its workforce by that amount. But if the heads of federal agencies are to be believed - and hyperbole is possible - Americans can expect longer waits in the TSA line, fewer commercial flights, a more porous border, fewer workplace inspections, less meat and poultry production, and a host of miserable consequences arising from furloughed TSA workers, air traffic controlers, border-patrol agents, and OSHA and FDA inspectors. Again, it's not certain that these purported consequences will begin happening April 4. Agencies have developed their own plans for implementing sequester cuts, and the timing could be different where different parts of the federal government are concerned. If any agencies have graded out their sequester plans, counting on Obama and Congress to reach a deficit bargain within a few weeks of the sequestration era, the worst of the cuts could be delayed.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

lnfOtOvRgej2OeFj

test

9SOEOaVjq2wVdI1s

media_bias

Reason

https://reason.com/2019/10/14/the-new-york-times-nbc-and-other-outlets-dont-trust-you-to-handle-the-truth/

The New York Times, NBC, and Other Outlets Don't Trust You To Handle the Truth

2019-10-14

Nick Gillespie, David Bernstein, Josh Blackman, Peter Suderman, Peter Boettke, Eugene Volokh, Jacob Sullum, Christian Britschgi, Billy Binion

In the original Planet of the Apes movie ( 1968 ) , the most-fascinating character is Dr. Zaius , the elitist , orangutan in chief who alone possessed the secret knowledge that ( spoiler alert ! ) apes descended from humans . Toward the end of the film—shortly before he warns Charlton Heston 's character not to search for the truth `` because you may not like what you find ! `` —he monologues that the hoi polloi ( chimps and gorillas in this case ) must be shielded from certain realities lest they be driven to insanity and nihilism . The legacy media are having their Dr. Zaius moment , paternalistically shielding their infantile audience ( read : you and me ) from ugly images and realities . This is not simply a revolting development but a deeply troubling one that will only accelerate the ongoing loss of confidence and trust the public has in media . According to polling done for the Columbia Journalism Review , fewer than 20 percent of us have a `` great deal of confidence '' in the press . The only institution held in lower esteem is Congress . Yet the media seem happy to keep digging their own grave . Yesterday , for instance , The New York Times reported on what it called a `` macabre video of [ a ] fake Trump shooting media and critics '' that was shown at a conference held at one of the president 's own properties ( Trump had nothing to do with the conference or the video , which the White House has condemned ) . You 'd assume the paper would link to or embed the video in support of its characterization . But it refused to , even as it 's safe to say that it was the Times ' coverage that helped bring the video to a large viewing audience ( that 's how I learned about it ) . Instead , it described the video , which was included in an exhibition of videos associated with pro-Trump `` memesmith '' Carpe Donktum , thus : The video , which includes the logo for Mr. Trump 's 2020 re-election campaign , comprises a series of internet memes . The most violent clip shows Mr. Trump 's head superimposed on the body of a man opening fire inside the `` Church of Fake News '' on parishioners who have the faces of his critics or the logos of media organizations superimposed on their bodies . It appears to be an edited scene of a church massacre from the 2014 dark comedy film `` Kingsman : The Secret Service . '' Here 's the video that the Times was quick to write about but refused to link to in its online coverage ( forget about embedding ! ) . Decide for yourself is this is too much for regular folks to handle : The video , which was originally posted to YouTube over a year ago , had virtually no views until the Times ' coverage ; as of this writing , it had more than 136,000 views on the channel above and has been viewed millions more times in various YouTube and Twitter iterations . The Times ' leadership seems more than willing to grab readers ' eyeballs by talking about the video , but they are not willing to provide readers with easy access to the offending material . A similar mindset seems at work behind the producers of Meet the Press , who `` in good conscience '' refused to show footage from a recent presidential rally that they nonetheless had no qualms about condemning from a moral point of view : Here 's one version of relevant passages from the rally , in which the president lays into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter ( this starts around the two-minute mark ) . Trump 's rhetorical question , `` Where 's Hunter ? '' even started trending on Twitter in the wake of this . It 's ugly stuff , to be sure , but that 's exactly why the press should not be reticent both in covering controversial speech and providing access to it . That 's the best way for the audience to agree with any given outlet 's analysis , assuming it is accurate and truly persuasive . Instead , the press is choosing to become passive-aggressive , effectively saying , `` Here 's a really disturbing important thing that X just did , but we 're not going to let you judge for yourself . '' That 's what the New Zealand media did after the Christchurch mass shooting this year . In the name of fighting `` extremism , '' the government banned owning or sharing the shooter 's manifesto , which was a disgusting piece of incoherent white supremacist garbage . Amazingly , the New Zealand media voluntarily censored its own coverage of the event , the shooter , and judicial procedures—and drew praise from American journalists for such actions . The actions of the Times , Meet the Press , and the New Zealand media will not slow the loss of confidence and trust in the media . On the contrary , such behavior will accelerate it as readers continue to rebel against such paternalism by searching out alternative sources of information ( including many shady , conspiracist sites ) . There 's already a widespread belief , some or much it justified , that powerful elites hold most Americans in various forms of contempt . Simultaneously telling those same readers , viewers , and listeners that big , important , scary things are happening and then withholding primary sources is a perfect recipe to increase cynicism and anger toward the media . Paternalism did n't work for Dr. Zaius ( what kind of doctor was he , anyway ? ) and it 's even less likely to work for the solons overseeing the decline of empires of print , cable , and other forms of legacy media . They should trust their readership and give them more information , not less , when it comes to the news of the day .

In the original Planet of the Apes movie (1968), the most-fascinating character is Dr. Zaius, the elitist, orangutan in chief who alone possessed the secret knowledge that (spoiler alert!) apes descended from humans. Toward the end of the film—shortly before he warns Charlton Heston's character not to search for the truth "because you may not like what you find!"—he monologues that the hoi polloi (chimps and gorillas in this case) must be shielded from certain realities lest they be driven to insanity and nihilism. The legacy media are having their Dr. Zaius moment, paternalistically shielding their infantile audience (read: you and me) from ugly images and realities. This is not simply a revolting development but a deeply troubling one that will only accelerate the ongoing loss of confidence and trust the public has in media. According to polling done for the Columbia Journalism Review, fewer than 20 percent of us have a "great deal of confidence" in the press. The only institution held in lower esteem is Congress. Yet the media seem happy to keep digging their own grave. Yesterday, for instance, The New York Times reported on what it called a "macabre video of [a] fake Trump shooting media and critics" that was shown at a conference held at one of the president's own properties (Trump had nothing to do with the conference or the video, which the White House has condemned). You'd assume the paper would link to or embed the video in support of its characterization. But it refused to, even as it's safe to say that it was the Times' coverage that helped bring the video to a large viewing audience (that's how I learned about it). Instead, it described the video, which was included in an exhibition of videos associated with pro-Trump "memesmith" Carpe Donktum, thus: The video, which includes the logo for Mr. Trump's 2020 re-election campaign, comprises a series of internet memes. The most violent clip shows Mr. Trump's head superimposed on the body of a man opening fire inside the "Church of Fake News" on parishioners who have the faces of his critics or the logos of media organizations superimposed on their bodies. It appears to be an edited scene of a church massacre from the 2014 dark comedy film "Kingsman: The Secret Service." Here's the video that the Times was quick to write about but refused to link to in its online coverage (forget about embedding!). Decide for yourself is this is too much for regular folks to handle: The video, which was originally posted to YouTube over a year ago, had virtually no views until the Times' coverage; as of this writing, it had more than 136,000 views on the channel above and has been viewed millions more times in various YouTube and Twitter iterations. The Times' leadership seems more than willing to grab readers' eyeballs by talking about the video, but they are not willing to provide readers with easy access to the offending material. A similar mindset seems at work behind the producers of Meet the Press, who "in good conscience" refused to show footage from a recent presidential rally that they nonetheless had no qualms about condemning from a moral point of view: WATCH: The president held a campaign rally last night and attacked Hunter Biden. We cannot in good conscience show it to you @chucktodd: "Politics ain't beanbag, but it isn't supposed to be this either. We all need to play a role in not rewarding this kind of politics" pic.twitter.com/ERPk4SJ0Yf — Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) October 11, 2019 Here's one version of relevant passages from the rally, in which the president lays into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter (this starts around the two-minute mark). Trump's rhetorical question, "Where's Hunter?" even started trending on Twitter in the wake of this. It's ugly stuff, to be sure, but that's exactly why the press should not be reticent both in covering controversial speech and providing access to it. That's the best way for the audience to agree with any given outlet's analysis, assuming it is accurate and truly persuasive. Instead, the press is choosing to become passive-aggressive, effectively saying, "Here's a really disturbing important thing that X just did, but we're not going to let you judge for yourself." That's what the New Zealand media did after the Christchurch mass shooting this year. In the name of fighting "extremism," the government banned owning or sharing the shooter's manifesto, which was a disgusting piece of incoherent white supremacist garbage. Amazingly, the New Zealand media voluntarily censored its own coverage of the event, the shooter, and judicial procedures—and drew praise from American journalists for such actions. The actions of the Times, Meet the Press, and the New Zealand media will not slow the loss of confidence and trust in the media. On the contrary, such behavior will accelerate it as readers continue to rebel against such paternalism by searching out alternative sources of information (including many shady, conspiracist sites). There's already a widespread belief, some or much it justified, that powerful elites hold most Americans in various forms of contempt. Simultaneously telling those same readers, viewers, and listeners that big, important, scary things are happening and then withholding primary sources is a perfect recipe to increase cynicism and anger toward the media. Paternalism didn't work for Dr. Zaius (what kind of doctor was he, anyway?) and it's even less likely to work for the solons overseeing the decline of empires of print, cable, and other forms of legacy media. They should trust their readership and give them more information, not less, when it comes to the news of the day.

www.reason.com

right

9SOEOaVjq2wVdI1s

test

ve63GbTq5lTedtXY

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/corruption-of-the-insiders/

Corruption of the Insiders

Jeffrey Lord, David Catron, Dov Fischer, John C. Wohlstetter, R. Emmett Tyrrell, William Murchison

The latest news from Chicago has a very angry Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson attacking the Cook County State ’ s Attorney ’ s Office for abruptly dropping the 16-count indictment of actor Jussie Smollett . Recall that , in the words of the New York Times : Mr. Smollett , who is black , gay and outspoken on social issues , had told the police that two men jumped him , while taunting him with homophobic and racial slurs and yelling “ This is MAGA country , ” a reference to President Trump ’ s “ Make America Great Again ” slogan . The assailants , according to Mr. Smollett , tied a rope around his neck and poured a chemical substance on him . He was briefly treated at a hospital . Then , of a sudden , the Chicago police , after investigating , came to the conclusion Smollett ’ s tale was not only a lie but that it was a stunt . A stunt which Smollett had carefully planned himself and carried out with two Nigerian brothers who were captured on video purchasing the supplies used in the “ attack. ” The idea was to gain national attention for Smollett , who was said to be dissatisfied with his salary on his Empire TV series — and at the same time take a smack at President Trump , whom Smollett despises . Abruptly , Smollett went from heroic victim to perpetrator and found himself formally charged . Now , the judicial proceedings formally underway with indictments in hand , of a sudden the charges were all dropped . Astounding Mayor Emanuel and Police Superintendent Johnson . Said the Mayor : “ This looks like he ’ s an actor , a person of influence , he got treated differently than everyone else . ” In fact , the New York Times reported this in the same story linked above : Until Tuesday , the prosecutor ’ s office had appeared to be taking a hard line with Mr. Smollett . A couple of weeks after his arrest , the office announced that a grand jury had indicted him on 16 separate counts of disorderly conduct related to the filing of a false police report . The move appeared to increase the pressure on Mr. Smollett , whose lawyers described it as “ prosecutorial overkill. ” But the state ’ s attorney ’ s office had already drawn scrutiny for its handling of the case . The Chicago Tribune reported that after police department sources began leaking their doubts about Mr. Smollett to local reporters , Tina Tchen , a former chief of staff to Michelle Obama , had emailed Kimberly Foxx , the top prosecutor , saying the actor ’ s family had “ concerns about the investigation. ” Ms. Foxx told Ms. Tchen , and separately a member of Mr. Smollett ’ s family , that she had asked the police superintendent to request that the F.B.I . take over the investigation . “ Omg this would be a huge victory , ” the relative replied in a text message , according to The Tribune . Once it became clear that Mr. Smollett was himself a suspect , Ms. Foxx recused herself from the case , but her actions had already embittered the police department , and the head of the police union accused her of interference . Jussie Smollett logged a total of 18 hours of community service over 2 days — with Jesse Jackson ‘ s organization , the Rainbow PUSH Coalition — and that was enough to satisfy prosecutors in Chicago . In other words ? Insiders in Chicago — from Tina Tchen , the ex-chief of staff to former First Lady Michelle Obama , to Jesse Jackson — put the pressure on to have the charges dropped . And the all-too-responsive Cook County State ’ s Attorney , Kimberly Foxx — she of widely reported political ambitions who had previously recused herself from the case — suddenly jumped back into the case and had the charges dropped . It doesn ’ t get more “ insider corruption ” than that . Meanwhile , in Washington , the Trump-Russia collusion case imploded with the Mueller report . But not before revealing a cast of insiders who spent volumes of time trying to , first , prevent the election of Donald Trump to the White House . Then , second , when the attempt at preventing his election failed , a veritable parade of the same insiders began going about the business of plotting a silent coup to remove the new president . These insiders all have names and held major jobs . They include both an ex-Director of the FBI and CIA , plus over twenty officials in either the FBI and the Department of Justice . Most have now either been fired or resigned . What both the Smollett case and the “ get Trump ” silent coup attempt have surfaced is a bold case of the corruption of insiders in Chicago and Washington . Revealing an elitist mentality that has those with power and influence deliberately and willfully ignoring the law in an obsessive drive to satisfy their own personal political whims — freeing Jussie Smollett in Chicago or blocking Donald Trump from the White House and then plotting to remove him once duly elected . And in both cases the elite media aided and abetted in the pushing of the false Smollett narrative and , in Washington , the phony Trump-Russia collusion fairy tale . It should not go unnoticed that in both cases there were ties to former President Obama . In Chicago , at the center of the corruption in the Smollett case was Michelle Obama ’ s insider ex-chief of staff . In Washington the plotters began their anti-Trump activities as players of various influence in the Obama administration . From Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch to the Obama appointed FBI Director Comey and CIA Director Brennan and on down through the ranks , each and every one were tied to the Obama administration . Whatever else this says it is crystal clear that in both the Smollett and Trump-Russia collusion cases insiders were seeking to achieve their objectives outside the law — the law they took an oath to uphold . They sought to pull strings , to leak to the press , to manipulate , to lie — anything and everything went . In Washington it would be a serious mistake for President Trump to follow Karl Rove ’ s advice in the Wall Street Journal . Said Karl : Team Trump should use the Mueller report to pivot to issues , like the economy and the opioid crisis , that matter to swing voters who will decide the 2020 presidential election . Certainly it is always right to stay focused on policy issues — health care , infrastructure , and so on . But “ pivot ” away from what has been done here to the Trump presidency — and ultimately the American people ? Decidedly not . Over at Fox News , former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has headlined his views this way : On Trump-Russia Collusion — Let ’ s investigate why we ’ ve been lied to for two years The political and media elite in America have some explaining to do . As the reality sinks in that the Trump campaign didn ’ t collude with Russia during the 2016 election — and that no obstruction of justice charges levied against President Trump are forthcoming — Americans are going to start asking why we have been lied to for two years . Additionally , Congress should fully make the Mueller report and all its supporting documents public — to the extent that the law , national security and decency allow . The agents who wrote and signed the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant applications that were based on the absurd , unsubstantiated Christopher Steele dossier should be held accountable . As a part of all this , members of Congress should pressure their colleague Rep. Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , to step down as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee . Even after Mueller ’ s findings have been made public , Schiff has continued to lie to the American people about alleged secret intelligence . He has no business knowing our national secrets if he ’ s willing to fabricate them for political gain . Second , Congress should look at the wide gap between the Justice Department ’ s willingness to aggressively pursue phony allegations about the Trump campaign while completely ignoring documented lawbreaking by the Clintons . The group at the FBI that has doggedly pursued the false collusion story is the same group that let Hillary Clinton slide on deleting official emails , creating an illegal computer server and destroying evidence of her wrongdoing . If fully uncovered , I expect the extent to which these agents were motivated by political bias would be astounding . Finally , the third investigation should be completed by the news media . The major media outlets should form a commission — perhaps with Pew Research or the Poynter Institute — to examine the role the media played in spreading falsehoods for the last two years . It ’ s clear that the media were either handily used by — or fully in league with — the political enemies of President Trump . Exactly right . What the Speaker is describing is a full-fledged scandal of corrupt insiders lying to the American people day in and day out for over two years . It is time — past time — to start the ball rolling and get to the bottom of exactly what was done and who was responsible for what . There must be accountability in both Chicago and Washington and start to put an end to the corruption of the insiders .

Call it the corruption of insiders. The latest news from Chicago has a very angry Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson attacking the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office for abruptly dropping the 16-count indictment of actor Jussie Smollett. Recall that, in the words of the New York Times: Mr. Smollett, who is black, gay and outspoken on social issues, had told the police that two men jumped him, while taunting him with homophobic and racial slurs and yelling “This is MAGA country,” a reference to President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan. The assailants, according to Mr. Smollett, tied a rope around his neck and poured a chemical substance on him. He was briefly treated at a hospital. Then, of a sudden, the Chicago police, after investigating, came to the conclusion Smollett’s tale was not only a lie but that it was a stunt. A stunt which Smollett had carefully planned himself and carried out with two Nigerian brothers who were captured on video purchasing the supplies used in the “attack.” The idea was to gain national attention for Smollett, who was said to be dissatisfied with his salary on his Empire TV series — and at the same time take a smack at President Trump, whom Smollett despises. Abruptly, Smollett went from heroic victim to perpetrator and found himself formally charged. Now, the judicial proceedings formally underway with indictments in hand, of a sudden the charges were all dropped. Astounding Mayor Emanuel and Police Superintendent Johnson. Said the Mayor: “This looks like he’s an actor, a person of influence, he got treated differently than everyone else.” In fact, the New York Times reported this in the same story linked above: Until Tuesday, the prosecutor’s office had appeared to be taking a hard line with Mr. Smollett. A couple of weeks after his arrest, the office announced that a grand jury had indicted him on 16 separate counts of disorderly conduct related to the filing of a false police report. The move appeared to increase the pressure on Mr. Smollett, whose lawyers described it as “prosecutorial overkill.” But the state’s attorney’s office had already drawn scrutiny for its handling of the case. The Chicago Tribune reported that after police department sources began leaking their doubts about Mr. Smollett to local reporters, Tina Tchen, a former chief of staff to Michelle Obama, had emailed Kimberly Foxx, the top prosecutor, saying the actor’s family had “concerns about the investigation.” Ms. Foxx told Ms. Tchen, and separately a member of Mr. Smollett’s family, that she had asked the police superintendent to request that the F.B.I. take over the investigation. “Omg this would be a huge victory,” the relative replied in a text message, according to The Tribune. Once it became clear that Mr. Smollett was himself a suspect, Ms. Foxx recused herself from the case, but her actions had already embittered the police department, and the head of the police union accused her of interference. Over at the entertainment site TMZ was this report: Jussie Smollett logged a total of 18 hours of community service over 2 days — with Jesse Jackson‘s organization, the Rainbow PUSH Coalition — and that was enough to satisfy prosecutors in Chicago. In other words? Insiders in Chicago — from Tina Tchen, the ex-chief of staff to former First Lady Michelle Obama, to Jesse Jackson — put the pressure on to have the charges dropped. And the all-too-responsive Cook County State’s Attorney, Kimberly Foxx — she of widely reported political ambitions who had previously recused herself from the case — suddenly jumped back into the case and had the charges dropped. It doesn’t get more “insider corruption” than that. Meanwhile, in Washington, the Trump-Russia collusion case imploded with the Mueller report. But not before revealing a cast of insiders who spent volumes of time trying to, first, prevent the election of Donald Trump to the White House. Then, second, when the attempt at preventing his election failed, a veritable parade of the same insiders began going about the business of plotting a silent coup to remove the new president. These insiders all have names and held major jobs. They include both an ex-Director of the FBI and CIA, plus over twenty officials in either the FBI and the Department of Justice. Most have now either been fired or resigned. What both the Smollett case and the “get Trump” silent coup attempt have surfaced is a bold case of the corruption of insiders in Chicago and Washington. Revealing an elitist mentality that has those with power and influence deliberately and willfully ignoring the law in an obsessive drive to satisfy their own personal political whims — freeing Jussie Smollett in Chicago or blocking Donald Trump from the White House and then plotting to remove him once duly elected. And in both cases the elite media aided and abetted in the pushing of the false Smollett narrative and, in Washington, the phony Trump-Russia collusion fairy tale. It should not go unnoticed that in both cases there were ties to former President Obama. In Chicago, at the center of the corruption in the Smollett case was Michelle Obama’s insider ex-chief of staff. In Washington the plotters began their anti-Trump activities as players of various influence in the Obama administration. From Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch to the Obama appointed FBI Director Comey and CIA Director Brennan and on down through the ranks, each and every one were tied to the Obama administration. Whatever else this says it is crystal clear that in both the Smollett and Trump-Russia collusion cases insiders were seeking to achieve their objectives outside the law — the law they took an oath to uphold. They sought to pull strings, to leak to the press, to manipulate, to lie — anything and everything went. The question now is what to do here. In Washington it would be a serious mistake for President Trump to follow Karl Rove’s advice in the Wall Street Journal. Said Karl: Team Trump should use the Mueller report to pivot to issues, like the economy and the opioid crisis, that matter to swing voters who will decide the 2020 presidential election. Certainly it is always right to stay focused on policy issues — health care, infrastructure, and so on. But “pivot” away from what has been done here to the Trump presidency — and ultimately the American people? Decidedly not. Over at Fox News, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has headlined his views this way: On Trump-Russia Collusion — Let’s investigate why we’ve been lied to for two years Says Speaker Gingrich: The political and media elite in America have some explaining to do. As the reality sinks in that the Trump campaign didn’t collude with Russia during the 2016 election — and that no obstruction of justice charges levied against President Trump are forthcoming — Americans are going to start asking why we have been lied to for two years. Additionally, Congress should fully make the Mueller report and all its supporting documents public — to the extent that the law, national security and decency allow. The agents who wrote and signed the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant applications that were based on the absurd, unsubstantiated Christopher Steele dossier should be held accountable. As a part of all this, members of Congress should pressure their colleague Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., to step down as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Even after Mueller’s findings have been made public, Schiff has continued to lie to the American people about alleged secret intelligence. He has no business knowing our national secrets if he’s willing to fabricate them for political gain. Second, Congress should look at the wide gap between the Justice Department’s willingness to aggressively pursue phony allegations about the Trump campaign while completely ignoring documented lawbreaking by the Clintons. The group at the FBI that has doggedly pursued the false collusion story is the same group that let Hillary Clinton slide on deleting official emails, creating an illegal computer server and destroying evidence of her wrongdoing. If fully uncovered, I expect the extent to which these agents were motivated by political bias would be astounding. Finally, the third investigation should be completed by the news media. The major media outlets should form a commission — perhaps with Pew Research or the Poynter Institute — to examine the role the media played in spreading falsehoods for the last two years. It’s clear that the media were either handily used by — or fully in league with — the political enemies of President Trump. Exactly right. What the Speaker is describing is a full-fledged scandal of corrupt insiders lying to the American people day in and day out for over two years. It is time — past time — to start the ball rolling and get to the bottom of exactly what was done and who was responsible for what. There must be accountability in both Chicago and Washington and start to put an end to the corruption of the insiders.

www.spectator.org

right

ve63GbTq5lTedtXY

test

AWBAo36IFRq4YvJ9

media_bias

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/01/14/cnn-bernie-sanders-eliabeth-warren-democratic-debate-sexism/

CNN Implicitly Took Elizabeth Warren's Side in the Unproven Sexism Accusation Against Bernie Sanders

2020-01-14

C.J. Ciaramella, Zuri Davis, Jacob Sullum, Ronald Bailey, Christian Britschgi, Matt Welch

Diehard supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I–Vt . ) have long believed that the mainstream media finds subtle ways to undermine their candidate—and occasionally their suspicions are well supported . Tuesday night 's Democratic debate provided another one of these moments , as the progressive believe-all-victims mantra led CNN 's Abby Phillip to presume the truth of the unproven accusation that Sanders privately told Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D–Mass . ) that a woman could n't win the presidency . The accusation surfaced over the weekend , with the media citing unnamed sources—likely members of the Warren campaign—who claimed that Sanders made the comment during a meeting with Warren in 2018 . Sanders vehemently denied saying this , and was asked about it again on the debate stage . It was a fascinating exchange . When Sanders again stated that the story was n't true , Phillip asked , `` You 're saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman could n't win the election ? '' Phillip then turned to Warren and asked , `` Senator Warren , what did you think when Sen. Sanders said a woman could n't win the election ? '' CNN : `` You 're saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman could n't win the election ? '' Bernie : `` Correct . '' CNN : `` Warren , what did you think when Sanders said a woman could n't win the election ? '' Reminder : CNN helped rig the primary against Bernie in 2016 . # DemDebate pic.twitter.com/xMxwI3Mq8h — Alex Marlow ( @ AlexMarlow ) January 15 , 2020 Note that Phillip did not actually ask Warren whether he had made the comment—she merely presumed that he had , even though he just denied it . Moments later , CNN.com ran with the headline , `` Sanders denies saying a woman ca n't be president . '' This framing of the subject makes it sound like Sanders is denying some objective reality—even though there 's no evidence he said it , and Warren 's recollection of the statement was not specifically probed by the moderator . CNN missed an important opportunity to shed some light on a rare dispute between Sanders and Warren . Instead , they punted—in a manner that implicitly took Warren 's side . No doubt many of Sanders ' most fervent online backers found that telling .

Diehard supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) have long believed that the mainstream media finds subtle ways to undermine their candidate—and occasionally their suspicions are well supported. Tuesday night's Democratic debate provided another one of these moments, as the progressive believe-all-victims mantra led CNN's Abby Phillip to presume the truth of the unproven accusation that Sanders privately told Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) that a woman couldn't win the presidency. The accusation surfaced over the weekend, with the media citing unnamed sources—likely members of the Warren campaign—who claimed that Sanders made the comment during a meeting with Warren in 2018. Sanders vehemently denied saying this, and was asked about it again on the debate stage. It was a fascinating exchange. When Sanders again stated that the story wasn't true, Phillip asked, "You're saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman couldn't win the election?" "Correct," Sanders responded. Phillip then turned to Warren and asked, "Senator Warren, what did you think when Sen. Sanders said a woman couldn't win the election?" CNN: "You're saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman couldn't win the election?" Bernie: "Correct." CNN: "Warren, what did you think when Sanders said a woman couldn't win the election?" Reminder: CNN helped rig the primary against Bernie in 2016. #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/xMxwI3Mq8h — Alex Marlow (@AlexMarlow) January 15, 2020 Note that Phillip did not actually ask Warren whether he had made the comment—she merely presumed that he had, even though he just denied it. Moments later, CNN.com ran with the headline, "Sanders denies saying a woman can't be president." This framing of the subject makes it sound like Sanders is denying some objective reality—even though there's no evidence he said it, and Warren's recollection of the statement was not specifically probed by the moderator. CNN missed an important opportunity to shed some light on a rare dispute between Sanders and Warren. Instead, they punted—in a manner that implicitly took Warren's side. No doubt many of Sanders' most fervent online backers found that telling.

www.reason.com

right

AWBAo36IFRq4YvJ9

test

oLpxV8TGzzwtJHgD

race_and_racism

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/27/theyre_still_fighting_the_civil_war_and_still_lying_about_the_confederate_flag/

They're still fighting the Civil War - and still lying about the Confederate flag

2015-06-27

Paul Rosenberg

One particular constellation of white supremacist assumptions — centered on , though not limited to the state-sanctioned display of the Confederate battle flag — has suddenly fallen into question . So now , in order to preserve the broader framework — in which , for example , that symbol of white supremacy can be proudly preserved for private and non-state public display — a slight reorientation is in order , and was recently articulated by South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley . Given how sharply Haley broke with her previous position , and the temporizing of others around her , I do not wish to sound ungrateful or unappreciative of what she has done . There is still fierce opposition in some nearby quarters to what she has done , and she showed some degree of moral leadership when she called for state law to be quickly changed , so that the battle flag could be taken down . Yet , it ’ s equally clear that she has framed her argument well within the historical tradition of Southern white supremacist ideology — not in the heart of that tradition , to be sure , but still within the stifling folds of its garments . For many people in our state the flag stands for traditions that are noble — traditions of history , of heritage , and of ancestry . The hate-filled murderer who massacred our brothers and sisters in Charleston has a sick and twisted view of the flag . In no way does he reflect the people in our state who respect and in many ways revere it . Those South Carolinians view the flag as a symbol of respect , integrity and duty . They also see it as a memorial , a way to honor ancestors who came to the service of their state during time of conflict . That is not hate . Nor is it racism . In short , Dylann Roof messed things up for all the rest of us , so — unfortunately — things have to change . Implicitly , that ’ s the real bottom line . Haley continued , with a brief nod to the obvious , before hurrying on : At the same time , for many others in South Carolina , the flag is a deeply offensive symbol of a brutally oppressive past . As a state , we can survive and indeed we can thrive as we have done whilst still being home to both of those viewpoints . We do not need to declare a winner and a loser here . And so she declared a truce — the truce of false equivalency — as the pathway forward : We respect freedom of expression . And that for those who wish to show their respect for the flag on their private property , no one will stand in your way . But the statehouse is different . And the events of this past week call upon us to look at this in a different way . The willingness to change is easy to grab onto and praise , but the more troubling aspects , the multiple ways in which change — not to mention simple justice — are more challenging to properly grasp , identify and name , much less come to terms with . At least three starting points can easily be identified , however . The first came from Ta-Nehisi Coates . Honing in on the underlying claim that Roof 's views did not reflect those of South Carolinians more broadly , Coates quickly weighed in to say : If the governor meant that very few of the flag ’ s supporters believe in mass murder , she is surely right . But on the question of whose view of the Confederate Flag is more twisted , she is almost certainly wrong . Roof ’ s belief that black life had no purpose beyond subjugation is “ sick and twisted ” in the exact same manner as the beliefs of those who created the Confederate flag were “ sick and twisted. ” The Confederate flag is directly tied to the Confederate cause , and the Confederate cause was white supremacy . This is the plain historical reality , and Coates goes on to rolls out stanza after stanza in an impressive historical litany of authoritative voices repeatedly underscoring the point , beginning with the Confederate states ’ own explanations for war , starting with South Carolina , then Mississippi ( which was particularly blunt : “ Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. ” ) , Louisiana , Alabama ( “ the election of Mr. Lincoln can not be regarded otherwise than … an open declaration of war ” ) and Texas . He then goes on to quote notable individuals , such as Jefferson Davis , not only affirming the centrality of slavery to the Southern cause , but elaborating on their desire to extend slaveholding into Cuba , Mexico and elsewhere , as well as propounding their belief that the equality of white men was founded on the slavery of blacks , and thus would be irrevocably lost if slavery were to be abolished . Thus , white supremacy for the South was not simply an isolated belief in the inherent superiority of whites as a race , it was the foundation for an aggressive and self-styled “ progressive ” worldview , a whole self-contained system of thought . The flag is inextricably linked to all of that . As a second starting point it ’ s also true that the Confederate battle flag was largely a relic until it was revived in response to the Civil Rights Movement — first with Strom Thurmond ’ s “ States Rights Party ” in 1948 , then with Georgia adopting a version in protest of Brown v. Board of Education in 1956 , and South Carolina six years later — though , tellingly , the flag went up a year before the act authorizing it . For almost a hundred years , the South got on just fine celebrating its heritage without benefit of the flag . Indeed , the flag was raised over South Carolina as a result of the Civil War centennial celebration . This revival of interest in the flag was clearly all about renewed defiance of the federal government , which was finally being prodded into making good on the Civil War Amendments , and ensuring the full citizenship of African-Americans . Hence , today , the “ heritage ” the flag actually stands for is that of the 1960s , not the 1860s . Good luck with that . A third , related point , made by Jeet Heer at the New Republic , is that the flag matters tremendously as exertion of raw power . Its reintroduction in response to the Civil Rights movement sent a clear message : “ The feds might try to help you , but remember who is the boss down here . We still rule. ” Flying everywhere throughout the South , it sends the constant message to black Southerners , that they are not safe , they are not in control of their own personal security , much less anything else . Whatever other stories Southern whites might tell themselves and others about the flag , this basic fact remains . Indeed , the rhetorical act of denying the flag ’ s white supremacist meaning only demonstrates further how completely whites control things . Beyond these three starting points , there ’ s a vast terrain to explore , in terms of the white supremacist legacy the flag stands for and how it has reshaped itself over time . There are at least four key elements that any such account would have to explore . First , is the matter of white supremacy itself as a matter of organized social policy — both in terms of what it supports ( slavery in one era , segregation in the next , etc . ) and what it opposes ( abolition , integration , “ big government ” ) — as well as the culture it both depends upon and reproduces . Second , is the way in which white supremacy reorganizes itself from one historical regime to another , both establishing purportedly new foundations , while simultaneously reinterpreting the past . It originally expressed itself in terms of slavery , then segregation and now largely in terms of what sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva described as “ colorblind racism ” in his book `` Racism Without Racists : Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America . '' Third , is the way in which white supremacy naturalizes , normalizes and moralizes itself , so as to render itself difficult to clearly identify , much less name , and fight against . Bonilla-Silva ’ s book has a great deal to say about this as well . Furthermore , the pretense that the battle flag represents Civil War-era heritage rather than Civil Rights-era hatred is a telling example of how this process unfolds . Fourth , is the way in which white supremacy usurps otherwise noble ideals , such bringing people together , establishing peace and harmony , promoting tolerance , etc . Haley leaned very heavily on this aspect of white supremacy in the process of pretending to reject it . So let us briefly consider each of these in turn . First , let ’ s reflect on white supremacy as a matter of organized social policy . There is nothing particularly difficult for people today to look back on past forms of white supremacy and reject them . It ’ s easy nowadays to see slavery or segregation as evil . Even Rand Paul , defending segregation in principle , said it was a bad business decision . But what about white supremacy policies today ? While part of the impetus to remove the Confederate battle flag in South Carolina came from respect for the Rev . Clementa Pinckney , the long-serving , highly respected member of the South Carolina State Senate , this only scratched the surface of Pinckney ’ s politics , as pointed out by North Carolina NAACP leader the Rev . William Barber on Democracy Now ! recently : Reverend Pinckney , as a colleague in ministry , was not just opposed to the flag , he was opposed to the denial of Medicaid expansion , where now the majority of the state is opposing Medicaid expansion where six out of 10 black people live . He was opposed to voter suppression , voter ID in South Carolina . He was opposed to those who have celebrated the ending of the Voting Rights Act , or the gutting of Section 4 , which means South Carolina is no longer a preclearance state , and the very district that he served in is vulnerable right now . He was opposed to the lack of funding for public education . He wanted to see living wages raised . Every item Barber mentioned is felt more deeply by the black community , so it ’ s not hard to grasp what a true rejection of white supremacy would look like . One might say that this calls for “ activist government , ” but the white South was all in favor of activist government `` When Affirmative Action Was White , '' as Ira Katznelson ’ s 2006 book explained . Thus , Barber continued : So I would say to my colleagues , let ’ s take down the flag — to the governor — but also , let ’ s put together an omnibus bill in the name of the nine martyrs . And all of the things Reverend Pinckney was standing for , if we say we love him and his colleagues , let ’ s put all of those things in a one big omnibus bill and pass that and bring it to the funeral on Friday or Saturday , saying we will expand Medicaid to help not only black people , but poor white Southerners in South Carolina , because it ’ s not just the flag . Lee Atwater talked about the Southern strategy , where policy was used as a way to divide us . And if we want harmony , we have to talk about racism , not just in terms of symbol , but in the substance of policies . The flag went up to fight policies . If we ’ re going to bring it down , we ’ re also going to have to change policies , and particularly policies that create disparate impact on black , brown and poor white people . The phrase “ disparate impact , ” which Barber used , is key to how white supremacy operates in the post-segregation era . It ’ s not that the races are treated entirely differently , only that the odds , burdens , privileges and benefits change , depending on the color of your skin . Often this happens without any conscious awareness , which is why Bonilla-Silva ’ s phrase , “ racism without racists ” is so apt . This is really not difficult to grasp — unless you ’ ve got a vested interest in not grasping it . In which case , welcome to the world of our second topic , the way in which white supremacy reorganizes itself from one historical regime to the next , and how Transitions between eras are often abrupt in some respects — the swift abolition of slavery in the final years of the Civil War , for example — while taking decades to work out in other ways . In order to first establish , and then fully stabilize the segregationist era , the meaning and purpose of the Civil War itself had to be reinterpreted through a white supremacist lens . The story of how that transpired over a fifty-year period is the subject of `` Race and Reunion : The Civil War in American Memory '' by David W. Blight . As I summarized in my review : Blight explains three broad visions of Civil War memory - reconciliationist , emancipationist and white supremacist . The first was born in wartime responses to its terrible brutality , epitomized by Walt Whitman 's experience of tending the wounded and dying of both sides . The second sprang not just from the war , but also from the Emancipation Proclamation and the more than 200,000 black combatants who joined the fight . The third gradually reformulated itself after the shock of military defeat , eventually dominating reconciliationist thinking by sacrificing racial reconciliation for the sake of sectional reunion . It was not surprising that the reconciliationist view came to dominate — politically , materially , the nation needed sectional reintegration in a much more immediate way than it needed anything for its black citizens — a calculus that would eventually change over time . What ’ s striking is the relative ease with which the white supremacist vision came to merge with and dominate the reconciliationist view . This is not the exception , but the rule in American history : any moves toward reconciling differences inevitably become infected with white supremacist aims — unless , of course , they are founded on them to begin with , as the case with American Colonization Society and the movement surrounding it , more on that below . A similar process has taken place with the end of segregation and the discrediting of overt racism which the norm in that era throughout the South , as well as in much of the North . This is essence of what Bonilla-Silva reveals in `` Racism Without Racists '' : a set of beliefs has emerged with superficially broad appeal , but which harbors a “ hidden ” white supremacist impact . Bonilla-Silva identifies four central frames at the core of colorblind racism : `` The central component of any dominant racial ideology is its frames or set paths for interpreting information , '' Bonilla-Silva writes . The first — and what I take to be the most significant and distinctive frame — is “ abstract liberalism , ” which he explains as follows : The frame of abstract liberalism involves using ideas associated with political liberalism ( e.g . `` equal opportunity , '' the idea that force should not be used to achieve social policy ) and economic liberalism ( e.g. , choice , individualism ) in an abstract manner to explain racial matters . What abstract liberalism hides is virtually everything having to do with history and indeed all social science , outside the narrow framework of market economics . It hides all historical inequalities , which recent research suggests persists for as long as ten generations . It also hides subconscious racial preferences , which can create intense segregation without any overt centralized coercion . But above all , it creates the illusion of some idealized social order , which blacks objecting to can be portrayed as opposing in favor of racial preferences — aka “ reverse racism. ” In short , the moral burden of racism past can be shifted onto them : they are the “ real racists , ” not whites ! The three other frames Bonilla-Silva identifies also play significant roles , but I would argue they are less specifically tied to this era alone . These are “ naturalization , ” which “ allows whites to explain away racial phenomena by suggesting they are natural occurrences , ” “ cultural racism ” which “ relies on culturally based arguments such as ‘ Mexicans do not put much emphasis on education ’ or ‘ blacks have too many babies ’ to explain the standing of minorities in society ” and “ minimization of racism ” which “ suggests discrimination is no longer a central factor affecting minorities ' life chances ( ‘ It 's better now than in the past ’ or ‘ There is discrimination , but there are plenty of jobs out there ’ ) . ” All three of these frames have been used in past eras . For example , Booker T. Washington was a celebrated black figure precisely because he argued so powerfully that things were better than in the past , so segregation was something blacks could and should accept . Similarly , cultural racism was always part of the package in older forms of racism . But I believe Bonilla-Silva is essentially correct in identifying these a surviving frameworks as playing central roles in how racism functions in America today . As I indicated above , not only does Bonilla-Silva ’ s concept of colorblind racism illuminate how white supremacy has transitioned from one formulation to another , it also shows how this new form of white supremacy “ naturalizes , normalizes and moralizes itself , so as to render itself difficult to clearly identify , much less name , and fight against. ” Indeed , this is the very essence of how one framework of white supremacy comes to replace another — a new framework of “ common sense ” emerges , responding to multiple different needs at once , most typically , a need to reject and distance society from older practices that have become indefensible , and a contrary need to retain as much of the underlying power relations as possible . The rejection of the old order may can even serve to infuse the new order with a presumption of moral rectitude , even as it maintains many of the features of the old order virtually intact . Meanwhile , those who might object can be cast as moral outsiders — even holdovers of the old order , even if they are among its most profound and strenuous critics . This leads us directly to our fourth topic , the way in which white supremacy usurps otherwise noble ideals , such bringing people together , establishing peace and harmony , promoting tolerance and so forth . It is the very nature of social power that those with the most of it can use their power to define social reality for everybody else , and this is what white supremacist ideology has repeatedly done . Not only does white supremacy lay down the law , if conflicts arise in response , white supremacy takes the lead in naming , identifying and analyzing them , leading to proposed white supremacist solutions . On a macro scale , this is how one form of white supremacist society comes to be replaced by another — but it applies on every scale , from the lowliest parts on up to the whole . One significant example of this can be found in the history of the American Colonization Society . It was originally founded to bring together two politically disparate groups , Northern abolitionists and Southern slaveholders , both united by the belief that free blacks faced a miserable future in America , and would be better off in Africa . This granddaddy of all “ grand bargains ” was laughable on its face — there hundreds of thousands of free blacks , far more than could ever be returned to Africa , even if they had all wanted to go — which most emphatically did not . But it was extremely popular with political elites , precisely because of its centrist power to “ bring people together ” — white people , that is . In his book , `` Of One Blood : Abolitionism and the Origins of Racial Equality , '' historian Paul Goodman had this to say : By 1817 , African colonization had become more than a speculative idea . In the next decade , hundreds of prominent Americans -- political leaders including Presidents Madison and Monroe and religious leaders in most of the large denominations , from Presbyterian Lyman Beecher of Massachusetts to Episcopalian bishop William Mead of Virginia—threw their prestige and influence behind the America Colonization Society ( ACS ) , which established the colony of Liberia in West Africa . One of the most impressive voluntary societies of its day , the ACS boasted over two hundred state and local auxiliaries by 1830 . It was quietly assisted by President Monroe and endorsed by state legislatures and the major religious denominations , as well as by an illustrious panoply of notables . As Goodman goes on to describe , the 19th-Century abolitionist movement was born out of free blacks ’ opposition to the ACS . It was precisely their unwillingness to be “ reasonable ” which formed the foundation of resistance which eventually spread to white abolitionists , and over a period five decades , eventually resulted in emancipation . Yet , almost up until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation he himself continued to be a supporter of colonization — such was the power of this “ centrist ” white supremacist vision . In fact , the ACS lived on for almost 100 years after Lincoln ’ s death — it only shut down in 1964 ! There are many other instances in which the cause of black freedom only advanced by refusing to be “ reasonable ” or to live up to some purported virtue or another . That ’ s because white supremacy , in one form or another , has always had such an enormous say in dictating what it meant to be “ reasonable ” or virtuous . And so it ’ s been incumbent on blacks to learn to think outside the box — to find a broader framework of understanding on which to found their moral as well as their political analysis . This is why Dr. Martin Luther King , Jr. , once spoke to the American Psychological Association , and came out proudly for the cause of what he called “ creative maladjustment ” : I am sure that we will recognize that there are some things in our society , some things in our world , to which we should never be adjusted . There are some things concerning which we must always be maladjusted if we are to be people of good will . We must never adjust ourselves to racial discrimination and racial segregation . We must never adjust ourselves to religious bigotry . We must never adjust ourselves to economic conditions that take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few . We must never adjust ourselves to the madness of militarism , and the self-defeating effects of physical violence… . Thus , it may well be that our world is in dire need of a new organization , The International Association for the Advancement of Creative Maladjustment . Similarly , King ’ s “ Letter From Birmingham Jail ” was all about rejecting the framework of passive , superficial words of peace , moderation and restraint which the white ministers of Birmingham sought to impose on him . Here is just a small section of the wisdom it contains : I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress . I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace , in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight , to a substantive and positive peace , in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality . Actually , we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension . We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive . We bring it out in the open , where it can be seen and dealt with . I could not help myself thinking about the profound wrong-headed of “ reasonable ” white supremacy as I heard Nikki Haley ’ s speech , which is why my enthusiasm for it was so dimmed . In perhaps her most deeply typical move , she said there didn ’ t have to be winners and losers . Folks who love the flag and folks who despise it can all get along just fine ! But , of course , that leaves the entire substantive agenda Reverend Barber spoke about dead on arrival — just as it was supposed to do . There is no real underlying intent to address and disown the evil of white supremacy . The only way that evil is faced is by projecting it onto the disowned Confederate son , Dylann Roof . A good way to understand what ’ s wrong with Haley ’ s speech is to compare it with a speech by a quintessential white Southerner , Strom Thurmond ’ s son , whose speech makes no such attempt to defend the blind worship of “ heritage. ” Here is what South Carolina State Senator Paul Thurmond said : I am aware of my heritage . But my appreciation for the things that my forebearers accomplished to make my life better doesn ’ t mean that I must believe that they always made the right decisions and , for the life of me , I will never understand how anyone could fight a civil war based , in part , on the desire to continue the practice of slavery . Think about it for just a second . Our ancestors were literally fighting to continue to keep human beings as slaves and continue the unimaginable acts that occur when someone is held against their will . I am not proud of this heritage . These practices were inhumane and were wrong , wrong , wrong . Where Haley felt the need to comfort — even identify with — those who see the flag as a symbol of noble heritage , Paul Thurmond simply said , “ I am not proud. ” Simple as that . A clean break . And that , my friends , is what America needs , where white supremacy is concerned . A clean break — and then the real business of a creating a livable future for all of us can begin .

One particular constellation of white supremacist assumptions — centered on, though not limited to the state-sanctioned display of the Confederate battle flag — has suddenly fallen into question. So now, in order to preserve the broader framework — in which, for example, that symbol of white supremacy can be proudly preserved for private and non-state public display — a slight reorientation is in order, and was recently articulated by South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley. Given how sharply Haley broke with her previous position, and the temporizing of others around her, I do not wish to sound ungrateful or unappreciative of what she has done. There is still fierce opposition in some nearby quarters to what she has done, and she showed some degree of moral leadership when she called for state law to be quickly changed, so that the battle flag could be taken down. Yet, it’s equally clear that she has framed her argument well within the historical tradition of Southern white supremacist ideology — not in the heart of that tradition, to be sure, but still within the stifling folds of its garments. Advertisement: Here's Haley: For many people in our state the flag stands for traditions that are noble — traditions of history, of heritage, and of ancestry. The hate-filled murderer who massacred our brothers and sisters in Charleston has a sick and twisted view of the flag. In no way does he reflect the people in our state who respect and in many ways revere it. Those South Carolinians view the flag as a symbol of respect, integrity and duty. They also see it as a memorial, a way to honor ancestors who came to the service of their state during time of conflict. That is not hate. Nor is it racism. In short, Dylann Roof messed things up for all the rest of us, so — unfortunately — things have to change. Implicitly, that’s the real bottom line. Haley continued, with a brief nod to the obvious, before hurrying on: At the same time, for many others in South Carolina, the flag is a deeply offensive symbol of a brutally oppressive past. As a state, we can survive and indeed we can thrive as we have done whilst still being home to both of those viewpoints. We do not need to declare a winner and a loser here. And so she declared a truce — the truce of false equivalency — as the pathway forward: Advertisement: We respect freedom of expression. And that for those who wish to show their respect for the flag on their private property, no one will stand in your way. But the statehouse is different. And the events of this past week call upon us to look at this in a different way. The willingness to change is easy to grab onto and praise, but the more troubling aspects, the multiple ways in which change — not to mention simple justice — are more challenging to properly grasp, identify and name, much less come to terms with. At least three starting points can easily be identified, however. The first came from Ta-Nehisi Coates. Honing in on the underlying claim that Roof's views did not reflect those of South Carolinians more broadly, Coates quickly weighed in to say: If the governor meant that very few of the flag’s supporters believe in mass murder, she is surely right. But on the question of whose view of the Confederate Flag is more twisted, she is almost certainly wrong. Roof’s belief that black life had no purpose beyond subjugation is “sick and twisted” in the exact same manner as the beliefs of those who created the Confederate flag were “sick and twisted.” The Confederate flag is directly tied to the Confederate cause, and the Confederate cause was white supremacy. This is the plain historical reality, and Coates goes on to rolls out stanza after stanza in an impressive historical litany of authoritative voices repeatedly underscoring the point, beginning with the Confederate states’ own explanations for war, starting with South Carolina, then Mississippi (which was particularly blunt: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world.”), Louisiana, Alabama (“the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than … an open declaration of war”) and Texas. He then goes on to quote notable individuals, such as Jefferson Davis, not only affirming the centrality of slavery to the Southern cause, but elaborating on their desire to extend slaveholding into Cuba, Mexico and elsewhere, as well as propounding their belief that the equality of white men was founded on the slavery of blacks, and thus would be irrevocably lost if slavery were to be abolished. Thus, white supremacy for the South was not simply an isolated belief in the inherent superiority of whites as a race, it was the foundation for an aggressive and self-styled “progressive” worldview, a whole self-contained system of thought. The flag is inextricably linked to all of that. Advertisement: As a second starting point it’s also true that the Confederate battle flag was largely a relic until it was revived in response to the Civil Rights Movement — first with Strom Thurmond’s “States Rights Party” in 1948, then with Georgia adopting a version in protest of Brown v. Board of Education in 1956, and South Carolina six years later — though, tellingly, the flag went up a year before the act authorizing it. For almost a hundred years, the South got on just fine celebrating its heritage without benefit of the flag. Indeed, the flag was raised over South Carolina as a result of the Civil War centennial celebration. This revival of interest in the flag was clearly all about renewed defiance of the federal government, which was finally being prodded into making good on the Civil War Amendments, and ensuring the full citizenship of African-Americans. Hence, today, the “heritage” the flag actually stands for is that of the 1960s, not the 1860s. Good luck with that. A third, related point, made by Jeet Heer at the New Republic, is that the flag matters tremendously as exertion of raw power. Its reintroduction in response to the Civil Rights movement sent a clear message: “The feds might try to help you, but remember who is the boss down here. We still rule.” Flying everywhere throughout the South, it sends the constant message to black Southerners, that they are not safe, they are not in control of their own personal security, much less anything else. Whatever other stories Southern whites might tell themselves and others about the flag, this basic fact remains. Indeed, the rhetorical act of denying the flag’s white supremacist meaning only demonstrates further how completely whites control things. Advertisement: Beyond these three starting points, there’s a vast terrain to explore, in terms of the white supremacist legacy the flag stands for and how it has reshaped itself over time. There are at least four key elements that any such account would have to explore. First, is the matter of white supremacy itself as a matter of organized social policy — both in terms of what it supports (slavery in one era, segregation in the next, etc.) and what it opposes (abolition, integration, “big government”) — as well as the culture it both depends upon and reproduces. Second, is the way in which white supremacy reorganizes itself from one historical regime to another, both establishing purportedly new foundations, while simultaneously reinterpreting the past. It originally expressed itself in terms of slavery, then segregation and now largely in terms of what sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva described as “colorblind racism” in his book "Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America." Third, is the way in which white supremacy naturalizes, normalizes and moralizes itself, so as to render itself difficult to clearly identify, much less name, and fight against. Bonilla-Silva’s book has a great deal to say about this as well. Furthermore, the pretense that the battle flag represents Civil War-era heritage rather than Civil Rights-era hatred is a telling example of how this process unfolds. Fourth, is the way in which white supremacy usurps otherwise noble ideals, such bringing people together, establishing peace and harmony, promoting tolerance, etc. Haley leaned very heavily on this aspect of white supremacy in the process of pretending to reject it. So let us briefly consider each of these in turn. First, let’s reflect on white supremacy as a matter of organized social policy. There is nothing particularly difficult for people today to look back on past forms of white supremacy and reject them. It’s easy nowadays to see slavery or segregation as evil. Even Rand Paul, defending segregation in principle, said it was a bad business decision. But what about white supremacy policies today? Advertisement: While part of the impetus to remove the Confederate battle flag in South Carolina came from respect for the Rev. Clementa Pinckney, the long-serving, highly respected member of the South Carolina State Senate, this only scratched the surface of Pinckney’s politics, as pointed out by North Carolina NAACP leader the Rev. William Barber on Democracy Now! recently: Reverend Pinckney, as a colleague in ministry, was not just opposed to the flag, he was opposed to the denial of Medicaid expansion, where now the majority of the state is opposing Medicaid expansion where six out of 10 black people live. He was opposed to voter suppression, voter ID in South Carolina. He was opposed to those who have celebrated the ending of the Voting Rights Act, or the gutting of Section 4, which means South Carolina is no longer a preclearance state, and the very district that he served in is vulnerable right now. He was opposed to the lack of funding for public education. He wanted to see living wages raised. Every item Barber mentioned is felt more deeply by the black community, so it’s not hard to grasp what a true rejection of white supremacy would look like. One might say that this calls for “activist government,” but the white South was all in favor of activist government "When Affirmative Action Was White," as Ira Katznelson’s 2006 book explained. Thus, Barber continued: So I would say to my colleagues, let’s take down the flag — to the governor — but also, let’s put together an omnibus bill in the name of the nine martyrs. And all of the things Reverend Pinckney was standing for, if we say we love him and his colleagues, let’s put all of those things in a one big omnibus bill and pass that and bring it to the funeral on Friday or Saturday, saying we will expand Medicaid to help not only black people, but poor white Southerners in South Carolina, because it’s not just the flag. Lee Atwater talked about the Southern strategy, where policy was used as a way to divide us. And if we want harmony, we have to talk about racism, not just in terms of symbol, but in the substance of policies. The flag went up to fight policies. If we’re going to bring it down, we’re also going to have to change policies, and particularly policies that create disparate impact on black, brown and poor white people. The phrase “disparate impact,” which Barber used, is key to how white supremacy operates in the post-segregation era. It’s not that the races are treated entirely differently, only that the odds, burdens, privileges and benefits change, depending on the color of your skin. Often this happens without any conscious awareness, which is why Bonilla-Silva’s phrase, “racism without racists” is so apt. This is really not difficult to grasp — unless you’ve got a vested interest in not grasping it. In which case, welcome to the world of our second topic, the way in which white supremacy reorganizes itself from one historical regime to the next, and how Advertisement: Transitions between eras are often abrupt in some respects — the swift abolition of slavery in the final years of the Civil War, for example — while taking decades to work out in other ways. In order to first establish, and then fully stabilize the segregationist era, the meaning and purpose of the Civil War itself had to be reinterpreted through a white supremacist lens. The story of how that transpired over a fifty-year period is the subject of "Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory" by David W. Blight. As I summarized in my review: Blight explains three broad visions of Civil War memory - reconciliationist, emancipationist and white supremacist. The first was born in wartime responses to its terrible brutality, epitomized by Walt Whitman's experience of tending the wounded and dying of both sides. The second sprang not just from the war, but also from the Emancipation Proclamation and the more than 200,000 black combatants who joined the fight. The third gradually reformulated itself after the shock of military defeat, eventually dominating reconciliationist thinking by sacrificing racial reconciliation for the sake of sectional reunion. It was not surprising that the reconciliationist view came to dominate — politically, materially, the nation needed sectional reintegration in a much more immediate way than it needed anything for its black citizens — a calculus that would eventually change over time. What’s striking is the relative ease with which the white supremacist vision came to merge with and dominate the reconciliationist view. This is not the exception, but the rule in American history: any moves toward reconciling differences inevitably become infected with white supremacist aims — unless, of course, they are founded on them to begin with, as the case with American Colonization Society and the movement surrounding it, more on that below. A similar process has taken place with the end of segregation and the discrediting of overt racism which the norm in that era throughout the South, as well as in much of the North. This is essence of what Bonilla-Silva reveals in "Racism Without Racists": a set of beliefs has emerged with superficially broad appeal, but which harbors a “hidden” white supremacist impact. Bonilla-Silva identifies four central frames at the core of colorblind racism: "The central component of any dominant racial ideology is its frames or set paths for interpreting information," Bonilla-Silva writes. The first — and what I take to be the most significant and distinctive frame — is “abstract liberalism,” which he explains as follows: Advertisement: The frame of abstract liberalism involves using ideas associated with political liberalism (e.g. "equal opportunity," the idea that force should not be used to achieve social policy) and economic liberalism (e.g., choice, individualism) in an abstract manner to explain racial matters. What abstract liberalism hides is virtually everything having to do with history and indeed all social science, outside the narrow framework of market economics. It hides all historical inequalities, which recent research suggests persists for as long as ten generations. It also hides subconscious racial preferences, which can create intense segregation without any overt centralized coercion. But above all, it creates the illusion of some idealized social order, which blacks objecting to can be portrayed as opposing in favor of racial preferences — aka “reverse racism.” In short, the moral burden of racism past can be shifted onto them: they are the “real racists,” not whites! The three other frames Bonilla-Silva identifies also play significant roles, but I would argue they are less specifically tied to this era alone. These are “naturalization,” which “allows whites to explain away racial phenomena by suggesting they are natural occurrences,” “cultural racism” which “relies on culturally based arguments such as ‘Mexicans do not put much emphasis on education’ or ‘blacks have too many babies’ to explain the standing of minorities in society” and “minimization of racism” which “suggests discrimination is no longer a central factor affecting minorities' life chances (‘It's better now than in the past’ or ‘There is discrimination, but there are plenty of jobs out there’).” All three of these frames have been used in past eras. For example, Booker T. Washington was a celebrated black figure precisely because he argued so powerfully that things were better than in the past, so segregation was something blacks could and should accept. Similarly, cultural racism was always part of the package in older forms of racism. But I believe Bonilla-Silva is essentially correct in identifying these a surviving frameworks as playing central roles in how racism functions in America today. As I indicated above, not only does Bonilla-Silva’s concept of colorblind racism illuminate how white supremacy has transitioned from one formulation to another, it also shows how this new form of white supremacy “naturalizes, normalizes and moralizes itself, so as to render itself difficult to clearly identify, much less name, and fight against.” Indeed, this is the very essence of how one framework of white supremacy comes to replace another — a new framework of “common sense” emerges, responding to multiple different needs at once, most typically, a need to reject and distance society from older practices that have become indefensible, and a contrary need to retain as much of the underlying power relations as possible. The rejection of the old order may can even serve to infuse the new order with a presumption of moral rectitude, even as it maintains many of the features of the old order virtually intact. Meanwhile, those who might object can be cast as moral outsiders — even holdovers of the old order, even if they are among its most profound and strenuous critics. This leads us directly to our fourth topic, the way in which white supremacy usurps otherwise noble ideals, such bringing people together, establishing peace and harmony, promoting tolerance and so forth. It is the very nature of social power that those with the most of it can use their power to define social reality for everybody else, and this is what white supremacist ideology has repeatedly done. Not only does white supremacy lay down the law, if conflicts arise in response, white supremacy takes the lead in naming, identifying and analyzing them, leading to proposed white supremacist solutions. On a macro scale, this is how one form of white supremacist society comes to be replaced by another — but it applies on every scale, from the lowliest parts on up to the whole. Advertisement: One significant example of this can be found in the history of the American Colonization Society. It was originally founded to bring together two politically disparate groups, Northern abolitionists and Southern slaveholders, both united by the belief that free blacks faced a miserable future in America, and would be better off in Africa. This granddaddy of all “grand bargains” was laughable on its face — there hundreds of thousands of free blacks, far more than could ever be returned to Africa, even if they had all wanted to go — which most emphatically did not. But it was extremely popular with political elites, precisely because of its centrist power to “bring people together” — white people, that is. In his book, "Of One Blood: Abolitionism and the Origins of Racial Equality," historian Paul Goodman had this to say: By 1817, African colonization had become more than a speculative idea. In the next decade, hundreds of prominent Americans--political leaders including Presidents Madison and Monroe and religious leaders in most of the large denominations, from Presbyterian Lyman Beecher of Massachusetts to Episcopalian bishop William Mead of Virginia—threw their prestige and influence behind the America Colonization Society (ACS), which established the colony of Liberia in West Africa. One of the most impressive voluntary societies of its day, the ACS boasted over two hundred state and local auxiliaries by 1830. It was quietly assisted by President Monroe and endorsed by state legislatures and the major religious denominations, as well as by an illustrious panoply of notables. As Goodman goes on to describe, the 19th-Century abolitionist movement was born out of free blacks’ opposition to the ACS. It was precisely their unwillingness to be “reasonable” which formed the foundation of resistance which eventually spread to white abolitionists, and over a period five decades, eventually resulted in emancipation. Yet, almost up until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation he himself continued to be a supporter of colonization — such was the power of this “centrist” white supremacist vision. In fact, the ACS lived on for almost 100 years after Lincoln’s death — it only shut down in 1964! There are many other instances in which the cause of black freedom only advanced by refusing to be “reasonable” or to live up to some purported virtue or another. That’s because white supremacy, in one form or another, has always had such an enormous say in dictating what it meant to be “reasonable” or virtuous. And so it’s been incumbent on blacks to learn to think outside the box — to find a broader framework of understanding on which to found their moral as well as their political analysis. This is why Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once spoke to the American Psychological Association, and came out proudly for the cause of what he called “creative maladjustment”: Advertisement: I am sure that we will recognize that there are some things in our society, some things in our world, to which we should never be adjusted. There are some things concerning which we must always be maladjusted if we are to be people of good will. We must never adjust ourselves to racial discrimination and racial segregation. We must never adjust ourselves to religious bigotry. We must never adjust ourselves to economic conditions that take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few. We must never adjust ourselves to the madness of militarism, and the self-defeating effects of physical violence…. Thus, it may well be that our world is in dire need of a new organization, The International Association for the Advancement of Creative Maladjustment. Similarly, King’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail” was all about rejecting the framework of passive, superficial words of peace, moderation and restraint which the white ministers of Birmingham sought to impose on him. Here is just a small section of the wisdom it contains: I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. I could not help myself thinking about the profound wrong-headed of “reasonable” white supremacy as I heard Nikki Haley’s speech, which is why my enthusiasm for it was so dimmed. In perhaps her most deeply typical move, she said there didn’t have to be winners and losers. Folks who love the flag and folks who despise it can all get along just fine! But, of course, that leaves the entire substantive agenda Reverend Barber spoke about dead on arrival — just as it was supposed to do. There is no real underlying intent to address and disown the evil of white supremacy. The only way that evil is faced is by projecting it onto the disowned Confederate son, Dylann Roof. A good way to understand what’s wrong with Haley’s speech is to compare it with a speech by a quintessential white Southerner, Strom Thurmond’s son, whose speech makes no such attempt to defend the blind worship of “heritage.” Here is what South Carolina State Senator Paul Thurmond said: I am aware of my heritage. But my appreciation for the things that my forebearers accomplished to make my life better doesn’t mean that I must believe that they always made the right decisions and, for the life of me, I will never understand how anyone could fight a civil war based, in part, on the desire to continue the practice of slavery. Think about it for just a second. Our ancestors were literally fighting to continue to keep human beings as slaves and continue the unimaginable acts that occur when someone is held against their will. I am not proud of this heritage. These practices were inhumane and were wrong, wrong, wrong. Where Haley felt the need to comfort — even identify with — those who see the flag as a symbol of noble heritage, Paul Thurmond simply said, “I am not proud.” Simple as that. A clean break. And that, my friends, is what America needs, where white supremacy is concerned. A clean break — and then the real business of a creating a livable future for all of us can begin.

www.salon.com

left

oLpxV8TGzzwtJHgD

test

0JguZcVIDHUK5AiW

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/859307e1fa0cccf8080fc87550c5b01c

Trump: No change at bases named for Confederate officers

2020-06-10

Robert Burns

FILE - In this Jan. 4 , 2020 , file photo a sign for at Fort Bragg , N.C. , is shown . Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy , both former Army officers , put out word that they are “ open to a bipartisan discussion ” of renaming Army bases like North Carolina ’ s Fort Bragg that honor Confederate officers associated by some with the racism of that tumultuous time . ( AP Photo/Chris Seward , File ) FILE - In this Jan. 4 , 2020 , file photo a sign for at Fort Bragg , N.C. , is shown . Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy , both former Army officers , put out word that they are “ open to a bipartisan discussion ” of renaming Army bases like North Carolina ’ s Fort Bragg that honor Confederate officers associated by some with the racism of that tumultuous time . ( AP Photo/Chris Seward , File ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — President Donald Trump on Wednesday said his administration will “ not even consider ” changing the name of any of the 10 Army bases that are named for Confederate Army officers . Two days earlier , Defense Secretary Mark Esper indicated that he was open to a broad discussion of such changes . “ These Monumental and very Powerful Bases have become part of a Great American Heritage , a history of Winning , Victory , and Freedom , ” Trump wrote . “ The United States of America trained and deployed our HEROES on these Hallowed Grounds , and won two World Wars . Therefore , my Administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations . ” Name changes have not been proposed by the Army or the Pentagon , but on Monday , Esper and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy indicated in response to questions from reporters that they were “ open to a bipartisan discussion ” of renaming bases such as Fort Bragg in North Carolina and Fort Benning in Georgia . Supporters of disassociating military bases from Confederate Army officers argue that they represent the racism and divisiveness of the Civil War era and glorify men who fought against the United States . To amplify Trump ’ s view , his press secretary , Kayleigh McEnany , read his tweets to reporters in the White House briefing room . She said he is “ fervently ” opposed to changing the base names and believes that doing so would amount to “ complete disrespect ” for soldiers who trained there over the years . ... history of Winning , Victory , and Freedom . The United States of America trained and deployed our HEROES on these Hallowed Grounds , and won two World Wars . Therefore , my Administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations ... — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) June 10 , 2020 The possibility of renaming the bases , McEnany said , is “ an absolute non-starter ” for Trump . If Congress were to pass legislation requiring name changes , he would not sign it , she said . The U.S. military recently began rethinking its traditional connection to Confederate Army symbols , including the Army base names , mindful of their divisiveness at a time the nation is wrestling with questions of race after the death of George Floyd in police hands . The Navy and the Marine Corps are now banning public displays of the Confederate Army battle flag on their installations , casting their decision as necessary to preserve cohesion within the ranks . Ten major Army installations are named for Confederate Army officers , mostly senior generals , including Robert E. Lee . Among the 10 is Fort Benning , the namesake of Confederate Army Gen. Henry L. Benning , who was a leader of Georgia ’ s secessionist movement and an advocate of preserving slavery . Others are in Virginia , North Carolina , Alabama , Texas and Louisiana . The naming was done mostly after World War I and in the 1940s , in some cases as gestures of conciliation to the South . Few voices in the military are openly defending the link to Confederate symbols , but some of the bases named for Confederate officers are legendary in their own right . Fort Bragg , for example , is home to some of the Army ’ s most elite forces . Any decision to change the name at Bragg or other bases likely would involve consulting with officials from the affected states and localities . Paul Eaton , a retired two-star Army general and a former commanding general of Fort Benning , said Trump ’ s statements go against ideals the Army stands for . “ Today , Donald Trump made it official . Rather than move this nation further away from institutionalized racism , he believes we should cling to it and its heritage , by keeping the names of racist traitors on the gates of our military bases , ” Eaton said . Peter Mansoor , a retired Army colonel and veteran of the Iraq war , said in an email exchange that renaming these bases is long overdue . “ Most serving soldiers know little about the history behind the Confederate leaders for whom these bases are named , or the political deals that caused them to be honored in this fashion , ” he said . “ There might be some pushback from a small segment of soldiers from the South , but this is what we like to call a ‘ teachable moment. ’ Now is the time to finally bring about a change that will speak volumes as to what the U.S. Army stands for . ” David Petraeus , a retired four-star Army general , said the renaming move , which he supports , amounts to a “ war of memory , ” and that before deciding to rename bases like Fort Bragg , where he served with the 82nd Airborne Division , the Army must be ready to follow its own procedures for such change . “ The irony of training at bases named for those who took up arms against the United States , and for the right to enslave others , is inescapable to anyone paying attention , ” Petraeus wrote in an essay published Tuesday by The Atlantic . “ Now , belatedly , is the moment for us to pay such attention . ” Fort Bragg was named for Braxton Bragg , a native North Carolinian and Confederate general with a reputation for bravery and mediocre leadership . His forces were defeated at the Battle of Chattanooga in November 1863 .

FILE - In this Jan. 4, 2020, file photo a sign for at Fort Bragg, N.C., is shown. Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, both former Army officers, put out word that they are “open to a bipartisan discussion” of renaming Army bases like North Carolina’s Fort Bragg that honor Confederate officers associated by some with the racism of that tumultuous time. (AP Photo/Chris Seward, File) FILE - In this Jan. 4, 2020, file photo a sign for at Fort Bragg, N.C., is shown. Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, both former Army officers, put out word that they are “open to a bipartisan discussion” of renaming Army bases like North Carolina’s Fort Bragg that honor Confederate officers associated by some with the racism of that tumultuous time. (AP Photo/Chris Seward, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Wednesday said his administration will “not even consider” changing the name of any of the 10 Army bases that are named for Confederate Army officers. Two days earlier, Defense Secretary Mark Esper indicated that he was open to a broad discussion of such changes. “These Monumental and very Powerful Bases have become part of a Great American Heritage, a history of Winning, Victory, and Freedom,” Trump wrote. “The United States of America trained and deployed our HEROES on these Hallowed Grounds, and won two World Wars. Therefore, my Administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations.” ADVERTISEMENT Name changes have not been proposed by the Army or the Pentagon, but on Monday, Esper and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy indicated in response to questions from reporters that they were “open to a bipartisan discussion” of renaming bases such as Fort Bragg in North Carolina and Fort Benning in Georgia. Supporters of disassociating military bases from Confederate Army officers argue that they represent the racism and divisiveness of the Civil War era and glorify men who fought against the United States. To amplify Trump’s view, his press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, read his tweets to reporters in the White House briefing room. She said he is “fervently” opposed to changing the base names and believes that doing so would amount to “complete disrespect” for soldiers who trained there over the years. ...history of Winning, Victory, and Freedom. The United States of America trained and deployed our HEROES on these Hallowed Grounds, and won two World Wars. Therefore, my Administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 10, 2020 The possibility of renaming the bases, McEnany said, is “an absolute non-starter” for Trump. If Congress were to pass legislation requiring name changes, he would not sign it, she said. The U.S. military recently began rethinking its traditional connection to Confederate Army symbols, including the Army base names, mindful of their divisiveness at a time the nation is wrestling with questions of race after the death of George Floyd in police hands. The Navy and the Marine Corps are now banning public displays of the Confederate Army battle flag on their installations, casting their decision as necessary to preserve cohesion within the ranks. Ten major Army installations are named for Confederate Army officers, mostly senior generals, including Robert E. Lee. Among the 10 is Fort Benning, the namesake of Confederate Army Gen. Henry L. Benning, who was a leader of Georgia’s secessionist movement and an advocate of preserving slavery. Others are in Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Texas and Louisiana. The naming was done mostly after World War I and in the 1940s, in some cases as gestures of conciliation to the South. Few voices in the military are openly defending the link to Confederate symbols, but some of the bases named for Confederate officers are legendary in their own right. Fort Bragg, for example, is home to some of the Army’s most elite forces. Any decision to change the name at Bragg or other bases likely would involve consulting with officials from the affected states and localities. Paul Eaton, a retired two-star Army general and a former commanding general of Fort Benning, said Trump’s statements go against ideals the Army stands for. “Today, Donald Trump made it official. Rather than move this nation further away from institutionalized racism, he believes we should cling to it and its heritage, by keeping the names of racist traitors on the gates of our military bases,” Eaton said. Peter Mansoor, a retired Army colonel and veteran of the Iraq war, said in an email exchange that renaming these bases is long overdue. “Most serving soldiers know little about the history behind the Confederate leaders for whom these bases are named, or the political deals that caused them to be honored in this fashion,” he said. “There might be some pushback from a small segment of soldiers from the South, but this is what we like to call a ‘teachable moment.’ Now is the time to finally bring about a change that will speak volumes as to what the U.S. Army stands for.” David Petraeus, a retired four-star Army general, said the renaming move, which he supports, amounts to a “war of memory,” and that before deciding to rename bases like Fort Bragg, where he served with the 82nd Airborne Division, the Army must be ready to follow its own procedures for such change. “The irony of training at bases named for those who took up arms against the United States, and for the right to enslave others, is inescapable to anyone paying attention,” Petraeus wrote in an essay published Tuesday by The Atlantic. “Now, belatedly, is the moment for us to pay such attention.” Fort Bragg was named for Braxton Bragg, a native North Carolinian and Confederate general with a reputation for bravery and mediocre leadership. His forces were defeated at the Battle of Chattanooga in November 1863.

www.apnews.com

center

0JguZcVIDHUK5AiW

test

9ei1JSEmuNbJbA0J

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/30/gops_white_southern_men_problem_why_they_cant_hold_democrats_down_any_longer/

GOPss white Southern men problem: Why they can?t hold Democrats down any longer

2014-04-30

Heather Digparton

In a very famous ( and possibly apocryphal ) quote , Lyndon Johnson said upon signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act that the Democrats had lost the South for a generation . And there 's little doubt that the Republicans immediately saw a path to a new majority . That realignment took more than a generation to gradually happen , but happen it did . The GOP marched through one election after another burning down every Southern Democratic stronghold in its wake . And the Democrats have been bemoaning their Lost Cause ever since . For decades it was an article of faith that the only way for the Democrats to achieve a real majority again would be to recapture that Southern white vote . They agreed that they had to only nominate sons of the South who could speak the lingo . And they had to ensure that they never again spoke ill of guns , only spoke ill of gays and always praised God as if every day was an evangelical revival meeting . This was best articulated by a strategist by the name of Mudcat Saunders who spelled it out as clearly as anyone 's ever done it : SouthNow : What ’ s the prescription for Democrats ? Mudcat : There ’ s only one prescription and that ’ s tolerance . I ’ m a white , southern male who hunts . I ’ m a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans , which has two black members , by the way . I don ’ t know how many northern Democrats who have tolerance for my kind . SouthNow : What ’ s your strategy for Southern progress ? Mudcat : We need to quit all this tap dancin ’ around the truth .... We need to stop tap dancin ’ around the issues of guns , gays and God .... We ’ ve lost the white male . We need to get ‘ em back . We need to get through the cultural wall . It ’ s a wall of straw . Inside every rural Republican is a Democrat trying to get out . Saunders , who has worked on the campaigns of Mark Warner , John Edwards , and Bob Graham , thinks that if Democrats ease up on the culture stuff they can win in the South : `` We ’ ve got an affection for big guns and fast cars . It ’ s a macho thing . I ’ ve not seen any attempt by the Democrats to get into that culture . '' He was wrong about that . They tried , oh how they tried . It just did n't work . And why was that ? Well , the Democrats have a constituency that these rural , white Southern males are n't too fond of . Several as a matter of fact . `` Bubba doesn ’ t call them illegal immigrants . He calls them illegal aliens . If the Democrats put illegal aliens in their bait can , we ’ re going to come home with a bunch of white males in the boat . '' Mudcat may be a little cruder than most but he was far from alone in thinking this way . The problem was that Democrats just could n't thread that needle . The party of people of color , feminists , urban dwellers and gays was not going to be particularly appealing to Mudcat 's Bubbas regardless of how often Democrats like Howard Dean excitedly exhorted them to vote for their own self-interest : `` White folks in the South who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag decals in the back ought to be voting with us and not them , because their kids do n't have health insurance , either , and their kids need better schools , too . '' You 'd think so , would n't you ? Entire books have been written about this strange phenomenon in American political life that explains in great detail why they do n't . Let 's just say they would rather die than vote for a Democrat . Literally . If you want to see that vividly illustrated , look at this from the Democracy Corps ' latest polling . It turns out that you can no longer assume that `` rural '' and `` Southern '' align , at least not when it comes to healthcare . Across the country , people are starting to warm up to the healthcare reforms and want to see it successfully implemented . But Southern , rural white voters are still opposed . And they are n't budging . These are unattainable voters for the Democratic Party and have been for a very long time . Unfortunately , as Joshua Green points out , this is still somewhat relevant in the upcoming congressional elections where some Democrats have managed to hang on to their seats by their fingernails long after most of the old Southern Democratic Lions shuffled off their mortal coils , while others slipped in on a fluke . He points to Rep. Patrick Murphy , Fla.-18 , Rep. Joe Garcia , Fla.-26 ) , Rep.John Barrow , Ga.-12 , Rep. Pete Gallego , Texas-23 , and Rep. Nick Rahall , W.Va.-03 ) as being in particular trouble . Let 's just say that if those fine fellows fail to win another term , progressives are not going to mourn their loss . They are among the most conservative Democrats in the House , routinely crossing the aisle to give aid and comfort to the Republicans . They 've been putting `` illegals '' in the bait can , among other such Bubba-enticements , for a long time and it looks like it wo n't be enough to save them . And perhaps that 's for the best . The Democrats can finally put their dreams of re-creating the Roosevelt coalition behind them once and for all . That coalition required that the Democratic Party ignore any commitment to ending Jim Crow and there 's no going back to that kind of politics . There are seats outside the rural deep South they could contest . And if those conservative , white Southern male voters ever wake up to the fact that their enemies are n't feminazis , African-Americans or Latinos and figure out just who it is who 's really keeping them down , I 'm quite sure the Democrats would be proud to have them back in the fold . Until then Bubba 's going to be the heart and soul of the GOP . He 's their problem now .

In a very famous (and possibly apocryphal) quote, Lyndon Johnson said upon signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act that the Democrats had lost the South for a generation. And there's little doubt that the Republicans immediately saw a path to a new majority. That realignment took more than a generation to gradually happen, but happen it did. The GOP marched through one election after another burning down every Southern Democratic stronghold in its wake. And the Democrats have been bemoaning their Lost Cause ever since. For decades it was an article of faith that the only way for the Democrats to achieve a real majority again would be to recapture that Southern white vote. They agreed that they had to only nominate sons of the South who could speak the lingo. And they had to ensure that they never again spoke ill of guns, only spoke ill of gays and always praised God as if every day was an evangelical revival meeting. This was best articulated by a strategist by the name of Mudcat Saunders who spelled it out as clearly as anyone's ever done it: Advertisement: SouthNow: What’s the prescription for Democrats? Mudcat: There’s only one prescription and that’s tolerance. I’m a white, southern male who hunts. I’m a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which has two black members, by the way. I don’t know how many northern Democrats who have tolerance for my kind. SouthNow: What’s your strategy for Southern progress? Mudcat: We need to quit all this tap dancin’ around the truth....We need to stop tap dancin’ around the issues of guns, gays and God....We’ve lost the white male. We need to get ‘em back. We need to get through the cultural wall. It’s a wall of straw. Inside every rural Republican is a Democrat trying to get out. Saunders, who has worked on the campaigns of Mark Warner, John Edwards, and Bob Graham, thinks that if Democrats ease up on the culture stuff they can win in the South: "We’ve got an affection for big guns and fast cars. It’s a macho thing. I’ve not seen any attempt by the Democrats to get into that culture." He was wrong about that. They tried, oh how they tried. It just didn't work. And why was that? Well, the Democrats have a constituency that these rural, white Southern males aren't too fond of. Several as a matter of fact. Here's Mudcat in a different interview spelling it out: "Bubba doesn’t call them illegal immigrants. He calls them illegal aliens. If the Democrats put illegal aliens in their bait can, we’re going to come home with a bunch of white males in the boat." Mudcat may be a little cruder than most but he was far from alone in thinking this way. The problem was that Democrats just couldn't thread that needle. The party of people of color, feminists, urban dwellers and gays was not going to be particularly appealing to Mudcat's Bubbas regardless of how often Democrats like Howard Dean excitedly exhorted them to vote for their own self-interest: Advertisement: "White folks in the South who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag decals in the back ought to be voting with us and not them, because their kids don't have health insurance, either, and their kids need better schools, too." You'd think so, wouldn't you? Entire books have been written about this strange phenomenon in American political life that explains in great detail why they don't. Let's just say they would rather die than vote for a Democrat. Literally. If you want to see that vividly illustrated, look at this from the Democracy Corps' latest polling. Advertisement: It turns out that you can no longer assume that "rural" and "Southern" align, at least not when it comes to healthcare. Across the country, people are starting to warm up to the healthcare reforms and want to see it successfully implemented. But Southern, rural white voters are still opposed. And they aren't budging. These are unattainable voters for the Democratic Party and have been for a very long time. Unfortunately, as Joshua Green points out, this is still somewhat relevant in the upcoming congressional elections where some Democrats have managed to hang on to their seats by their fingernails long after most of the old Southern Democratic Lions shuffled off their mortal coils, while others slipped in on a fluke. He points to Rep. Patrick Murphy, Fla.-18, Rep. Joe Garcia, Fla.-26), Rep.John Barrow, Ga.-12, Rep. Pete Gallego, Texas-23, and Rep. Nick Rahall, W.Va.-03) as being in particular trouble. Advertisement: Let's just say that if those fine fellows fail to win another term, progressives are not going to mourn their loss. They are among the most conservative Democrats in the House, routinely crossing the aisle to give aid and comfort to the Republicans. They've been putting "illegals" in the bait can, among other such Bubba-enticements, for a long time and it looks like it won't be enough to save them. And perhaps that's for the best. The Democrats can finally put their dreams of re-creating the Roosevelt coalition behind them once and for all. That coalition required that the Democratic Party ignore any commitment to ending Jim Crow and there's no going back to that kind of politics. There are seats outside the rural deep South they could contest. And if those conservative, white Southern male voters ever wake up to the fact that their enemies aren't feminazis, African-Americans or Latinos and figure out just who it is who's really keeping them down, I'm quite sure the Democrats would be proud to have them back in the fold. Until then Bubba's going to be the heart and soul of the GOP. He's their problem now.

www.salon.com

left

9ei1JSEmuNbJbA0J

test

4U3vtsTOR8yf7wzS

media_bias

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/12/05/left-pretends-trump-inheriting-strong-economy/

Left Pretends Trump Inheriting Strong Obama Economy

2016-12-05

Chriss W. Street

With President Obama , Democrats and their media fellow travelers having failed to win the hearts and minds of voters , they are now trying to build a legacy on the big lie : “ The president is handing his successor an economy that ’ s now the envy of the world . ” David Corn of the progressive Mother Jones magazine claimed on November 7 : “ the election is a referendum on the explicit use of hate in politics — a reckoning toward which the GOP has been hurtling for half a century. ” But Donald Trump won by campaigning on making the election a referendum on President Obama ’ s failed economic policies . The 2016 election results were the worst performance by the Democrat Party since the 1870s . Republicans now hold the presidency , both houses of Congress , 33 governorships and control of both legislature chambers in 32 states . The Democrats only control both legislature chambers in just 13 states . Middle class voters , especially in “ flyover country , ” came to believe on November 8 that the Obama administration ’ s economic recovery was the worst since the Great Depression in the 1930s , according to Peter J. Ferrara of the Heartland Institute . Ferrara suggests that despite $ 6 trillion in deficit spending during President Obama ’ s first term , median household income after inflation fell by more than $ 4,500 , about the equivalent of losing one month ’ s pay per year . He adds that after another $ 4 trillion in deficit spending in Obama ’ s second term , after-inflation median household income did stabilize . But the average American family would have $ 17,000 more in annual income if 8 years of the Obama recovery had equaled the average recession recovery since World War II . But the Obama administration continues to claim that pushing the unemployment rate down from 10 percent will be the centerpiece of the outgoing president ’ s legacy . Jason Furman , Chairman of Obama Administration ’ s Council of Economic Advisers , told CNBC on December 2 , “ I didn ’ t think I ’ d ever see the unemployment rate that low , ” after the Labor Department reported that the November unemployment rate fell to 4.6 percent . But more than half of that supposed decline during the Obama Administration was due to the equivalent of about 7.5 million Americans giving up looking for a job or dropping out of labor force . Furthermore , the current level of part-time employment , at 18.3 percent ( about 27.8 million ) , is a higher percentage than at any time since the Great Depression . One advantage for Democrats of having a lousy recovery for workers , is that the interest rates stayed so low that U.S. house prices just hit a new all-time-high . But most of those gains went to the rich . The percentage of families that own a house dropped from 67.5 percent , when President Obama first took office in January 2009 , to 62.9 percent in November . The last time the rate of home ownership was that low was 1966 , when Lyndon Johnson was President . George Friedman , founder of Geopolitical Futures . commented after the election that it was the disbelief that Trump , as an amateur populist , could even compete , is the “ reason Hillary Clinton lost. ” The Democratic Party “ that Franklin D. Roosevelt crafted or that Lyndon B. Johnson had led ” abandoned its core white working-class voters , which Trump proved are “ single largest ethnic and social group in the country . ” Friedman observes : “ Liberals are concerned with inequality . People in the lower-middle class are simply concerned with making enough money to live a decent life . They are two very different things . ” Friedman credits Trump for also understanding that “ these people had lost the culture wars that had been waged for the past generation. ” Their churches and parents raised and taught them “ gut values. ” The pride that comes to the lower- and middle-class from working hard and making a good living for their families was lost had been displaced . In order to be politically correct , the “ values they were taught as children could no longer be expressed in public . ” Democrats and their media allies are working hard to build a legacy of the Obama administration ’ s accomplishments . But Friedman suggests the election demonstrated that the “ middle-class group no longer had a place in the Democratic Party ” that only has contempt for them .

With President Obama, Democrats and their media fellow travelers having failed to win the hearts and minds of voters, they are now trying to build a legacy on the big lie: “The president is handing his successor an economy that’s now the envy of the world.” David Corn of the progressive Mother Jones magazine claimed on November 7: “the election is a referendum on the explicit use of hate in politics — a reckoning toward which the GOP has been hurtling for half a century.” But Donald Trump won by campaigning on making the election a referendum on President Obama’s failed economic policies. The 2016 election results were the worst performance by the Democrat Party since the 1870s. Republicans now hold the presidency, both houses of Congress, 33 governorships and control of both legislature chambers in 32 states. The Democrats only control both legislature chambers in just 13 states. Middle class voters, especially in “flyover country,” came to believe on November 8 that the Obama administration’s economic recovery was the worst since the Great Depression in the 1930s, according to Peter J. Ferrara of the Heartland Institute. Ferrara suggests that despite $6 trillion in deficit spending during President Obama’s first term, median household income after inflation fell by more than $4,500, about the equivalent of losing one month’s pay per year. He adds that after another $4 trillion in deficit spending in Obama’s second term, after-inflation median household income did stabilize. But the average American family would have $17,000 more in annual income if 8 years of the Obama recovery had equaled the average recession recovery since World War II. But the Obama administration continues to claim that pushing the unemployment rate down from 10 percent will be the centerpiece of the outgoing president’s legacy. Jason Furman, Chairman of Obama Administration’s Council of Economic Advisers, told CNBC on December 2, “I didn’t think I’d ever see the unemployment rate that low,” after the Labor Department reported that the November unemployment rate fell to 4.6 percent. But more than half of that supposed decline during the Obama Administration was due to the equivalent of about 7.5 million Americans giving up looking for a job or dropping out of labor force. Furthermore, the current level of part-time employment, at 18.3 percent (about 27.8 million), is a higher percentage than at any time since the Great Depression. One advantage for Democrats of having a lousy recovery for workers, is that the interest rates stayed so low that U.S. house prices just hit a new all-time-high. But most of those gains went to the rich. The percentage of families that own a house dropped from 67.5 percent, when President Obama first took office in January 2009, to 62.9 percent in November. The last time the rate of home ownership was that low was 1966, when Lyndon Johnson was President. George Friedman, founder of Geopolitical Futures. commented after the election that it was the disbelief that Trump, as an amateur populist, could even compete, is the “reason Hillary Clinton lost.” The Democratic Party “that Franklin D. Roosevelt crafted or that Lyndon B. Johnson had led” abandoned its core white working-class voters, which Trump proved are “single largest ethnic and social group in the country.” Friedman observes: “Liberals are concerned with inequality. People in the lower-middle class are simply concerned with making enough money to live a decent life. They are two very different things.” Friedman credits Trump for also understanding that “these people had lost the culture wars that had been waged for the past generation.” Their churches and parents raised and taught them “gut values.” The pride that comes to the lower- and middle-class from working hard and making a good living for their families was lost had been displaced. In order to be politically correct, the “values they were taught as children could no longer be expressed in public.” Democrats and their media allies are working hard to build a legacy of the Obama administration’s accomplishments. But Friedman suggests the election demonstrated that the “middle-class group no longer had a place in the Democratic Party” that only has contempt for them.

www.breitbart.com

right

4U3vtsTOR8yf7wzS

test

LkxJPJirfk5WX4gB

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44412422

Muhammad Ali lawyer rejects 'unnecessary' Trump pardon

US President Donald Trump has said he may pardon boxing legend Muhammad Ali for a draft-dodging conviction , even though it has already been overturned . Mr Trump told reporters before he left the White House for the G7 summit that he was `` thinking about '' the late boxer and some others `` very seriously '' . Ali was convicted in 1967 after refusing to fight in the Vietnam War . But a lawyer for his family said it was `` unnecessary '' as Ali was pardoned by the Supreme Court in 1971 . `` We appreciate President Trump 's sentiment , but a pardon is unnecessary . The US Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Muhammad Ali in a unanimous decision in 1971 , '' said Ali 's lawyer Ron Tweel in a statement . `` There is no conviction from which a pardon is needed . '' Mr Trump reportedly said Ali , who died in 2016 , was one of 3,000 people he was considering pardoning , saying many of these people `` have been treated unfairly '' . `` I 'm thinking about Muhammad Ali . I 'm thinking about that very seriously and some others , '' the president said . Donald Trump has fallen in love with the presidential pardon . Or , at the very least , he 's enamoured by the spectacle and speculation that he 's managed to create by publicly entertaining ways to use his broad pardon power . Never mind that Muhammad Ali , whose conviction for draft-dodging was overturned in 1971 , has no criminal record that needs presidential expungement . Never mind that Ali died two years ago , with his legacy as a boxer and a civil rights icon intact . The president is , as the saying goes , just spitballing . He 's throwing names out and clearly enjoying the new game he 's created . The president even suggested he might entertain pardon recommendations from NFL players who have protested police discrimination and violence during the national anthem - the same individuals whose patriotism Mr Trump has publicly questioned . If all of this sounds a bit confusing or surprising - that may just be the way Mr Trump wants it . If nothing else , his presidency keeps everyone guessing as to what will happen next . Ali was a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War . He said fighting in a war he did not believe in would disgrace his religion , his people and himself . Mr Trump 's comments follow his pardon of conservative political commentator and author Dinesh D'Souza , and his granting of clemency to Alice Johnson after lobbying by Kim Kardashian West . The president has recently mooted pardons for lifestyle personality Martha Stewart and former governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich . Mr Trump also recently said he has the `` absolute right '' to pardon himself in the Russia inquiry , although he insists he has done nothing wrong . He has posted on Instagram a photo of himself meeting Ali at a past event . When he died , Mr Trump called him `` a truly great champion and a wonderful guy '' in a tweet . Ali famously declared he `` ai n't got nothing against no Viet Cong '' after he was reclassified as eligible for service . After refusing to serve , he was stripped of his boxing titles and did not fight for three years while he appealed , until his conviction was quashed by the US Supreme Court . President Jimmy Carter also offered a blanket pardon in 1977 for any draft dodger who requested one .

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Muhammad Ali was convicted of draft dodging in 1967 US President Donald Trump has said he may pardon boxing legend Muhammad Ali for a draft-dodging conviction, even though it has already been overturned. Mr Trump told reporters before he left the White House for the G7 summit that he was "thinking about" the late boxer and some others "very seriously". Ali was convicted in 1967 after refusing to fight in the Vietnam War. But a lawyer for his family said it was "unnecessary" as Ali was pardoned by the Supreme Court in 1971. "We appreciate President Trump's sentiment, but a pardon is unnecessary. The US Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Muhammad Ali in a unanimous decision in 1971," said Ali's lawyer Ron Tweel in a statement. "There is no conviction from which a pardon is needed." Mr Trump reportedly said Ali, who died in 2016, was one of 3,000 people he was considering pardoning, saying many of these people "have been treated unfairly". "I'm thinking about Muhammad Ali. I'm thinking about that very seriously and some others," the president said. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Are presidential pardons Trump's secret weapon? The president's new game Analysis by Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington Donald Trump has fallen in love with the presidential pardon. Or, at the very least, he's enamoured by the spectacle and speculation that he's managed to create by publicly entertaining ways to use his broad pardon power. Never mind that Muhammad Ali, whose conviction for draft-dodging was overturned in 1971, has no criminal record that needs presidential expungement. Never mind that Ali died two years ago, with his legacy as a boxer and a civil rights icon intact. The president is, as the saying goes, just spitballing. He's throwing names out and clearly enjoying the new game he's created. The president even suggested he might entertain pardon recommendations from NFL players who have protested police discrimination and violence during the national anthem - the same individuals whose patriotism Mr Trump has publicly questioned. If all of this sounds a bit confusing or surprising - that may just be the way Mr Trump wants it. If nothing else, his presidency keeps everyone guessing as to what will happen next. Ali was a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War. He said fighting in a war he did not believe in would disgrace his religion, his people and himself. Mr Trump's comments follow his pardon of conservative political commentator and author Dinesh D'Souza, and his granting of clemency to Alice Johnson after lobbying by Kim Kardashian West. The president has recently mooted pardons for lifestyle personality Martha Stewart and former governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich. Mr Trump also recently said he has the "absolute right" to pardon himself in the Russia inquiry, although he insists he has done nothing wrong. The president has expressed admiration for Muhammad Ali before. He has posted on Instagram a photo of himself meeting Ali at a past event. When he died, Mr Trump called him "a truly great champion and a wonderful guy" in a tweet. Ali famously declared he "ain't got nothing against no Viet Cong" after he was reclassified as eligible for service. After refusing to serve, he was stripped of his boxing titles and did not fight for three years while he appealed, until his conviction was quashed by the US Supreme Court. President Jimmy Carter also offered a blanket pardon in 1977 for any draft dodger who requested one.

www.bbc.com

center

LkxJPJirfk5WX4gB

test

B4Z62iNPQhCnNWPm

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia/trump-says-attorney-general-should-stop-mueller-probe-right-now-idUSKBN1KM539

Trump says attorney general should stop Mueller probe 'right now'

2018-08-01

Doina Chiacu

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - U.S. President Donald Trump appealed to Attorney General Jeff Sessions to end an investigation into Russia ’ s role in the 2016 election , drawing a rebuke from his fellow Republicans in Congress who said the probe must go on . It was Trump ’ s most direct call for his top U.S. law enforcement officer to shut down Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s criminal investigation and Democrats promptly accused the president of trying to obstruct justice . Trump ’ s remark coincided with the start of the trial this week of his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort on charges arising from Mueller ’ s inquiry . In a series of tweets , Trump called a “ TOTAL HOAX ” the idea his campaign worked with Moscow , which Mueller is examining . “ This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now , before it continues to stain our country any further , ” he said . Since his surprise election in November 2016 , Republican Trump has chafed at any suggestion that the Russian interference might have helped him win the White House . And while he has long maligned Mueller and the investigation , his tweet on Wednesday was an extraordinary bid to try to influence the course of an inquiry hanging over his presidency . In any case , Sessions recused himself from the investigation in March 2017 and does not have the power to stop it . The White House said the tweet was not an order to Sessions and that Trump was expressing his frustration with the length of the probe . “ It ’ s not an order . It ’ s the president ’ s opinion , ” White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told a news briefing . She denied that Trump was trying to obstruct the probe . “ He ’ s fighting back , ” she said . Trump ’ s personal lawyer , Rudy Giuliani , said Trump was expressing an opinion long espoused by his team . Some U.S. lawmakers said shutting down the investigation early would be a mistake . Trump also said that Mueller is “ totally conflicted. ” He provided no evidence that the team led by Mueller , a Republican who was appointed by a Republican , is biased against him . Peter Carr , spokesman for the special counsel ’ s office , declined to comment on Trump ’ s Twitter post . A Justice Department spokeswoman said the department had no comment . Trump has steadily attacked Sessions for recusing himself . Sessions cited his role as a senior adviser to Trump ’ s presidential campaign and appointed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to oversee the investigation . Rosenstein in turn appointed Mueller and is the person with the authority to fire him . Mueller , a Republican and former FBI director who served a Republican and Democratic president , has broad support in Congress , where Republicans control both chambers . Six Republican senators going into a vote on Wednesday disapproved of Trump ’ s tweet calling for an end to the probe . “ They ought to let them conclude their work . What they ’ re doing is something that is important and we support and I don ’ t think any effort to truncate that or somehow shut it down early is in the public ’ s best interest , ” said Senator John Thune . Senator Orrin Hatch said he did not think Sessions had the power to end the probe and it would be unwise to do so . An element of Mueller ’ s investigation includes whether Trump or anyone in the campaign tried to obstruct justice . The New York Times reported last week that Mueller ’ s office was examining negative tweets and statements by Trump about Sessions and former FBI Director James Comey . Trump fired Comey in May 2017 . U.S. intelligence agencies concluded last year that Moscow meddled in the 2016 campaign to try to tip the vote in Trump ’ s favor . Moscow has denied such interference , and Trump has denied any collusion by his campaign or any obstruction of justice . Senator Dianne Feinstein , the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee , said after Trump ’ s tweet , “ It ’ s clear to me he ’ s very worried about it and he wants to prevent it any way he can . ” In April , the committee approved legislation to protect Mueller but Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell said there was no need to advance the bill because he did not believe Trump would fire Mueller . Some legal analysts said Wednesday ’ s tweet alone was not enough to bring an obstruction of justice charge but it could be used to establish a pattern of conduct revealing Trump ’ s intentions . “ It is a piece of evidence . It is part and parcel with the other 94 things the man has done that show obstruction of justice , ” said Paul Rosenzweig , a former prosecutor who was part of a team that investigated President Bill Clinton . Jens David Ohlin , a law professor at Cornell University , said the tweets would likely not be seen as an order to Sessions , but as “ Trump venting his continued frustration with the fact that he can ’ t control the Russia investigation . ”

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump appealed to Attorney General Jeff Sessions to end an investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election, drawing a rebuke from his fellow Republicans in Congress who said the probe must go on. It was Trump’s most direct call for his top U.S. law enforcement officer to shut down Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s criminal investigation and Democrats promptly accused the president of trying to obstruct justice. Trump’s remark coincided with the start of the trial this week of his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort on charges arising from Mueller’s inquiry. In a series of tweets, Trump called a “TOTAL HOAX” the idea his campaign worked with Moscow, which Mueller is examining. “This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further,” he said. Since his surprise election in November 2016, Republican Trump has chafed at any suggestion that the Russian interference might have helped him win the White House. And while he has long maligned Mueller and the investigation, his tweet on Wednesday was an extraordinary bid to try to influence the course of an inquiry hanging over his presidency. In any case, Sessions recused himself from the investigation in March 2017 and does not have the power to stop it. The White House said the tweet was not an order to Sessions and that Trump was expressing his frustration with the length of the probe. “It’s not an order. It’s the president’s opinion,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told a news briefing. She denied that Trump was trying to obstruct the probe. “He’s fighting back,” she said. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, said Trump was expressing an opinion long espoused by his team. Some U.S. lawmakers said shutting down the investigation early would be a mistake. Trump also said that Mueller is “totally conflicted.” He provided no evidence that the team led by Mueller, a Republican who was appointed by a Republican, is biased against him. Peter Carr, spokesman for the special counsel’s office, declined to comment on Trump’s Twitter post. A Justice Department spokeswoman said the department had no comment. STEADY ATTACKS ON SESSIONS Trump has steadily attacked Sessions for recusing himself. Sessions cited his role as a senior adviser to Trump’s presidential campaign and appointed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to oversee the investigation. Rosenstein in turn appointed Mueller and is the person with the authority to fire him. Mueller, a Republican and former FBI director who served a Republican and Democratic president, has broad support in Congress, where Republicans control both chambers. Six Republican senators going into a vote on Wednesday disapproved of Trump’s tweet calling for an end to the probe. “They ought to let them conclude their work. What they’re doing is something that is important and we support and I don’t think any effort to truncate that or somehow shut it down early is in the public’s best interest,” said Senator John Thune. Senator Orrin Hatch said he did not think Sessions had the power to end the probe and it would be unwise to do so. An element of Mueller’s investigation includes whether Trump or anyone in the campaign tried to obstruct justice. The New York Times reported last week that Mueller’s office was examining negative tweets and statements by Trump about Sessions and former FBI Director James Comey. Trump fired Comey in May 2017. U.S. intelligence agencies concluded last year that Moscow meddled in the 2016 campaign to try to tip the vote in Trump’s favor. Moscow has denied such interference, and Trump has denied any collusion by his campaign or any obstruction of justice. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said after Trump’s tweet, “It’s clear to me he’s very worried about it and he wants to prevent it any way he can.” In April, the committee approved legislation to protect Mueller but Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell said there was no need to advance the bill because he did not believe Trump would fire Mueller. FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump arrives at a Make America Great Again Rally at the Florida State Fairgrounds in Tampa, Florida, U.S., July 31, 2018. REUTERS/Carlos Barria Some legal analysts said Wednesday’s tweet alone was not enough to bring an obstruction of justice charge but it could be used to establish a pattern of conduct revealing Trump’s intentions. “It is a piece of evidence. It is part and parcel with the other 94 things the man has done that show obstruction of justice,” said Paul Rosenzweig, a former prosecutor who was part of a team that investigated President Bill Clinton. Jens David Ohlin, a law professor at Cornell University, said the tweets would likely not be seen as an order to Sessions, but as “Trump venting his continued frustration with the fact that he can’t control the Russia investigation.”

www.reuters.com

center

B4Z62iNPQhCnNWPm

test

nc2TLRBWb4OeIfly

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-shutdown/republican-senator-graham-says-trump-receptive-to-shutdown-deal-idea-idUSKCN1OT0M7

Republican Senator Graham says Trump receptive to shutdown deal idea

2018-12-31

David Lawder

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - U.S . Senator Lindsey Graham said on Sunday he was optimistic that Republicans , Democrats and President Donald Trump could reach a deal to end a government shutdown that includes border wall funding and legal status for some illegal immigrants . Graham , a Republican , told reporters after meeting Trump for lunch at the White House that Trump was receptive to Graham ’ s idea of a deal that might provide work permits to so-called Dreamers , people brought illegally to the United States as children , in exchange for money for physical border barriers . “ The president was upbeat , he was in a very good mood , and I think he ’ s receptive to making a deal , ” Graham said , adding that Trump found the potential Dreamer concession “ interesting . ” But the senator said there would never be a government spending deal that did not include money for a wall or other physical barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border . The wall was one of the central promises of Trump ’ s presidential campaign . “ I don ’ t see Democrats giving us more money unless they get something . So , the one thing we talked about is making deals , ” Graham said . “ After lunch I ’ ve never been more encouraged that if we can get people talking we can find our way out of this mess and that would include around $ 5 billion for border security , slash wall , slash fencing whatever you want to call it in areas that make sense , ” he added . Trump later made clear on Twitter that he regarded a wall as necessary . “ President and Mrs. Obama built/has a ten foot Wall around their D.C. mansion/compound . I agree , totally necessary for their safety and security , ” Trump wrote . “ The U.S. needs the same thing , slightly larger version ! ” Earlier , on CNN ’ s “ State of the Union ” program , Graham floated the idea of giving Democrats a version of stalled legislation to protect Dreamers from deportation in exchange for wall funding . The Trump administration in 2017 announced plans to phase out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program , begun under former President Barack Obama to shield Dreamers from deportation . But Trump ’ s DACA phase-out has been delayed by court rulings against it . With the partial government shutdown in its ninth day on Sunday , some other lawmakers were less upbeat about prospects for a deal to restore spending authority . Republican Senator Richard Shelby warned on CBS ’ “ Face the Nation ” that negotiations were at an impasse and the shutdown “ could last a long , long time . ” Democratic U.S. Representative Hakeem Jeffries said the country needed comprehensive immigration reform and border security . “ We are not willing to pay $ 2.5 billion or $ 5 billion and wasting taxpayer dollars on a ransom note because Donald Trump decided that he was going to shut down the government and hold the American people hostage , ” Jeffries said on ABC . Democrats take control of the U.S. House of Representatives this week , following November ’ s congressional elections .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham said on Sunday he was optimistic that Republicans, Democrats and President Donald Trump could reach a deal to end a government shutdown that includes border wall funding and legal status for some illegal immigrants. Graham, a Republican, told reporters after meeting Trump for lunch at the White House that Trump was receptive to Graham’s idea of a deal that might provide work permits to so-called Dreamers, people brought illegally to the United States as children, in exchange for money for physical border barriers. “The president was upbeat, he was in a very good mood, and I think he’s receptive to making a deal,” Graham said, adding that Trump found the potential Dreamer concession “interesting.” But the senator said there would never be a government spending deal that did not include money for a wall or other physical barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border. The wall was one of the central promises of Trump’s presidential campaign. “I don’t see Democrats giving us more money unless they get something. So, the one thing we talked about is making deals,” Graham said. “After lunch I’ve never been more encouraged that if we can get people talking we can find our way out of this mess and that would include around $5 billion for border security, slash wall, slash fencing whatever you want to call it in areas that make sense,” he added. Trump later made clear on Twitter that he regarded a wall as necessary. “President and Mrs. Obama built/has a ten foot Wall around their D.C. mansion/compound. I agree, totally necessary for their safety and security,” Trump wrote. “The U.S. needs the same thing, slightly larger version!” Earlier, on CNN’s “State of the Union” program, Graham floated the idea of giving Democrats a version of stalled legislation to protect Dreamers from deportation in exchange for wall funding. The Trump administration in 2017 announced plans to phase out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, begun under former President Barack Obama to shield Dreamers from deportation. But Trump’s DACA phase-out has been delayed by court rulings against it. With the partial government shutdown in its ninth day on Sunday, some other lawmakers were less upbeat about prospects for a deal to restore spending authority. Republican Senator Richard Shelby warned on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that negotiations were at an impasse and the shutdown “could last a long, long time.” Slideshow (2 Images) Democratic U.S. Representative Hakeem Jeffries said the country needed comprehensive immigration reform and border security. “We are not willing to pay $2.5 billion or $5 billion and wasting taxpayer dollars on a ransom note because Donald Trump decided that he was going to shut down the government and hold the American people hostage,” Jeffries said on ABC. Democrats take control of the U.S. House of Representatives this week, following November’s congressional elections.

www.reuters.com

center

nc2TLRBWb4OeIfly

test

lLjX8MCnJgm5PnJB

fbi

Newsmax

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/michael-cohen-trump-lawyer-investigation/2019/03/19/id/907633/

Records: FBI Began Probing Michael Cohen a Year Before Raid

2019-03-19

Jim Mustian, Larry Neumeister

The FBI was investigating President Donald Trump 's former personal attorney and fixer for nearly a year before agents raided his home and office , documents released Tuesday show . The search warrant , while heavily redacted , offered new details about the federal inquiry of Cohen 's business dealings and the FBI raids of his Manhattan home and office . It shows the federal inquiry into Michael Cohen had been going on since July 2017 — far longer than had previously been known . Lanny Davis , an attorney for Cohen , said the release of the search warrant `` furthers his interest in continuing to cooperate and providing information and the truth about Donald Trump and the Trump organization to law enforcement and Congress . '' The FBI raided Cohen 's Manhattan home and office last April , marking the first public sign of a criminal investigation that has threatened Trump 's presidency and netted Cohen a three-year prison sentence for tax evasion and campaign-finance violations . The feds , who also scoured Cohen 's hotel room and safe deposit box , seized more than 4 million electronic and paper files in the searches , more than a dozen mobile devices and iPads , 20 external hard drives , flash drives and laptops . Both Cohen and Trump cried foul over the raids , with Cohen 's attorney at the time calling them `` completely inappropriate and unnecessary '' and the president taking to Twitter to declare that `` Attorney-client privilege is dead ! '' A court-ordered review ultimately found only a fraction of the seized material to be privileged . The raids on Cohen were triggered in part by a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller , who separately is looking into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election . Tuesday 's release of the search warrant came nearly six weeks after U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III partially granted a request by several media organizations , including The Associated Press , that the search warrant be made public due to the high public interest in the case . The judge acknowledged prosecutors ' concerns that a wholesale release of the document `` would jeopardize an ongoing investigation and prejudice the privacy rights of uncharged third parties , '' a ruling that revealed prosecutors are still investigating Cohen 's illegal payments to two women to stay silent about alleged affairs with Trump . The judge ordered prosecutors to redact Cohen 's personal information and details in the warrant that refer to ongoing investigations and several third-parties who have cooperated with the inquiry . But he authorized the release of details in the warrant that relate to Cohen 's tax evasion and false statements to financial institutions charges , along with Cohen 's conduct that did not result in criminal charges . `` At this stage , wholesale disclosure of the materials would reveal the scope and direction of the Government 's ongoing investigation , '' Pauley wrote in a ruling last month . Cohen pleaded guilty over the summer to failing to report more than $ 4 million in income to the IRS , making false statements to financial institutions and campaign-finance violations stemming from the hush-money payments he arranged for porn actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal . Cohen implicated Trump in his guilty plea , saying the president directed him to make the payments during his 2016 campaign .

The FBI was investigating President Donald Trump's former personal attorney and fixer for nearly a year before agents raided his home and office, documents released Tuesday show. The search warrant, while heavily redacted, offered new details about the federal inquiry of Cohen's business dealings and the FBI raids of his Manhattan home and office. It shows the federal inquiry into Michael Cohen had been going on since July 2017 — far longer than had previously been known. Lanny Davis, an attorney for Cohen, said the release of the search warrant "furthers his interest in continuing to cooperate and providing information and the truth about Donald Trump and the Trump organization to law enforcement and Congress." The FBI raided Cohen's Manhattan home and office last April, marking the first public sign of a criminal investigation that has threatened Trump's presidency and netted Cohen a three-year prison sentence for tax evasion and campaign-finance violations. The feds, who also scoured Cohen's hotel room and safe deposit box, seized more than 4 million electronic and paper files in the searches, more than a dozen mobile devices and iPads, 20 external hard drives, flash drives and laptops. Both Cohen and Trump cried foul over the raids, with Cohen's attorney at the time calling them "completely inappropriate and unnecessary" and the president taking to Twitter to declare that "Attorney-client privilege is dead!" A court-ordered review ultimately found only a fraction of the seized material to be privileged. The raids on Cohen were triggered in part by a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller, who separately is looking into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Tuesday's release of the search warrant came nearly six weeks after U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III partially granted a request by several media organizations, including The Associated Press, that the search warrant be made public due to the high public interest in the case. The judge acknowledged prosecutors' concerns that a wholesale release of the document "would jeopardize an ongoing investigation and prejudice the privacy rights of uncharged third parties," a ruling that revealed prosecutors are still investigating Cohen's illegal payments to two women to stay silent about alleged affairs with Trump. The judge ordered prosecutors to redact Cohen's personal information and details in the warrant that refer to ongoing investigations and several third-parties who have cooperated with the inquiry. But he authorized the release of details in the warrant that relate to Cohen's tax evasion and false statements to financial institutions charges, along with Cohen's conduct that did not result in criminal charges. "At this stage, wholesale disclosure of the materials would reveal the scope and direction of the Government's ongoing investigation," Pauley wrote in a ruling last month. Cohen pleaded guilty over the summer to failing to report more than $4 million in income to the IRS, making false statements to financial institutions and campaign-finance violations stemming from the hush-money payments he arranged for porn actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal. Cohen implicated Trump in his guilty plea, saying the president directed him to make the payments during his 2016 campaign.

www.newsmax.com

right

lLjX8MCnJgm5PnJB

test

u8rvf9OIpo2tk44w

media_bias

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/april/conservative-leader-says-he-was-wrong-about-trump-calls-the-left-a-threat-to-the-human-race

Conservative Leader Says He Was Wrong about Trump; Calls the 'Left' a Threat to the Human Race

2018-04-10

WASHINGTON – Longtime talk show host Dennis Prager says he can admit when he 's wrong , aiming his most recent concession toward the highest office in the land . `` I was opposed to Donald Trump , '' said Prager , who initially preferred any of the candidates in the crowded 2016 Republican primary field over the eventual nominee and commander in chief . `` I was wrong in the beginning to be against him , '' he told ███ News , noting that he also vowed to support Trump if he were to win the GOP presidential primary . When the unlikely billionaire secured the nomination , Prager said he was as `` gung-ho for him as [ he ] was gung-ho against him . '' `` No one else would have defeated Hillary Clinton , in my opinion . And that was a moral good , '' he added . `` The Left is a threat to everything I hold dear , including the unity of the human race . '' Prager made his admission during an interview with ███ News about his new book , The Rational Bible – the first in a series of future works devoted to the first five books of the Bible , also known as the Torah . `` I 'm a religious Jew , but I 'm not trying to make converts to Judaism , '' he explained . `` I 'm not trying to make converts to Christianity . If you become a better Christian , I have done a great job . If you become a better Jew , I 've done a great job . If you become a better monotheist , like Benjamin Franklin , I 've done a great job . '' Prager grew up in a Jewish home and began teaching from the Hebrew scriptures by the time he was in his teens . He said he started the series with Exodus because it contains the Ten Commandments , which Jews and Christians believe is a God-given moral and religious code by which to live . `` I actually believe if people just live by the Ten Commandments the world would be utopian . I mean what is it missing ? '' he asked . `` What evil could take place with the permission of the Ten Commandments ? '' Prager describes himself as unmystical and rather logical , which neatly lends to the book 's title : The Rational Bible . He told ███ News his use of reason has helped skeptics and critics make sense of the Bible and biblical themes . `` Ultimately , my agenda is for people take God seriously and people live by the Ten Commandments and that people look to the Bible for wisdom , '' he said .

WASHINGTON – Longtime talk show host Dennis Prager says he can admit when he's wrong, aiming his most recent concession toward the highest office in the land. "I was opposed to Donald Trump," said Prager, who initially preferred any of the candidates in the crowded 2016 Republican primary field over the eventual nominee and commander in chief. "I was wrong in the beginning to be against him," he told CBN News, noting that he also vowed to support Trump if he were to win the GOP presidential primary. When the unlikely billionaire secured the nomination, Prager said he was as "gung-ho for him as [he] was gung-ho against him." "No one else would have defeated Hillary Clinton, in my opinion. And that was a moral good," he added. "The Left is a threat to everything I hold dear, including the unity of the human race." Prager made his admission during an interview with CBN News about his new book, The Rational Bible – the first in a series of future works devoted to the first five books of the Bible, also known as the Torah. "I'm a religious Jew, but I'm not trying to make converts to Judaism," he explained. "I'm not trying to make converts to Christianity. If you become a better Christian, I have done a great job. If you become a better Jew, I've done a great job. If you become a better monotheist, like Benjamin Franklin, I've done a great job." Prager grew up in a Jewish home and began teaching from the Hebrew scriptures by the time he was in his teens. He said he started the series with Exodus because it contains the Ten Commandments, which Jews and Christians believe is a God-given moral and religious code by which to live. "I actually believe if people just live by the Ten Commandments the world would be utopian. I mean what is it missing?" he asked. "What evil could take place with the permission of the Ten Commandments?" Prager describes himself as unmystical and rather logical, which neatly lends to the book's title: The Rational Bible. He told CBN News his use of reason has helped skeptics and critics make sense of the Bible and biblical themes. "Ultimately, my agenda is for people take God seriously and people live by the Ten Commandments and that people look to the Bible for wisdom," he said.

www1.cbn.com

right

u8rvf9OIpo2tk44w

test

Yw2htJmBl5RzNeNt

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/26/donald-trump-skips-g7-talks-on-climate-crisis-and-amazon-fires

G7: Trump skips talks on climate crisis and Amazon fires

2019-08-26

Angelique Chrisafis, John Crace, Simon Tisdall

Donald Trump did not attend Monday ’ s crucial discussion on climate and biodiversity at the G7 meeting of international leaders in Biarritz , missing talks on how to deal with the Amazon rainforest fires as well as new ways to cut carbon emissions . Reporters noticed at the start of the session that the US president ’ s chair was empty . Trump was later asked by reporters covering a meeting with the German chancellor , Angela Merkel , whether he had attended the climate session . He replied : “ We ’ re having it in a little while. ” He did not appear to hear when a reporter told him it had just taken place . The French president , Emmanuel Macron , confirmed Trump had not personally attended the climate session but that Trump ’ s team had been present . He said he had held long and in-depth talks with Trump on the Amazon fires and that the US president “ shares our objectives ” and was “ fully engaged ” in the joint G7 effort to help Brazil put out the fires and reforest . Macron had placed the climate emergency and protection of biodiversity at the heart of the summit , even before the Amazon rainforest fires . But just before the session began on Saturday , it appeared that Trump ’ s entourage felt discussing climate was of little importance , compared with the economy . Reports in the US said senior Trump aides felt Macron was seeking to embarrass his US counterpart by making the summit focus on “ niche issues ” such as climate change or gender equality . In 2017 , Trump pulled the US out of the Paris climate accord . Macron announced that the G7 had agreed to an immediate fund of at least $ 20m ( £16m ) to help Amazon countries fight wildfires and launch a long-term global initiative to protect the rainforest . He said the Amazon was the “ lungs ” of the planet and leaders were studying the possibility of similar support in Africa , also suffering from fires in its rainforests . All G7 countries – the US , Japan , Germany , France , Italy , Britain and Canada – would give technical and financial help to fight the Amazon fires . Macron had shunted the Amazon fires to the top of the summit agenda after declaring them a global emergency , and kicked off discussions about the disaster at a welcome dinner for fellow leaders on Saturday .

This article is more than 2 months old This article is more than 2 months old Donald Trump did not attend Monday’s crucial discussion on climate and biodiversity at the G7 meeting of international leaders in Biarritz, missing talks on how to deal with the Amazon rainforest fires as well as new ways to cut carbon emissions. Reporters noticed at the start of the session that the US president’s chair was empty. Trump was later asked by reporters covering a meeting with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, whether he had attended the climate session. He replied: “We’re having it in a little while.” He did not appear to hear when a reporter told him it had just taken place. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, confirmed Trump had not personally attended the climate session but that Trump’s team had been present. He said he had held long and in-depth talks with Trump on the Amazon fires and that the US president “shares our objectives” and was “fully engaged” in the joint G7 effort to help Brazil put out the fires and reforest. Macron had placed the climate emergency and protection of biodiversity at the heart of the summit, even before the Amazon rainforest fires. But just before the session began on Saturday, it appeared that Trump’s entourage felt discussing climate was of little importance, compared with the economy. Reports in the US said senior Trump aides felt Macron was seeking to embarrass his US counterpart by making the summit focus on “niche issues” such as climate change or gender equality. In 2017, Trump pulled the US out of the Paris climate accord. Macron announced that the G7 had agreed to an immediate fund of at least $20m (£16m) to help Amazon countries fight wildfires and launch a long-term global initiative to protect the rainforest. He said the Amazon was the “lungs” of the planet and leaders were studying the possibility of similar support in Africa, also suffering from fires in its rainforests. All G7 countries – the US, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Britain and Canada – would give technical and financial help to fight the Amazon fires. Macron had shunted the Amazon fires to the top of the summit agenda after declaring them a global emergency, and kicked off discussions about the disaster at a welcome dinner for fellow leaders on Saturday.

www.theguardian.com

left

Yw2htJmBl5RzNeNt

test

FWoc1ABziaekKwzX

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45172921

Omarosa Manigault Newman: Former aide taped 'Trump phone call'

A former adviser to Donald Trump has released what she says is a tape of a phone call from the US president after her dismissal last year . In the tape played on US TV channel NBC , a voice presumed to be Mr Trump 's expresses surprise at Omarosa Manigault Newman being fired the previous day . `` Nobody even told me about it , '' the male voice can be heard saying . She is releasing a memoir soon and the White House have described her as a disgruntled ex-employee . Tweeting on Monday , Mr Trump said his former employee had only started to attack him after she lost her job . He added that he had asked his Chief of Staff John Kelly to try to `` work it out '' . Skip Twitter post by @ realDonaldTrump Wacky Omarosa , who got fired 3 times on the Apprentice , now got fired for the last time . She never made it , never will . She begged me for a job , tears in her eyes , I said Ok. People in the White House hated her . She was vicious , but not smart . I would rarely see her but heard .... — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) August 13 , 2018 Report Skip Twitter post 2 by @ realDonaldTrump ... really bad things . Nasty to people & would constantly miss meetings & work . When Gen. Kelly came on board he told me she was a loser & nothing but problems . I told him to try working it out , if possible , because she only said GREAT things about me - until she got fired ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) August 13 , 2018 Report President Trump 's lawyer , Rudy Giuliani , says she may have broken the law by recording private conversations at the White House . Ms Manigault Newman knew the president from her days as a star of The Apprentice reality TV show , and advised him on African-American issues during the 2016 election before taking a communications role in the White House . `` Wacky Omarosa '' the president calls her . He has a point : her disclosures are hugely entertaining - and embarrassing for the president . Through her book and TV appearances , she 's exposed private conversations and the inner workings of an unconventional administration , but she has n't exposed any serious wrongdoing , and it 's unlikely she will . She worked in the office of public liaison , focusing on outreach to the African-American community , and did n't have access to top-level secrets . I 'd often see her float in and out of White House events , leaving them early if they got boring , or showing her friends around the place and inviting them to the White House mess for coffee . Her revelations are now creating a stir for a reality-TV-star-studded West Wing but this episode 's likely to end soon . In the excerpt broadcast , the voice said to be the president 's tells Ms Manigault Newman he has seen on the news that she is `` thinking of leaving '' and asks , `` What 's going on ? '' `` General Kelly came to me and said that you guys wanted me to leave , '' she replies . `` No ... Nobody even told me about it , '' the voice replies . `` You know they run a big operation but I did n't know it . I did n't know that . Damn it . I do n't love you leaving at all . '' Her dismissal was announced on 13 December amid US media reports that she had annoyed colleagues . In a recording she released of her dismissal , the man assumed to be Mr Kelly speaks of `` significant integrity issues '' as the reason for firing her , mentioning her use of government vehicles . `` There are some serious legal issues that have been violated and you 're open to some legal action that we hope , we think , we can control , '' he says at one point . He also says : `` If we make this a friendly departure ... you can look at your time here in the White House as a year of service to the nation and then you can go on without any type of difficulty in the future relative to your reputation . '' When Ms Manigault Newman asks if President Trump is aware of what is happening , he brushes the question aside , saying , `` Let 's not go down the road . This is non-negotiable discussion . '' Defending publishing the conversations , she said she had `` protected '' herself `` because this is a White House where everybody lies '' . Mr Trump tweeted that she had signed a non-disclosure agreement , which presumably was meant to prevent her from revealing what had gone on at work . Non-disclosure agreements were presented to senior White House staff in April of last year , the New York Times reports , but no penalties were specified for breaking them . Ethics lawyer Norm Eisen , who served under former President Barack Obama , suggested to the paper such agreements might be a civil rights violation . The most explosive allegation in Unhinged is that there is a tape of Mr Trump using the N-word during filming for The Apprentice . In the book , she does not say she heard him use the word , or that she heard the tape , but in an interview for NPR radio on Sunday , she said she had actually heard the recording . `` I heard the tape , '' she said . The White House has said her claims about his language are false . In a pair of tweets , Donald Trump said that word was not `` in my vocabulary '' , and said he had been assured there were no tapes . Skip Twitter post 3 by @ realDonaldTrump . @ MarkBurnettTV called to say that there are NO TAPES of the Apprentice where I used such a terrible and disgusting word as attributed by Wacky and Deranged Omarosa . I don ’ t have that word in my vocabulary , and never have . She made it up . Look at her MANY recent quotes saying .... — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) August 14 , 2018 Report Skip Twitter post 4 by @ realDonaldTrump .... such wonderful and powerful things about me - a true Champion of Civil Rights - until she got fired . Omarosa had Zero credibility with the Media ( they didn ’ t want interviews ) when she worked in the White House . Now that she says bad about me , they will talk to her . Fake News ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) August 14 , 2018 Report The book indicates that her view on President Trump has also changed . She now says the president is a racist , contradicting what she said when she was fired .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Omarosa Manigault Newman: The audio tapes A former adviser to Donald Trump has released what she says is a tape of a phone call from the US president after her dismissal last year. In the tape played on US TV channel NBC, a voice presumed to be Mr Trump's expresses surprise at Omarosa Manigault Newman being fired the previous day. "Nobody even told me about it," the male voice can be heard saying. She is releasing a memoir soon and the White House have described her as a disgruntled ex-employee. Tweeting on Monday, Mr Trump said his former employee had only started to attack him after she lost her job. He added that he had asked his Chief of Staff John Kelly to try to "work it out". Skip Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump Wacky Omarosa, who got fired 3 times on the Apprentice, now got fired for the last time. She never made it, never will. She begged me for a job, tears in her eyes, I said Ok. People in the White House hated her. She was vicious, but not smart. I would rarely see her but heard.... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 13, 2018 Report Skip Twitter post 2 by @realDonaldTrump ...really bad things. Nasty to people & would constantly miss meetings & work. When Gen. Kelly came on board he told me she was a loser & nothing but problems. I told him to try working it out, if possible, because she only said GREAT things about me - until she got fired! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 13, 2018 Report President Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, says she may have broken the law by recording private conversations at the White House. Ms Manigault Newman knew the president from her days as a star of The Apprentice reality TV show, and advised him on African-American issues during the 2016 election before taking a communications role in the White House. Floating in and out By Tara McKelvey, BBC White House reporter "Wacky Omarosa" the president calls her. He has a point: her disclosures are hugely entertaining - and embarrassing for the president. Through her book and TV appearances, she's exposed private conversations and the inner workings of an unconventional administration, but she hasn't exposed any serious wrongdoing, and it's unlikely she will. She worked in the office of public liaison, focusing on outreach to the African-American community, and didn't have access to top-level secrets. I'd often see her float in and out of White House events, leaving them early if they got boring, or showing her friends around the place and inviting them to the White House mess for coffee. Her revelations are now creating a stir for a reality-TV-star-studded West Wing but this episode's likely to end soon. What does the 'Trump tape' say? In the excerpt broadcast, the voice said to be the president's tells Ms Manigault Newman he has seen on the news that she is "thinking of leaving" and asks, "What's going on?" "General Kelly came to me and said that you guys wanted me to leave," she replies. "No... Nobody even told me about it," the voice replies. "You know they run a big operation but I didn't know it. I didn't know that. Damn it. I don't love you leaving at all." Why did Manigault Newman lose her job? Her dismissal was announced on 13 December amid US media reports that she had annoyed colleagues. In a recording she released of her dismissal, the man assumed to be Mr Kelly speaks of "significant integrity issues" as the reason for firing her, mentioning her use of government vehicles. "There are some serious legal issues that have been violated and you're open to some legal action that we hope, we think, we can control," he says at one point. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption John Kelly: 'I was not brought in to control Trump' He also says: "If we make this a friendly departure... you can look at your time here in the White House as a year of service to the nation and then you can go on without any type of difficulty in the future relative to your reputation." When Ms Manigault Newman asks if President Trump is aware of what is happening, he brushes the question aside, saying, "Let's not go down the road. This is non-negotiable discussion." Defending publishing the conversations, she said she had "protected" herself "because this is a White House where everybody lies". Mr Trump tweeted that she had signed a non-disclosure agreement, which presumably was meant to prevent her from revealing what had gone on at work. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Non-disclosure agreements have been in the news a lot - but what exactly are they? Non-disclosure agreements were presented to senior White House staff in April of last year, the New York Times reports, but no penalties were specified for breaking them. Ethics lawyer Norm Eisen, who served under former President Barack Obama, suggested to the paper such agreements might be a civil rights violation. What does her book say? The most explosive allegation in Unhinged is that there is a tape of Mr Trump using the N-word during filming for The Apprentice. In the book, she does not say she heard him use the word, or that she heard the tape, but in an interview for NPR radio on Sunday, she said she had actually heard the recording. "I heard the tape," she said. The White House has said her claims about his language are false. In a pair of tweets, Donald Trump said that word was not "in my vocabulary", and said he had been assured there were no tapes. Skip Twitter post 3 by @realDonaldTrump .@MarkBurnettTV called to say that there are NO TAPES of the Apprentice where I used such a terrible and disgusting word as attributed by Wacky and Deranged Omarosa. I don’t have that word in my vocabulary, and never have. She made it up. Look at her MANY recent quotes saying.... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 14, 2018 Report Skip Twitter post 4 by @realDonaldTrump ....such wonderful and powerful things about me - a true Champion of Civil Rights - until she got fired. Omarosa had Zero credibility with the Media (they didn’t want interviews) when she worked in the White House. Now that she says bad about me, they will talk to her. Fake News! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 14, 2018 Report The book indicates that her view on President Trump has also changed. She now says the president is a racist, contradicting what she said when she was fired.

www.bbc.com

center

FWoc1ABziaekKwzX

test

NCrjOhJyeF2DuZ04

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/01/how_bobby_jindal_lost_everything_a_one_time_gop_hope_gutted_by_grover_norquist_worship_and_his_own_ambition/

How Bobby Jindal lost everything: A one-time GOP hope, gutted by Grover Norquist worship and his own ambition

2015-06-01

Washington Spectator

These are not happy times in Baton Rouge , where government officials are desperately trying to plug a $ 1.6 billion budget shortfall . But even by that standard , Wednesday , April 22 , was particularly fraught . In the imposing state capitol that Huey Long built , the Senate Finance Committee was wrestling with a complicated cost-cutting scheme to repeal an inventory tax that businesses pay to local governments and that the state rebates to the businesses , all while promising to somehow make stressed-out local leaders whole . Just down the road , Louisiana State University President and Chancellor F. King Alexander said that the state ’ s flagship university , which could lose 80 percent of state funding after years of already deep cuts , was developing a worst-case scenario plan for financial exigency—basically the academic equivalent of bankruptcy . In the midst of it all came a message from Republican Governor Bobby Jindal , whose policies and priorities have contributed mightily to the state ’ s fiscal mess . “ Help wish my friends Willie , Phil and Si a happy birthday , ” said the tweet , which was accompanied by a photo of Willie Robertson , whose family is featured on the popular homegrown reality TV show Duck Dynasty . It then directed readers to the website for the American Future Project , a 527 issue advocacy group that Jindal has set up in advance of his anticipated presidential run . If the tweet suggests a stunning disconnect from the dire budget situation that ’ s unfolding on his watch , well , that ’ s how it is these days . Jindal , a hard-charging former Rhodes Scholar , has always nursed grander ambitions , and voters generally gave him a pass . That was when things were going well . These days they ’ re not , and Jindal ’ s focus on the upcoming presidential primaries has taken a toll back home . While he was popular and powerful enough to avoid a reelection fight in 2011 , by 2015 his approval rating had sunk to 27 percent , according to one poll ; a friendly survey by his own consulting firm pegged the number at 46 percent , hardly a resounding vote of confidence . It ’ s not just his frequent trips to places like Iowa , New Hampshire , and Washington , D.C. , that have angered his constituents . ( He spent 165 days out of state in 2014 , according to The Advocate newspaper . ) Nor is it only his odd forays into international and national affairs , from the tall tales in London about Muslim no-go zones , to his op-ed in The New York Times accusing companies that oppose religious freedom laws inspired by the spread of gay marriage of forming an unholy alliance with the “ radical liberals. ” It ’ s not even his need to bask in the Robertsons ’ reflected glory . More than any of that , his constituents are frustrated that their governor can ’ t be bothered to do his day job—and when he does , that his actions are often transparently designed to build a national profile rather than meet Louisiana ’ s needs . That ’ s clear in his refusal to take federal money to expand Medicaid—which , of course , would mean acknowledging there are benefits to Obama ’ s health care law . But nowhere is it more obvious , or more damaging , than in Jindal ’ s stewardship of fiscal affairs . Jindal chalks up the current budget shortfall to the drop in oil prices , and that ’ s definitely contributed . A larger piece of the puzzle has been his determination to maintain a pure record on taxes . Jindal hasn ’ t always been reckless about taxation . In the midst of a budget surplus early in his first term , Jindal tried to quietly head off the Legislature ’ s move to roll back a big income tax increase that had been enacted several years earlier . It was only after lawmakers seemed like they might eliminate the income tax entirely that he got on board with the rollback , and he soon was boasting that he ’ d signed the biggest tax cut in state history . The first real glimpse of the future came in 2011 when Jindal fought tooth and nail against extending a temporary four-cent levy on the state ’ s cigarette tax—at 36 cents , including the levy , the third lowest in the nation . His reasoning ? If the tax rate is scheduled to automatically drop and the state acts to prevent that from happening , it amounts to an effective tax increase . The stance left his constituents cold , but impressed Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform ( ATR ) , who would endorse Jindal as Mitt Romney ’ s running mate the following year . These days it ’ s hard to think of anyone who has as much influence over what Jindal ’ s willing to do than Norquist , whose rigid rules for what constitutes a tax increase line up perfectly with Jindal ’ s . In practice , that means the governor has insisted that the budget be balanced without tax increases , despite the prospect of devastating cuts to higher education and health care , the two main areas that don ’ t enjoy constitutional or statutory protection . And it means some revenue-enhancing ideas the Republican-dominated Legislature might support , specifically a reexamination of giveaways to specific industries , are off limits—because eliminating a tax exemption without an offset that reduces another tax or cuts spending , according to ATR , is raising a tax . That ’ s how the inventory tax wound up in everyone ’ s crosshairs , despite the fact that eliminating the rebate but not the underlying tax would hurt businesses , and getting rid of the tax would devastate some parishes ( that ’ s Louisiana for county ) . Many companies , it turns out , receive rebate checks that exceed their state tax liability , and in Jindal ’ s view that makes eliminating the payouts a spending cut , not a tax increase . “ Corporate welfare , ” he labeled it in his opening address to the Legislature , prompting chuckles from those who ’ ve watched him promote business incentives for years . In fact , perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the frustration with Jindal is that it transcends partisanship . It ’ s not just the Democrats who are bristling . It ’ s many a Republican . Republicans who belong to an informal group dubbed the “ fiscal hawks ” have been sharply critical of Jindal ’ s reliance over the years on one-time money transfers and accounting gimmicks to balance the budget without making even deeper cuts . One reason everything ’ s hitting the fan is there ’ s not much left . Gone are $ 800 million from the Medicaid Trust Fund for the Elderly and $ 450 million for providing development incentives , and the rainy day fund has dropped from $ 730 million to $ 460 million on his watch . Republicans like state Rep. Jay Morris , who , after hearing Jindal ’ s vow to veto any measure that didn ’ t have Grover Norquist ’ s blessing , declared the approach “ insane. ” And like state Sen. Jack Donahue , who chairs the Finance Committee and who passed a bill last year seeking to determine how much the state spends on tax exemptions , only to watch Jindal veto it . And perhaps most tellingly , the Republicans running to replace Jindal in this fall ’ s election . All three—Lt . Governor Jay Dardenne , U.S . Senator David Vitter and Public Service Commissioner ( and former Jindal aide ) Scott Angelle—say they will look for a way to accept the Medicaid money and take a open-minded approach to examining tax exemptions . “ What this state needs right now is a leader solely focused on Louisiana , ” Dardenne said in a recent speech . And in a clear swipe at Norquist , he added that , “ I represent the people of Louisiana ; I don ’ t represent someone who lives in D.C . ” And Vitter said he ’ d take a good , hard look at tax incentives and other giveaways , even if it means raising revenue . “ Gov . Jindal should be doing this now , ” he pointedly said . “ I ’ ll do it the minute I ’ m sworn in . ”

These are not happy times in Baton Rouge, where government officials are desperately trying to plug a $1.6 billion budget shortfall. But even by that standard, Wednesday, April 22, was particularly fraught. In the imposing state capitol that Huey Long built, the Senate Finance Committee was wrestling with a complicated cost-cutting scheme to repeal an inventory tax that businesses pay to local governments and that the state rebates to the businesses, all while promising to somehow make stressed-out local leaders whole. Advertisement: Just down the road, Louisiana State University President and Chancellor F. King Alexander said that the state’s flagship university, which could lose 80 percent of state funding after years of already deep cuts, was developing a worst-case scenario plan for financial exigency—basically the academic equivalent of bankruptcy. In the midst of it all came a message from Republican Governor Bobby Jindal, whose policies and priorities have contributed mightily to the state’s fiscal mess. “Help wish my friends Willie, Phil and Si a happy birthday,” said the tweet, which was accompanied by a photo of Willie Robertson, whose family is featured on the popular homegrown reality TV show Duck Dynasty. It then directed readers to the website for the American Future Project, a 527 issue advocacy group that Jindal has set up in advance of his anticipated presidential run. Advertisement: If the tweet suggests a stunning disconnect from the dire budget situation that’s unfolding on his watch, well, that’s how it is these days. A Pure Record on Taxes Jindal, a hard-charging former Rhodes Scholar, has always nursed grander ambitions, and voters generally gave him a pass. That was when things were going well. These days they’re not, and Jindal’s focus on the upcoming presidential primaries has taken a toll back home. While he was popular and powerful enough to avoid a reelection fight in 2011, by 2015 his approval rating had sunk to 27 percent, according to one poll; a friendly survey by his own consulting firm pegged the number at 46 percent, hardly a resounding vote of confidence. Advertisement: It’s not just his frequent trips to places like Iowa, New Hampshire, and Washington, D.C., that have angered his constituents. (He spent 165 days out of state in 2014, according to The Advocate newspaper.) Nor is it only his odd forays into international and national affairs, from the tall tales in London about Muslim no-go zones, to his op-ed in The New York Times accusing companies that oppose religious freedom laws inspired by the spread of gay marriage of forming an unholy alliance with the “radical liberals.” It’s not even his need to bask in the Robertsons’ reflected glory. More than any of that, his constituents are frustrated that their governor can’t be bothered to do his day job—and when he does, that his actions are often transparently designed to build a national profile rather than meet Louisiana’s needs. Advertisement: That’s clear in his refusal to take federal money to expand Medicaid—which, of course, would mean acknowledging there are benefits to Obama’s health care law. But nowhere is it more obvious, or more damaging, than in Jindal’s stewardship of fiscal affairs. Jindal chalks up the current budget shortfall to the drop in oil prices, and that’s definitely contributed. A larger piece of the puzzle has been his determination to maintain a pure record on taxes. Jindal hasn’t always been reckless about taxation. In the midst of a budget surplus early in his first term, Jindal tried to quietly head off the Legislature’s move to roll back a big income tax increase that had been enacted several years earlier. It was only after lawmakers seemed like they might eliminate the income tax entirely that he got on board with the rollback, and he soon was boasting that he’d signed the biggest tax cut in state history. Advertisement: The first real glimpse of the future came in 2011 when Jindal fought tooth and nail against extending a temporary four-cent levy on the state’s cigarette tax—at 36 cents, including the levy, the third lowest in the nation. His reasoning? If the tax rate is scheduled to automatically drop and the state acts to prevent that from happening, it amounts to an effective tax increase. The stance left his constituents cold, but impressed Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), who would endorse Jindal as Mitt Romney’s running mate the following year. Even Republicans Are Bristling Advertisement: These days it’s hard to think of anyone who has as much influence over what Jindal’s willing to do than Norquist, whose rigid rules for what constitutes a tax increase line up perfectly with Jindal’s. In practice, that means the governor has insisted that the budget be balanced without tax increases, despite the prospect of devastating cuts to higher education and health care, the two main areas that don’t enjoy constitutional or statutory protection. And it means some revenue-enhancing ideas the Republican-dominated Legislature might support, specifically a reexamination of giveaways to specific industries, are off limits—because eliminating a tax exemption without an offset that reduces another tax or cuts spending, according to ATR, is raising a tax. That’s how the inventory tax wound up in everyone’s crosshairs, despite the fact that eliminating the rebate but not the underlying tax would hurt businesses, and getting rid of the tax would devastate some parishes (that’s Louisiana for county). Many companies, it turns out, receive rebate checks that exceed their state tax liability, and in Jindal’s view that makes eliminating the payouts a spending cut, not a tax increase. “Corporate welfare,” he labeled it in his opening address to the Legislature, prompting chuckles from those who’ve watched him promote business incentives for years. In fact, perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the frustration with Jindal is that it transcends partisanship. Advertisement: It’s not just the Democrats who are bristling. It’s many a Republican. Nothing Left to Cut Republicans who belong to an informal group dubbed the “fiscal hawks” have been sharply critical of Jindal’s reliance over the years on one-time money transfers and accounting gimmicks to balance the budget without making even deeper cuts. One reason everything’s hitting the fan is there’s not much left. Gone are $800 million from the Medicaid Trust Fund for the Elderly and $450 million for providing development incentives, and the rainy day fund has dropped from $730 million to $460 million on his watch. Republicans like state Rep. Jay Morris, who, after hearing Jindal’s vow to veto any measure that didn’t have Grover Norquist’s blessing, declared the approach “insane.” And like state Sen. Jack Donahue, who chairs the Finance Committee and who passed a bill last year seeking to determine how much the state spends on tax exemptions, only to watch Jindal veto it. Advertisement: And perhaps most tellingly, the Republicans running to replace Jindal in this fall’s election. All three—Lt. Governor Jay Dardenne, U.S. Senator David Vitter and Public Service Commissioner (and former Jindal aide) Scott Angelle—say they will look for a way to accept the Medicaid money and take a open-minded approach to examining tax exemptions. “What this state needs right now is a leader solely focused on Louisiana,” Dardenne said in a recent speech. And in a clear swipe at Norquist, he added that, “I represent the people of Louisiana; I don’t represent someone who lives in D.C.” And Vitter said he’d take a good, hard look at tax incentives and other giveaways, even if it means raising revenue. “Gov. Jindal should be doing this now,” he pointedly said. “I’ll do it the minute I’m sworn in.” Advertisement: This story was originally published by the Washington Spectator

www.salon.com

left

NCrjOhJyeF2DuZ04

test

ot7AbKyKO5GRA6AH

fbi

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/c68feb4685263ce4e15169f383d7e975

Trump praise of ‘tormented’ Flynn raises pardon speculation

2020-04-30

Eric Tucker, Jill Colvin

FILE - In this Monday , June 24 , 2019 , file photo , Michael Flynn , President Donald Trump 's former national security adviser , departs a federal courthouse after a hearing , in Washington . Trump said Sunday , March 15 , 2020 , that he is considering a full pardon for Flynn , who had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about dealings with Russia ’ s ambassador before Trump took office . ( AP Photo/Patrick Semansky , File ) FILE - In this Monday , June 24 , 2019 , file photo , Michael Flynn , President Donald Trump 's former national security adviser , departs a federal courthouse after a hearing , in Washington . Trump said Sunday , March 15 , 2020 , that he is considering a full pardon for Flynn , who had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about dealings with Russia ’ s ambassador before Trump took office . ( AP Photo/Patrick Semansky , File ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — President Donald Trump voiced strong support Thursday for his former national security adviser Michael Flynn , raising speculation that a pardon may be coming after Flynn ’ s lawyers disclosed internal FBI documents they claim show the FBI tried to “ intentionally frame ” him . Trump said he believes Flynn should now be cleared in court , but if that doesn ’ t happen , he as president has “ a different type of power . ” “ It looks to me like Michael Flynn would be exonerated based on everything I see , ” Trump told reporters Thursday . “ I ’ m not the judge , but I have a different type of power . But I don ’ t know that anybody would have to use that power . I think he ’ s exonerated . ” Trump has long said he is considering pardoning Flynn , who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States . The president spent Wednesday night and Thursday morning retweeting supportive statements of Flynn and condemned the FBI ’ s investigation into his onetime adviser “ They came at him with 15 buses and he ’ s standing in the middle of the highway . What they did to this man , ” Trump said at an earlier event at the White House , without specifying what he meant . “ They tormented him . They destroyed him . But he ’ s going to come back . ” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called into Fox News Channel to react to the release of the FBI documents , saying , “ If true , it is extremely troubling . ” “ If all this proves to be true , you will have , certainly , a major , major error on the part of top leadership at the FBI , which could well warrant additional charges against them , ” he said . Lawyers for Flynn over the last two days released a series of internal correspondence obtained through a Justice Department review of the handling of the case . They contend the documents bolster their allegations that Flynn was set up to lie when he was questioned at the White House three years ago , and show that agents were prepared to drop an investigation into him just weeks before they set out to question him . Still , the documents don ’ t directly address the central allegation in the case — that Flynn lied to the FBI . It ’ s also unclear how much significance they will carry with the judge , who has already publicly scolded Flynn and rejected many defense allegations of prosecutorial misconduct . The judge , Emmet Sullivan , has not ruled on Flynn ’ s request to withdraw his guilty plea . Among the documents is a redacted internal memo from Jan. 4 , 2017 , saying the FBI was closing out its investigation into whether a subject with the code name of Crossfire Razor was an agent of a foreign power or acting under the direction of Russia . The subject is described as a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser who traveled to Russia in 2015 . Flynn ’ s attorney Sidney Powell confirmed Thursday that Crossfire Razor was Flynn . But about two weeks later , according to the documents , case agent Peter Strzok told a colleague not to close the case and to “ pls keep it open for now. ” In communication with FBI lawyer Lisa Page , who expressed surprise the case was still open , Strzok responded , “ Yeah , our utter incompetence actually helps us . ” Strzok and Page have attracted Trump ’ s derision for exchanging derogatory texts about him during the 2016 campaign . Both have since left the FBI . By later in the month , the FBI determined they wanted to interview Flynn about conversations he had during the presidential transition period with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in which the men discussed sanctions recently imposed on Russia over election interference . Agents questioned Flynn at the White House on Jan. 24 , 2017 , when the FBI says he lied about the Kislyak conversations . He later acknowledged misleading federal agents and , at his sentencing hearing a year later , did not contest the way he was interviewed . But Flynn ’ s attorneys point to the newly disclosed documents to suggest the FBI had no basis to question Flynn and had already been prepared to close an investigation into him . “ The revelations of corruption by the FBI to intentionally frame Gen Flynn for crimes the FBI manufactured piles on with each new production of documents , ” Powell wrote in a statement . A federal prosecutor from Missouri is reviewing the Justice Department ’ s handling of the case at the direction of Attorney General William Barr . The department said the documents were provided as part of that review . Prosecutors haven ’ t responded to the defense team ’ s disclosures , though they have previously denied accusations of misconduct . Sullivan , too , has rejected many of the defense arguments in the past . Even so , Flynn — who was among the first of the president ’ s aides charged in special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia — has emerged as something of a cause celebre for supporters of the president . They have rallied around the retired Army lieutenant general and seized on the findings of a critical watchdog report on the Russia investigation to try to cast doubt on the entire probe . Trump has not been shy about using his pardon power to help political allies and those he believes have been wronged by an out-of-control justice system . He has also expressed a desire to intervene in the case of another ally : longtime political adviser Roger Stone . Other documents released by Flynn ’ s lawyers include FBI emails and handwritten notes showing officials grappling with how best to approach Flynn , how much information to provide him during the interview and what to do if he made a false statement . One page of handwritten notes from an FBI official , dated the day of the interview , appears to recap an internal debate about how to proceed . “ What ’ s our goal ? Truth/admission or to get him to lie , so we can prosecute him or get him fired ? ” the notes say . The notes also say , “ If we ’ re seen as playing games , WH will be furious . Protect our institution by not playing games . ” Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 and went on to provide such extensive cooperation that prosecutors said he was entitled to probation instead of prison . But his sentencing hearing was abruptly postponed after Flynn , following a stern rebuke from Sullivan that raised the prospect of a prison term , asked to be able to continue cooperating and earn credit toward a more lenient sentence . Since then , Flynn has hired new attorneys , including Powell , a conservative commentator and outspoken critic of Mueller ’ s investigation , who have taken a more adversarial stance on his behalf .

FILE - In this Monday, June 24, 2019, file photo, Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump's former national security adviser, departs a federal courthouse after a hearing, in Washington. Trump said Sunday, March 15, 2020, that he is considering a full pardon for Flynn, who had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about dealings with Russia’s ambassador before Trump took office. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File) FILE - In this Monday, June 24, 2019, file photo, Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump's former national security adviser, departs a federal courthouse after a hearing, in Washington. Trump said Sunday, March 15, 2020, that he is considering a full pardon for Flynn, who had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about dealings with Russia’s ambassador before Trump took office. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump voiced strong support Thursday for his former national security adviser Michael Flynn, raising speculation that a pardon may be coming after Flynn’s lawyers disclosed internal FBI documents they claim show the FBI tried to “intentionally frame” him. Trump said he believes Flynn should now be cleared in court, but if that doesn’t happen, he as president has “a different type of power.” “It looks to me like Michael Flynn would be exonerated based on everything I see,” Trump told reporters Thursday. “I’m not the judge, but I have a different type of power. But I don’t know that anybody would have to use that power. I think he’s exonerated.” Trump has long said he is considering pardoning Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States. The president spent Wednesday night and Thursday morning retweeting supportive statements of Flynn and condemned the FBI’s investigation into his onetime adviser “They came at him with 15 buses and he’s standing in the middle of the highway. What they did to this man,” Trump said at an earlier event at the White House, without specifying what he meant. “They tormented him. They destroyed him. But he’s going to come back.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called into Fox News Channel to react to the release of the FBI documents, saying, “If true, it is extremely troubling.” “If all this proves to be true, you will have, certainly, a major, major error on the part of top leadership at the FBI, which could well warrant additional charges against them,” he said. Lawyers for Flynn over the last two days released a series of internal correspondence obtained through a Justice Department review of the handling of the case. They contend the documents bolster their allegations that Flynn was set up to lie when he was questioned at the White House three years ago, and show that agents were prepared to drop an investigation into him just weeks before they set out to question him. Still, the documents don’t directly address the central allegation in the case — that Flynn lied to the FBI. It’s also unclear how much significance they will carry with the judge, who has already publicly scolded Flynn and rejected many defense allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. The judge, Emmet Sullivan, has not ruled on Flynn’s request to withdraw his guilty plea. Among the documents is a redacted internal memo from Jan. 4, 2017, saying the FBI was closing out its investigation into whether a subject with the code name of Crossfire Razor was an agent of a foreign power or acting under the direction of Russia. The subject is described as a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser who traveled to Russia in 2015. Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell confirmed Thursday that Crossfire Razor was Flynn. But about two weeks later, according to the documents, case agent Peter Strzok told a colleague not to close the case and to “pls keep it open for now.” In communication with FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who expressed surprise the case was still open, Strzok responded, “Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us.” Strzok and Page have attracted Trump’s derision for exchanging derogatory texts about him during the 2016 campaign. Both have since left the FBI. By later in the month, the FBI determined they wanted to interview Flynn about conversations he had during the presidential transition period with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in which the men discussed sanctions recently imposed on Russia over election interference. Agents questioned Flynn at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017, when the FBI says he lied about the Kislyak conversations. He later acknowledged misleading federal agents and, at his sentencing hearing a year later, did not contest the way he was interviewed. But Flynn’s attorneys point to the newly disclosed documents to suggest the FBI had no basis to question Flynn and had already been prepared to close an investigation into him. “The revelations of corruption by the FBI to intentionally frame Gen Flynn for crimes the FBI manufactured piles on with each new production of documents,” Powell wrote in a statement. A federal prosecutor from Missouri is reviewing the Justice Department’s handling of the case at the direction of Attorney General William Barr. The department said the documents were provided as part of that review. Prosecutors haven’t responded to the defense team’s disclosures, though they have previously denied accusations of misconduct. Sullivan, too, has rejected many of the defense arguments in the past. Even so, Flynn — who was among the first of the president’s aides charged in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia — has emerged as something of a cause celebre for supporters of the president. They have rallied around the retired Army lieutenant general and seized on the findings of a critical watchdog report on the Russia investigation to try to cast doubt on the entire probe. Trump has not been shy about using his pardon power to help political allies and those he believes have been wronged by an out-of-control justice system. He has also expressed a desire to intervene in the case of another ally: longtime political adviser Roger Stone. Other documents released by Flynn’s lawyers include FBI emails and handwritten notes showing officials grappling with how best to approach Flynn, how much information to provide him during the interview and what to do if he made a false statement. One page of handwritten notes from an FBI official, dated the day of the interview, appears to recap an internal debate about how to proceed. “What’s our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” the notes say. The notes also say, “If we’re seen as playing games, WH will be furious. Protect our institution by not playing games.” Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 and went on to provide such extensive cooperation that prosecutors said he was entitled to probation instead of prison. But his sentencing hearing was abruptly postponed after Flynn, following a stern rebuke from Sullivan that raised the prospect of a prison term, asked to be able to continue cooperating and earn credit toward a more lenient sentence. Since then, Flynn has hired new attorneys, including Powell, a conservative commentator and outspoken critic of Mueller’s investigation, who have taken a more adversarial stance on his behalf.

www.apnews.com

center

ot7AbKyKO5GRA6AH

test

7iWWHpQnBSRhmKVn

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/12/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-so

What We Talk About When We Talk About Socialism

2018-09-12

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

These days you ca n't swing a dead kulak without hitting someone who 's really , really into socialism , or at least giving it a longer look . On Real Time with Bill Maher last week , movie star Jim Carrey emphatically said , `` We have to say yes to socialism , to the word and everything….We have to stop apologizing . '' The current It Girl of American politics , Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America . The crew behind the popular Chapo Trap House podcast have a widely discussed book out that purports to be a `` Guide to Revolution '' and `` A Manifesto Against Logic , Facts , and ███ . '' Corey Robin , a professor at CUNY and author of The Reactionary Mind , explains in The New York Times `` why the pitch from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders resonates in 2018 . '' Politico asked a range of mostly left-leaning activists and analysts , `` What Would a Socialist America Look Like ? '' ( The answer : pretty much unicorns and rainbows , apparently . ) Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont , a self-described democratic socialist who pushes national single-payer health care , more funding for Social Security , and a tax on Amazon , still makes the progressive crowd swoon . And the endorsement of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren , who like Sanders is widely considered a likely candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination , is highly sought even after she admitted , `` I believe in markets and the benefits they can produce . '' ( More on that later . ) According to Gallup , 51 percent of people between the ages of 18 to 29 have a positive view of socialism while just 45 percent have a positive view of capitalism . A recent Fox News poll ( Fox ! ) found growing support for the statement , `` Do you think it would be a good thing or a bad thing for the United States to move away from capitalism and more toward socialism ? '' Now 36 percent say it would be a good thing ; seven years ago , only 20 percent did . More worrying , just 51 percent think it would be a bad thing , down from well over 60 percent over the same time period . What are libertarians to make of all this ? Is this the moment when the curve of history starts bending left , even as ( or maybe because ) actual socialist countries such as North Korea , Cuba , and Venezuela dwindle to zero ? I do n't think so , but it would be foolish for anyone who believes in `` Free Minds and Free Markets '' to write off the current moment as merely a symptom of Trump Derangement Syndrome or just a pre-midterm outpouring of limousine liberalism . The financial crisis , the bank and auto-company bailouts ( which all good libertarians opposed ) , the slower-than-molasses recovery , declines in the labor-force participation rate , non-stop war , and more have helped drive confidence in the old ways of doing things through the floor . People are rightly looking for alternatives , and `` socialism '' is one of them . That said , a good chunk of socialism chic can be chalked up to semantic or definitional vagueness . To the extent that socialism is equated with being kind or fair , it 's easy to see the appeal . This is especially true with younger people , who have no memory of what life was like in the old Warsaw Pact countries . When ███ polled Millennials back in 2014 , 42 percent said they thought socialism was a better system than capitalism , a finding consistent with many other subsequent polls . But when we asked a follow-up question , it became pretty clear that most respondents did n't define socialism as a system where the government owns or heavily controls the means of production . Asked whether they would prefer a `` government-managed economy '' or a `` free-market economy , '' only 32 percent wanted the first option while 64 percent wanted the latter . When even `` communist '' China is practicing at least a version of capitalism , the horror stories coming out of Venezuela are easy to ignore . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may rail against the gig economy , but just like Bernie and Warren she uses Uber every chance she gets . We may be arriving at a period Joseph Schumpeter warned about in his 1942 masterpiece , Capitalism , Socialism , and Democracy . Marx believed that capitalism would `` immiserate '' proletarians so badly that workers would finally gain true class consciousness , revolt , and commandeer the means of production . Schumpeter thought that was empirically wrong— '' the capitalist achievement does not typically consist in providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within reach of factory girls , '' he wrote—but he was convinced that capitalism would defeat itself by creating a society that took wealth creation and rising living standards for granted . Capitalism would die not because of its failure to deliver the good life but because of its success at mainstreaming general wealth . Capitalism , Schumpeter famously argued , was built upon `` the gale of creative destruction…a process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within , incessantly destroying the old one , incessantly creating a new one . '' Such nonstop `` turmoil '' causes all sorts of social , cultural , and economic dislocations , is constantly upending established interests , and wears people out until they vote to straitjacket economic change in the name of social calm . You can hear echoes of that today , and not just from Bernie Sanders and other self-proclaimed socialists . Even Donald Trump spoke for the `` forgotten American '' left behind by `` globalists '' who cared more about the poor in foreign countries than the poor in the upper Midwest . There are good reasons to doubt that we 're living in a particularly volatile global labor market , but the reigning narrative on both the right and the left is that we 're in the thick of a period when whole industries rise and fall on an almost hourly basis . That sort of panic makes socialism , which promises to smooth out , control , and direct things to a greater or smaller degree , attractive . At least someone ( other than Rich Uncle Pennybags ) will be in charge , right ? The Chapo bros are actual textbook socialists bent `` on seizing the billionaires ' money , socializing their wealth , and handing the keys of production over to workers , '' all in the interest of creating a utopian three-hour workday . But most of the new era 's socialists are not so old-school . Bernie Sanders has admitted that he does n't want the government to run everything as much as he wants it to run or regulate more stuff . The details are n't all there , but even his Medicare-for-All pitch does n't involve making all health-care professionals public employees . He 's not really far from Warren , who denies being a socialist and is at pains to say that she really , really likes markets—as long as they are tightly regulated so , in her view , they perform more equitably . As she recently told The Atlantic , What excites me about markets ? I was telling you that gains-from-trade argument , but really what excites me about markets is competition . I want to make sure we 've got a set of rules that lets everybody who 's got a good , competitive idea get in the game….We need to make capitalism work for your family and we need to make democracy work for your family . Writing in The New York Times , CUNY 's Corey Robin demotes economics to secondary importance for today 's socialists , arguing : The socialist argument against capitalism is n't that it makes us poor . It 's that it makes us unfree . When my well-being depends upon your whim , when the basic needs of life compel submission to the market and subjugation at work , we live not in freedom but in domination . Socialists want to end that domination : to establish freedom from rule by the boss , from the need to smile for the sake of a sale , from the obligation to sell for the sake of survival . Listen to today 's socialists , and you 'll hear less the language of poverty than of power . Robin 's emphasis is also evident in some of the contributors to Politico 's symposium , such as the head of the Democratic Socialists of America , who writes that under socialism `` we will have true freedom , not just survival—the choices available to us now that depend on the whims of the few . '' In significant ways , many recent calls for socialism echo the early issues of the anti-Soviet socialist magazine Dissent , which got started in 1954 . Like National Review , which got going a year later from a right-wing perspective , the founders of Dissent were first and foremost promoting individualism in an age of perceived conformity . The differences between Big Government and Big Business were less important perhaps than maintaining one 's unique identity in a world of mass commerce , mass culture , mass warfare . The editors even invoked the adjective libertarian in their statement of purpose : We shall try to reassert the libertarian values of the socialist ideal , and at the same time , to discuss freely and honestly what in the socialist tradition remains alive and what needs to be discarded or modified….We share a belief in the dignity of the individual , we share a refusal to countenance one man 's gain at the expense of his brother , and we share an intellectual conviction that man can substantially control his condition if he understands it and wills to . There is some of that , however submerged , in today 's calls for socialism . It 's not a bad ideal , to want individuals to be able to flourish however they see fit . In fact , that corresponds almost perfectly with the ways most libertarians talk and think about social organization . What system is most likely to allow individuals to become whomever they want to become ? In this sense , socialism and capitalism ( to use incredibly oversimplified terms ) are both part of the liberal Enlightenment project that begins with autonomous , equal individuals . What remain vastly different , of course , are attitudes and understandings of economics and of power differentials . Contemporary socialists will insist that regulating more and more of economic life at all levels will improve outcomes , though from a libertarian perspective , all that does is create the sort of hassle factor that drives barbers , tattoo artists , and gig-economy contractors out of business . Sanders and the rest complain endlessly about the high price of education , health care , and housing without noting that these are sectors either monopolized by or heavily regulated by government . How do computers , cars , and cell phones , not to mention food , clothing , and entertainment keep getting relatively cheaper and better over time ? Libertarians rightly point out that market forces have been mostly pushing things in a positive direction , especially for the poorest and least-connected among us . Historian Nancy MacLean can generate a fanciful and error-ridden book arguing that school choice is a diabolical plot designed to resegregate America , but those of us who look seriously at what choice and competition can do for K-12 education have a strong argument that such market-like forces improve outcomes , especially for low-income Americans of color . A smaller , more limited government that ends cronyism in the public and private sectors , replaces traditional welfare with unrestricted cash grants to people in need , ends the drug war and a thousand other petty means of social control , and opens borders to trade and people is a libertarian program that I suspect would interest many people who are looking at socialism as a possible answer to today 's problems . I do n't expect to ever change the mind of a committed socialist . But libertarians ca n't expect to engage , much less persuade , anyone flirting with socialism if we simply invoke Stalin , the Great Leap Forward , or even Hugo Chavez every time socialism gets mentioned .

These days you can't swing a dead kulak without hitting someone who's really, really into socialism, or at least giving it a longer look. On Real Time with Bill Maher last week, movie star Jim Carrey emphatically said, "We have to say yes to socialism, to the word and everything….We have to stop apologizing." The current It Girl of American politics, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. The crew behind the popular Chapo Trap House podcast have a widely discussed book out that purports to be a "Guide to Revolution" and "A Manifesto Against Logic, Facts, and Reason." Corey Robin, a professor at CUNY and author of The Reactionary Mind, explains in The New York Times "why the pitch from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders resonates in 2018." Politico asked a range of mostly left-leaning activists and analysts, "What Would a Socialist America Look Like?" (The answer: pretty much unicorns and rainbows, apparently.) Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a self-described democratic socialist who pushes national single-payer health care, more funding for Social Security, and a tax on Amazon, still makes the progressive crowd swoon. And the endorsement of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who like Sanders is widely considered a likely candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, is highly sought even after she admitted, "I believe in markets and the benefits they can produce." (More on that later.) According to Gallup, 51 percent of people between the ages of 18 to 29 have a positive view of socialism while just 45 percent have a positive view of capitalism. A recent Fox News poll (Fox!) found growing support for the statement, "Do you think it would be a good thing or a bad thing for the United States to move away from capitalism and more toward socialism?" Now 36 percent say it would be a good thing; seven years ago, only 20 percent did. More worrying, just 51 percent think it would be a bad thing, down from well over 60 percent over the same time period. What are libertarians to make of all this? Is this the moment when the curve of history starts bending left, even as (or maybe because) actual socialist countries such as North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela dwindle to zero? I don't think so, but it would be foolish for anyone who believes in "Free Minds and Free Markets" to write off the current moment as merely a symptom of Trump Derangement Syndrome or just a pre-midterm outpouring of limousine liberalism. The financial crisis, the bank and auto-company bailouts (which all good libertarians opposed), the slower-than-molasses recovery, declines in the labor-force participation rate, non-stop war, and more have helped drive confidence in the old ways of doing things through the floor. People are rightly looking for alternatives, and "socialism" is one of them. That said, a good chunk of socialism chic can be chalked up to semantic or definitional vagueness. To the extent that socialism is equated with being kind or fair, it's easy to see the appeal. This is especially true with younger people, who have no memory of what life was like in the old Warsaw Pact countries. When Reason polled Millennials back in 2014, 42 percent said they thought socialism was a better system than capitalism, a finding consistent with many other subsequent polls. But when we asked a follow-up question, it became pretty clear that most respondents didn't define socialism as a system where the government owns or heavily controls the means of production. Asked whether they would prefer a "government-managed economy" or a "free-market economy," only 32 percent wanted the first option while 64 percent wanted the latter. When even "communist" China is practicing at least a version of capitalism, the horror stories coming out of Venezuela are easy to ignore. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may rail against the gig economy, but just like Bernie and Warren she uses Uber every chance she gets. We may be arriving at a period Joseph Schumpeter warned about in his 1942 masterpiece, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Marx believed that capitalism would "immiserate" proletarians so badly that workers would finally gain true class consciousness, revolt, and commandeer the means of production. Schumpeter thought that was empirically wrong—"the capitalist achievement does not typically consist in providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within reach of factory girls," he wrote—but he was convinced that capitalism would defeat itself by creating a society that took wealth creation and rising living standards for granted. Capitalism would die not because of its failure to deliver the good life but because of its success at mainstreaming general wealth. Capitalism, Schumpeter famously argued, was built upon "the gale of creative destruction…a process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one." Such nonstop "turmoil" causes all sorts of social, cultural, and economic dislocations, is constantly upending established interests, and wears people out until they vote to straitjacket economic change in the name of social calm. You can hear echoes of that today, and not just from Bernie Sanders and other self-proclaimed socialists. Even Donald Trump spoke for the "forgotten American" left behind by "globalists" who cared more about the poor in foreign countries than the poor in the upper Midwest. There are good reasons to doubt that we're living in a particularly volatile global labor market, but the reigning narrative on both the right and the left is that we're in the thick of a period when whole industries rise and fall on an almost hourly basis. That sort of panic makes socialism, which promises to smooth out, control, and direct things to a greater or smaller degree, attractive. At least someone (other than Rich Uncle Pennybags) will be in charge, right? The Chapo bros are actual textbook socialists bent "on seizing the billionaires' money, socializing their wealth, and handing the keys of production over to workers," all in the interest of creating a utopian three-hour workday. But most of the new era's socialists are not so old-school. Bernie Sanders has admitted that he doesn't want the government to run everything as much as he wants it to run or regulate more stuff. The details aren't all there, but even his Medicare-for-All pitch doesn't involve making all health-care professionals public employees. He's not really far from Warren, who denies being a socialist and is at pains to say that she really, really likes markets—as long as they are tightly regulated so, in her view, they perform more equitably. As she recently told The Atlantic, What excites me about markets? I was telling you that gains-from-trade argument, but really what excites me about markets is competition. I want to make sure we've got a set of rules that lets everybody who's got a good, competitive idea get in the game….We need to make capitalism work for your family and we need to make democracy work for your family. Writing in The New York Times, CUNY's Corey Robin demotes economics to secondary importance for today's socialists, arguing: The socialist argument against capitalism isn't that it makes us poor. It's that it makes us unfree. When my well-being depends upon your whim, when the basic needs of life compel submission to the market and subjugation at work, we live not in freedom but in domination. Socialists want to end that domination: to establish freedom from rule by the boss, from the need to smile for the sake of a sale, from the obligation to sell for the sake of survival. Listen to today's socialists, and you'll hear less the language of poverty than of power. Robin's emphasis is also evident in some of the contributors to Politico's symposium, such as the head of the Democratic Socialists of America, who writes that under socialism "we will have true freedom, not just survival—the choices available to us now that depend on the whims of the few." In significant ways, many recent calls for socialism echo the early issues of the anti-Soviet socialist magazine Dissent, which got started in 1954. Like National Review, which got going a year later from a right-wing perspective, the founders of Dissent were first and foremost promoting individualism in an age of perceived conformity. The differences between Big Government and Big Business were less important perhaps than maintaining one's unique identity in a world of mass commerce, mass culture, mass warfare. The editors even invoked the adjective libertarian in their statement of purpose: We shall try to reassert the libertarian values of the socialist ideal, and at the same time, to discuss freely and honestly what in the socialist tradition remains alive and what needs to be discarded or modified….We share a belief in the dignity of the individual, we share a refusal to countenance one man's gain at the expense of his brother, and we share an intellectual conviction that man can substantially control his condition if he understands it and wills to. There is some of that, however submerged, in today's calls for socialism. It's not a bad ideal, to want individuals to be able to flourish however they see fit. In fact, that corresponds almost perfectly with the ways most libertarians talk and think about social organization. What system is most likely to allow individuals to become whomever they want to become? In this sense, socialism and capitalism (to use incredibly oversimplified terms) are both part of the liberal Enlightenment project that begins with autonomous, equal individuals. What remain vastly different, of course, are attitudes and understandings of economics and of power differentials. Contemporary socialists will insist that regulating more and more of economic life at all levels will improve outcomes, though from a libertarian perspective, all that does is create the sort of hassle factor that drives barbers, tattoo artists, and gig-economy contractors out of business. Sanders and the rest complain endlessly about the high price of education, health care, and housing without noting that these are sectors either monopolized by or heavily regulated by government. How do computers, cars, and cell phones, not to mention food, clothing, and entertainment keep getting relatively cheaper and better over time? Libertarians rightly point out that market forces have been mostly pushing things in a positive direction, especially for the poorest and least-connected among us. Historian Nancy MacLean can generate a fanciful and error-ridden book arguing that school choice is a diabolical plot designed to resegregate America, but those of us who look seriously at what choice and competition can do for K-12 education have a strong argument that such market-like forces improve outcomes, especially for low-income Americans of color. A smaller, more limited government that ends cronyism in the public and private sectors, replaces traditional welfare with unrestricted cash grants to people in need, ends the drug war and a thousand other petty means of social control, and opens borders to trade and people is a libertarian program that I suspect would interest many people who are looking at socialism as a possible answer to today's problems. I don't expect to ever change the mind of a committed socialist. But libertarians can't expect to engage, much less persuade, anyone flirting with socialism if we simply invoke Stalin, the Great Leap Forward, or even Hugo Chavez every time socialism gets mentioned.

www.reason.com

right

7iWWHpQnBSRhmKVn

test

TJiYvU2qw9vOx1Ym

republican_party

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/more-liberal-obama-opportunity-for-gop/

More-Liberal Obama: Opportunity for GOP?

Matthew Dowd

As I watched President Obama 's second inaugural address and reflected on it afterwards , I realized a few things about politics and life . His address was a well-crafted and well-delivered , clear , progressive statement of where he sees the country and where he wants to go in a broad way . It reflected the diversity of the country in many ways , though I think it left out much of the diversity of the country he does n't agree with . It was a principled annunciation of President Obama 's view of the world and where he wants to lead the country . President Obama should be lauded for being clear that though he ran as a centrist through two national elections , there is no question he seeks to govern in the next four years as an unapologetic progressive . The problem we have is that country still has many divisions . It has divisions of people who go to church regularly and those that do n't . It has divisions among income levels and education status . It has divisions of sex and sexual orientation , and the judgments we each make surrounding those personal decisions . There are divisions of age , where older citizens see a different America than younger voters . It has divisions of those that live in or around urban centers , and those that live in small towns and rural communities . And there are still divisions on race between whites , blacks , Latinos , Asians and others . The results of the election of 2012 certainly put an exclamation point on these divisions that are very present in today 's America . As a functioning democracy , it is important that we allow the principled views of all sides to be heard and acknowledged . Liberals or progressives need to push and shout for what they believe is the right way for our society to be and for what they believe is the proper role of government . Conservatives need to do the same and pursue their belief of what they think is the best direction for the country to go . A democracy depends on this debate in the public marketplace of ideas , where all viewpoints are heard and represented . However , in order for a democracy to function properly and well , the viewpoints must be put into the stew of debate , and consensus and compromise must be reached . And through that consensus , the country can move forward in a way that a majority of Americans are represented . The leaders we elect should see to not only speaking out in principled ways , but also finding common ground and compromising with all sides in the course of debate . It is not just enough for leaders of either side to make conservative arguments or liberal arguments . Democracy only works when consensus can be achieved . Abraham Lincoln , Ronald Reagan , and Bill Clinton all understood that articulating principles is n't enough , that leading involves compromise with opposing parties . Otherwise , we become a tribal culture where one side tries to run over the other side because they believe in the purity of their own position , and the country as a whole is n't reflected . At this point , about a quarter of the electorate sees itself as liberal and about 35 percent conservative , so neither represents the country as a whole . The plurality of the country sees itself as moderate , and the majority of the country really is a diversity of viewpoints - some liberal and some conservative . At this point , the interpretation many have made of President Obama 's second inaugural address is that he is going to govern based on the 25 percent progressives , and Republicans in Congress are going to govern based on the 35 percent conservatives . And democracy will not work unless leaders step up , stand up to their own bases and allow give and take . Many Democrats are celebrating the results of the last election as a reflection that the progressive viewpoint is where the majority of citizens want to go . This is foolhardy and creates a tremendous opportunity for Republicans in the next presidential election if they are smart enough to come up with a candidate who speaks to a majority of the country and speaks to values at the core of that majority . I do n't know if they will because they , too , seem trapped in a minority ideology , but I believe the president 's inaugural opens a window for success for a Republican who has more of a centrist message while still sticking to some conservative principles . Who knows if they have the capacity to do that . Time will tell . As someone who is one of 11 siblings , I get that people can each have their own opinions and push for their wants , but if the family of democracy is going to succeed , we have to see it more holistically and have effective forums to reach common agreement and consensus . Relationships and democracy succeed where people realize moving forward and being happy is more important than being right .

As I watched President Obama's second inaugural address and reflected on it afterwards, I realized a few things about politics and life. His address was a well-crafted and well-delivered, clear, progressive statement of where he sees the country and where he wants to go in a broad way. It reflected the diversity of the country in many ways, though I think it left out much of the diversity of the country he doesn't agree with. It was a principled annunciation of President Obama's view of the world and where he wants to lead the country. President Obama should be lauded for being clear that though he ran as a centrist through two national elections, there is no question he seeks to govern in the next four years as an unapologetic progressive. The problem we have is that country still has many divisions. It has divisions of people who go to church regularly and those that don't. It has divisions among income levels and education status. It has divisions of sex and sexual orientation, and the judgments we each make surrounding those personal decisions. There are divisions of age, where older citizens see a different America than younger voters. It has divisions of those that live in or around urban centers, and those that live in small towns and rural communities. And there are still divisions on race between whites, blacks, Latinos, Asians and others. The results of the election of 2012 certainly put an exclamation point on these divisions that are very present in today's America. As a functioning democracy, it is important that we allow the principled views of all sides to be heard and acknowledged. Liberals or progressives need to push and shout for what they believe is the right way for our society to be and for what they believe is the proper role of government. Conservatives need to do the same and pursue their belief of what they think is the best direction for the country to go. A democracy depends on this debate in the public marketplace of ideas, where all viewpoints are heard and represented. However, in order for a democracy to function properly and well, the viewpoints must be put into the stew of debate, and consensus and compromise must be reached. And through that consensus, the country can move forward in a way that a majority of Americans are represented. The leaders we elect should see to not only speaking out in principled ways, but also finding common ground and compromising with all sides in the course of debate. It is not just enough for leaders of either side to make conservative arguments or liberal arguments. Democracy only works when consensus can be achieved. Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton all understood that articulating principles isn't enough, that leading involves compromise with opposing parties. Otherwise, we become a tribal culture where one side tries to run over the other side because they believe in the purity of their own position, and the country as a whole isn't reflected. At this point, about a quarter of the electorate sees itself as liberal and about 35 percent conservative, so neither represents the country as a whole. The plurality of the country sees itself as moderate, and the majority of the country really is a diversity of viewpoints - some liberal and some conservative. At this point, the interpretation many have made of President Obama's second inaugural address is that he is going to govern based on the 25 percent progressives, and Republicans in Congress are going to govern based on the 35 percent conservatives. And democracy will not work unless leaders step up, stand up to their own bases and allow give and take. Many Democrats are celebrating the results of the last election as a reflection that the progressive viewpoint is where the majority of citizens want to go. This is foolhardy and creates a tremendous opportunity for Republicans in the next presidential election if they are smart enough to come up with a candidate who speaks to a majority of the country and speaks to values at the core of that majority. I don't know if they will because they, too, seem trapped in a minority ideology, but I believe the president's inaugural opens a window for success for a Republican who has more of a centrist message while still sticking to some conservative principles. Who knows if they have the capacity to do that. Time will tell. As someone who is one of 11 siblings, I get that people can each have their own opinions and push for their wants, but if the family of democracy is going to succeed, we have to see it more holistically and have effective forums to reach common agreement and consensus. Relationships and democracy succeed where people realize moving forward and being happy is more important than being right.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

TJiYvU2qw9vOx1Ym

test

ZS65rfqQI0XmiwnA

race_and_racism

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/22/seattle-shooting-chaz-protest-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone

One person wounded in second shooting in Seattle's 'Chaz' protest zone

2020-06-22

Chase Quinn

Police in Seattle said one person was wounded in a second shooting in the city ’ s protest zone in less than 48 hours . Seattle 's activist-occupied zone is just the latest in a long history of movements and protests Read more The shooting happened late on Sunday night in the area near Seattle ’ s downtown area known as Chaz , for “ Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone ” , and involved a 17 year old , who later declined to speak with detectives . Police tweeted that one person was at a hospital with a gunshot wound . The person arrived in a private vehicle and was in serious condition , Harborview Medical Center spokesperson Susan Gregg said in a statement . A pre-dawn shooting on Saturday had left a 19-year-old man dead and a 33-year-old man critically injured . Both victims , whose identities had not yet been released , were transported to the same hospital via private car . The suspect or suspects in that first shooting fled the scene , and no arrests had been made as of Sunday , Detective Mark Jamieson said . According to a police blog , officers responding to the shooting said they “ were met by a violent crowd that prevented officers ’ safe access to the victims ” . Video released by police appeared to show officers arriving at the protest zone saying they wanted to get to the victim and entering as people yelled that the victim was already gone . Police mostly retreated from the zone after clashes with protesters , KIRO-TV reported . Chaz is a several-block area cordoned off by protesters near a police station in the city ’ s Capitol Hill neighborhood , which evolved after weeks of protests in the city over police brutality and racism , sparked by the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis . Play Video Inside Chaz , Seattle 's police-free zone : 'We 're proving the world can change ' – video Donald Trump , a Republican , has criticized Seattle mayor Jenny Durkan and Washington governor Jay Inslee , both Democrats , for allowing the zone . It wasn ’ t immediately clear where within the zone Sunday night ’ s shooting took place . The Seattle fire department arrived at the scene at 10.46pm and went to a staging area near the zone ’ s perimeter , fire department spokesperson David Cuerpo told the Seattle Times . The fire department was soon notified that the injured person has already been taken away . Volunteer medics inside the zone brought the victim to the hospital rather than waiting for the police and fire departments . “ To ensure the safety of medical personnel , police staged with Seattle Fire at the edge of the CHOP area and were gathering information about where the shooting victim was located when they learned he had been transported in a private vehicle to Harborview Medical Center , ” police said in a blog post Monday . The 17-year-old was treated and released , the department said . Investigators asked anyone with information about the shooting to come forward . Further details about what transpired Sunday night weren ’ t immediately available . It wasn ’ t clear whether anyone was in custody .

Police in Seattle said one person was wounded in a second shooting in the city’s protest zone in less than 48 hours. Seattle's activist-occupied zone is just the latest in a long history of movements and protests Read more The shooting happened late on Sunday night in the area near Seattle’s downtown area known as Chaz, for “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone”, and involved a 17 year old, who later declined to speak with detectives. Police tweeted that one person was at a hospital with a gunshot wound. The person arrived in a private vehicle and was in serious condition, Harborview Medical Center spokesperson Susan Gregg said in a statement. A pre-dawn shooting on Saturday had left a 19-year-old man dead and a 33-year-old man critically injured. Both victims, whose identities had not yet been released, were transported to the same hospital via private car. The suspect or suspects in that first shooting fled the scene, and no arrests had been made as of Sunday, Detective Mark Jamieson said. According to a police blog, officers responding to the shooting said they “were met by a violent crowd that prevented officers’ safe access to the victims”. Video released by police appeared to show officers arriving at the protest zone saying they wanted to get to the victim and entering as people yelled that the victim was already gone. Police mostly retreated from the zone after clashes with protesters, KIRO-TV reported. Chaz is a several-block area cordoned off by protesters near a police station in the city’s Capitol Hill neighborhood, which evolved after weeks of protests in the city over police brutality and racism, sparked by the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Play Video Inside Chaz, Seattle's police-free zone: 'We're proving the world can change' – video Donald Trump, a Republican, has criticized Seattle mayor Jenny Durkan and Washington governor Jay Inslee, both Democrats, for allowing the zone. It wasn’t immediately clear where within the zone Sunday night’s shooting took place. The Seattle fire department arrived at the scene at 10.46pm and went to a staging area near the zone’s perimeter, fire department spokesperson David Cuerpo told the Seattle Times. The fire department was soon notified that the injured person has already been taken away. Volunteer medics inside the zone brought the victim to the hospital rather than waiting for the police and fire departments. “To ensure the safety of medical personnel, police staged with Seattle Fire at the edge of the CHOP area and were gathering information about where the shooting victim was located when they learned he had been transported in a private vehicle to Harborview Medical Center,” police said in a blog post Monday. The 17-year-old was treated and released, the department said. Investigators asked anyone with information about the shooting to come forward. Further details about what transpired Sunday night weren’t immediately available. It wasn’t clear whether anyone was in custody.

www.theguardian.com

left

ZS65rfqQI0XmiwnA

test

rseUrq9NgBmGCcrE

cybersecurity

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50324977

Ex-Twitter employees accused of spying for Saudi Arabia

Two former employees of Twitter have been charged in the US with spying for Saudi Arabia . The charges , unsealed on Wednesday in San Francisco , allege that Saudi agents sought personal information about Twitter users including known critics of the Saudi government . Court documents named the two as Ahmad Abouammo , a US citizen , and Ali Alzabarah , from Saudi Arabia . A third person , Saudi citizen Ahmed Almutairi , is also accused of spying . The New York Times says it is the first time that Saudi citizens have been charged with spying inside the United States . Ahmad Abouammo appeared in a Seattle court on Wednesday and was remanded in custody pending another hearing due on Friday . He is also charged with falsifying documents and making false statements to the FBI . The criminal complaint says he provided the FBI with a falsified , back-dated invoice charging an unnamed Saudi official $ 100,000 for `` consulting services '' . Mr Abouammo is said to have left his job as a media partnership manager for Twitter in 2015 . Mr Alzabarah , a former Twitter engineer , is accused of accessing the personal data of more than 6,000 Twitter users in 2015 after being recruited by Saudi agents . One of the Twitter accounts he allegedly accessed also appeared in a note found in a Saudi official 's email account , revealing the level of detail Mr Alzabarah was able to obtain about the user . According to the complaint , the note read : `` This one is a professional . He 's a Saudi that uses encryption ... We tracked him and found that 12 days ago he signed in once without encryption from IP [ redacted ] at 18:40 UTC on 05/25/2015 . This one does not use a cell phone at all , just a browser . He 's online right using Firefox form [ sic ] a windows machine . '' Mr Alzabarah was confronted by his supervisors and placed on administrative leave before fleeing to Saudi Arabia with his wife and daughter , investigators said . The charges allege the third person - Mr Almutairi - acted as an intermediary between the two Twitter employees and Saudi officials . Mr Alzabarah and Mr Almutairi are both believed to be in Saudi Arabia . The Saudi government allegedly paid the men hundreds of thousands of dollars . One man also received a luxury Hublot watch , worth about $ 20,000 ( £15,500 ) . In a statement , Twitter said it recognised `` the lengths bad actors will go to '' to try to undermine its service . It added : `` We understand the incredible risks faced by many who use Twitter to share their perspectives with the world and to hold those in power accountable . We have tools in place to protect their privacy and their ability to do their vital work . '' Saudi Arabia is a key US ally in the Middle East . President Donald Trump has maintained close ties with the kingdom despite international condemnation following the murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi last year . Mr Khashoggi was murdered during a visit to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul .

Image copyright Getty Images Two former employees of Twitter have been charged in the US with spying for Saudi Arabia. The charges, unsealed on Wednesday in San Francisco, allege that Saudi agents sought personal information about Twitter users including known critics of the Saudi government. Court documents named the two as Ahmad Abouammo, a US citizen, and Ali Alzabarah, from Saudi Arabia. A third person, Saudi citizen Ahmed Almutairi, is also accused of spying. The New York Times says it is the first time that Saudi citizens have been charged with spying inside the United States. What are the charges? Ahmad Abouammo appeared in a Seattle court on Wednesday and was remanded in custody pending another hearing due on Friday. He is also charged with falsifying documents and making false statements to the FBI. The criminal complaint says he provided the FBI with a falsified, back-dated invoice charging an unnamed Saudi official $100,000 for "consulting services". Mr Abouammo is said to have left his job as a media partnership manager for Twitter in 2015. Mr Alzabarah, a former Twitter engineer, is accused of accessing the personal data of more than 6,000 Twitter users in 2015 after being recruited by Saudi agents. One of the Twitter accounts he allegedly accessed also appeared in a note found in a Saudi official's email account, revealing the level of detail Mr Alzabarah was able to obtain about the user. According to the complaint, the note read: "This one is a professional. He's a Saudi that uses encryption... We tracked him and found that 12 days ago he signed in once without encryption from IP [redacted] at 18:40 UTC on 05/25/2015. This one does not use a cell phone at all, just a browser. He's online right using Firefox form [sic] a windows machine." Mr Alzabarah was confronted by his supervisors and placed on administrative leave before fleeing to Saudi Arabia with his wife and daughter, investigators said. The charges allege the third person - Mr Almutairi - acted as an intermediary between the two Twitter employees and Saudi officials. Mr Alzabarah and Mr Almutairi are both believed to be in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government allegedly paid the men hundreds of thousands of dollars. One man also received a luxury Hublot watch, worth about $20,000 (£15,500). A key US ally In a statement, Twitter said it recognised "the lengths bad actors will go to" to try to undermine its service. It added: "We understand the incredible risks faced by many who use Twitter to share their perspectives with the world and to hold those in power accountable. We have tools in place to protect their privacy and their ability to do their vital work." Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Why do Trump's Saudi job numbers keep growing? Saudi Arabia is a key US ally in the Middle East. President Donald Trump has maintained close ties with the kingdom despite international condemnation following the murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi last year. Mr Khashoggi was murdered during a visit to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

www.bbc.com

center

rseUrq9NgBmGCcrE

test

m45V5i3I17xpKCaD

justice

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/attorney-general-lynch-accept-fbi-recommends-clinton-email/story?id=40272091

Lynch Will Accept Whatever FBI Recommends in Clinton Email Probe

Mike Levine

Attorney General Loretta Lynch will follow whatever recommendation the FBI and prosecutors make on whether to charge Hillary Clinton in connection to an email probe , she said today , tying her announcement to the recent controversial meeting with Bill Clinton that she called “ perfectly reasonable ” to question . `` I will be accepting their recommendations and their plans for going forward , '' Lynch said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado . Lynch has decided that she will green light whatever recommendation comes from the FBI and senior career lawyers in the Justice Department , after a months-long investigation tied to Clinton 's use of a private email server . This comes just days after the revelation that Lynch met privately with former president Bill Clinton during a chance encounter on the tarmac at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix earlier this week . `` Certainly , my meeting with him raises questions and concerns , '' Lynch acknowledged today . `` It has now cast a shadow over how this case may be perceived , no matter how it 's resolved . ... [ But ] it 's important to make it clear that that meeting with President Clinton does not have a bearing on how this matter is going to be reviewed , resolved and accepted by me . '' Both Lynch and Bill Clinton have insisted the meeting was completely `` social , '' focusing on grandchildren , golf , travel , the Brexit vote , “ and things like that , '' as Lynch put it . The FBI is in the final stages of its email-related investigation , looking at how Hillary Clinton and her aides handled classified information when she was secretary of state . Lynch said today that she was always planning to accept the recommendations of the career prosecutors and investigators , but in the wake of questions over her meeting with Bill Clinton , she wants to explain further how the process will be handled . `` It 's being handled by career investigators and career agents , who always follow facts and the law and do the same thorough and independent examination in this matter that they ’ ve done in all [ investigations ] , '' she said . `` The career people ... are independent , they live from administration to administration . '' The determinations and findings by career investigators will be `` reviewed '' by senior career lawyers in the Justice Department and FBI Director James Comey , who will then brief the findings to Lynch , according to the Justice Department . `` This case will be resolved by the team that 's been working on it from the beginning , '' Lynch insisted today . As for the impromptu meeting between Lynch and Bill Clinton Monday night , it lasted about 30 minutes . In Aspen today , a reporter began his questions about the meeting by asking the attorney general , `` What on earth were you thinking ? '' `` I think that 's the question of the day is n't it , ” she said , adding , “ I think that 's a perfectly reasonable question . ” Asked why she was n't fully recusing herself from the case , Lynch said a formal recusal `` would mean that I would n't even be briefed on what the findings were , or what the actions going forward would be . And while I do n't have a role ... in coming up with those findings or making those recommendations on how to move forward , I will be briefed on it , and I will be accepting their recommendations . '' Lynch had explained the Bill Clinton encounter at a news conference Wednesday . `` As I was landing , he was headed out , '' she said `` He did come over and say hello and speak to my husband and myself . '' `` There was no discussion on any matter pending before the department or any matter pending with any other body . There was no discussion of Benghazi , no discussion of State Department emails , '' Lynch said at another news conference Tuesday .

Attorney General Loretta Lynch will follow whatever recommendation the FBI and prosecutors make on whether to charge Hillary Clinton in connection to an email probe, she said today, tying her announcement to the recent controversial meeting with Bill Clinton that she called “perfectly reasonable” to question. "I will be accepting their recommendations and their plans for going forward," Lynch said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. Lynch has decided that she will green light whatever recommendation comes from the FBI and senior career lawyers in the Justice Department, after a months-long investigation tied to Clinton's use of a private email server. This comes just days after the revelation that Lynch met privately with former president Bill Clinton during a chance encounter on the tarmac at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix earlier this week. "Certainly, my meeting with him raises questions and concerns," Lynch acknowledged today. "It has now cast a shadow over how this case may be perceived, no matter how it's resolved. ... [But] it's important to make it clear that that meeting with President Clinton does not have a bearing on how this matter is going to be reviewed, resolved and accepted by me." She added, however: "I certainly wouldn't do it again." Both Lynch and Bill Clinton have insisted the meeting was completely "social," focusing on grandchildren, golf, travel, the Brexit vote, “and things like that," as Lynch put it. The FBI is in the final stages of its email-related investigation, looking at how Hillary Clinton and her aides handled classified information when she was secretary of state. Lynch said today that she was always planning to accept the recommendations of the career prosecutors and investigators, but in the wake of questions over her meeting with Bill Clinton, she wants to explain further how the process will be handled. "It's being handled by career investigators and career agents, who always follow facts and the law and do the same thorough and independent examination in this matter that they’ve done in all [investigations]," she said. "The career people ... are independent, they live from administration to administration." The determinations and findings by career investigators will be "reviewed" by senior career lawyers in the Justice Department and FBI Director James Comey, who will then brief the findings to Lynch, according to the Justice Department. "This case will be resolved by the team that's been working on it from the beginning," Lynch insisted today. As for the impromptu meeting between Lynch and Bill Clinton Monday night, it lasted about 30 minutes. In Aspen today, a reporter began his questions about the meeting by asking the attorney general, "What on earth were you thinking?" "I think that's the question of the day isn't it,” she said, adding, “I think that's a perfectly reasonable question.” Asked why she wasn't fully recusing herself from the case, Lynch said a formal recusal "would mean that I wouldn't even be briefed on what the findings were, or what the actions going forward would be. And while I don't have a role ... in coming up with those findings or making those recommendations on how to move forward, I will be briefed on it, and I will be accepting their recommendations." Lynch had explained the Bill Clinton encounter at a news conference Wednesday. "As I was landing, he was headed out," she said "He did come over and say hello and speak to my husband and myself." "There was no discussion on any matter pending before the department or any matter pending with any other body. There was no discussion of Benghazi, no discussion of State Department emails," Lynch said at another news conference Tuesday.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

m45V5i3I17xpKCaD

test

wIVSLrzKY5O51jam

politics

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/election-day-2013-tale-republicans-highlight-split-gop/story?id=20781281

On Election Day 2013, Tale of Two Republicans Highlights Split in GOP

Rick Klein

If the Republican Party is at a crossroads , two distinct paths are being blazed by two very different candidates on Election Day 2013 . In New Jersey , a pragmatic and often aggressive incumbent is poised to run up the score on the Democratic challenger -- despite the state 's deep shade of blue . In Virginia , a strong social conservative with tea party support is in real danger of losing to a flawed Democrat -- despite the state 's history of electing governors from the party that 's shut out of the White House . The result is that the two `` off-year '' races that have long been viewed as national harbingers are instead offering lessons primarily to a Republican Party that 's still engaged in a spirited fight for its own identity . The split decision that 's likely to emerge today seems certain to exacerbate tensions over which way Republicans should be headed , a year after an election debacle for the GOP , and a year before the midterm elections . `` If the polls hold true and [ Ken ] Cuccinelli loses , it shows that successful Republicans drive down the middle of the right-hand side of the road -- they do n't drive off into the ditch on the right , '' said Whit Ayres , a veteran Virginia-based Republican pollster . `` It 's hard to say that the Republican Party is in a stronger position today than a year ago , '' Ayres added . `` But I 'm hopeful that more and more Republicans are willing to see the light at the end of the long , dark tunnel . '' That light will be shining on Gov . Chris Christie , R-N.J. , whose 30-point-plus lead in pre-election polls leave him poised to become perhaps the biggest GOP winner in a trying year . Christie 's team is hoping for a win that will hold conservative voters and make deep inroads among Latinos , Democrats and independents -- proving that a certain style of leadership can overcome partisan leanings . `` His apparent success proves that people will reward decisive action and truth-telling , and that people are prepared to look beyond maybe their own party affiliations or even ideological predispositions where they see an instance of effective action in the public interest , '' said former Gov . Mitch Daniels , R-Ind. , who is now president of Purdue University . `` Plainly , that 's what 's going on when a guy like Gov . Christie is that successful in a state like the one he lives in . '' Though Republican leaders rarely say so directly , the flip side of that success is evident in Virginia . The GOP candidate for governor , Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli , has trailed consistently in polls against Democrat Terry McAuliffe , swamped by independents and female voters in particular . Virginia has been trending Democratic in recent years , but Cuccinelli barely sought out the center . His campaign has been defined by his tea party ties and strong social conservative views , with late efforts aimed primarily at turning out the Republican base . McAuliffe , a former Democratic National Committee chairman and longtime friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton , was thought by many Democrats to be deeply flawed as a candidate , owing to a colorful business past and ties to the unsavory money side of politics . He did n't even make it through the Democratic primary when he ran for governor 2009 . On the eve of the election , though , McAuliffe aides see national implications in the fact that he 's been able to reach moderate voters with a pro-jobs message , without sacrificing support inside the Democratic base . `` We have no real conflict in appealing to the base of our party and the center of the electorate , '' said Geoff Garin , McAuliffe 's pollster . `` Cuccinelli is emblematic of the Republican dilemma . It is impossible to do both of those things at the same time . '' Though Republicans remain optimistic publicly about Cuccinelli 's prospects , the second-guessing has already begun . Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich , now a Virginia resident , said Cuccinelli appears to have been too badly outspent by a finely tuned Clinton-backed machine to overcome his own flaws as a candidate . `` If he does lose , it may say more about the candidate than the movement , '' Gingrich said Monday in an interview for the ███/Yahoo ! News `` Power Players '' series . `` No one survives a 25-to-1 disadvantage in funding [ down the stretch ] . And this is the first great victory of the Clinton march back to the presidency . '' `` If McAuliffe wins the governorship , he is a Hillary Clinton total devotee , '' Gingrich continued . `` He will spend half of his time as governor trying to help her to win the presidency . And I think it is a sign of the power of the Clinton machine . '' In New Jersey , meanwhile , Christie is building a machine of his own . A party that 's seen its identity defined by tea party firebrands Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul counts among its stars a tough-talking Northeasterner who 's proving he can win broadly in a blue state , said Julian Zelizer , a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University . `` Chris Christie has defined himself around this theme -- that he 's the person that 's different from the national party , the person who 's distancing himself from extreme views , '' Zelizer said . `` The message he wants is that his brand of Republican politics is nationally potent . '' That wo n't necessarily convince a conservative base that sees Christie as a social moderate who criticized tea party leaders over the government shutdown -- and that remembers Christie 's embrace of President Obama 's leadership after Hurricane Sandy , Zelizer said . `` A lot of conservative Republicans will say , 'We wo n't care . Ted Cruz is our guy , ' '' he said . In a sense , the election in Virginia is demonstrating one of Christie 's biggest obstacles moving forward . Cuccinelli captured the Republican nomination at a party convention dominated by conservative activists , as opposed to through a traditional primary that would draw a broader swath of voters . `` Virginia Republicans made this far harder than this needed to be , '' said Ayres , the Republican pollster . After John McCain fell short of the presidency in 2008 and Mitt Romney followed with a loss in 2012 , the appetite for moderates is limited among Republican primary voters and caucus-goers . The path for Christie , should he choose to pursue it , only gets tougher from here . Should he run for president , he will need to at least neutralize a tea party movement that 's grown more restive during the second Obama term . `` He has a powerful platform from which to preach , '' Ayres said .

If the Republican Party is at a crossroads, two distinct paths are being blazed by two very different candidates on Election Day 2013. In New Jersey, a pragmatic and often aggressive incumbent is poised to run up the score on the Democratic challenger -- despite the state's deep shade of blue. In Virginia, a strong social conservative with tea party support is in real danger of losing to a flawed Democrat -- despite the state's history of electing governors from the party that's shut out of the White House. The result is that the two "off-year" races that have long been viewed as national harbingers are instead offering lessons primarily to a Republican Party that's still engaged in a spirited fight for its own identity. The split decision that's likely to emerge today seems certain to exacerbate tensions over which way Republicans should be headed, a year after an election debacle for the GOP, and a year before the midterm elections. "If the polls hold true and [Ken] Cuccinelli loses, it shows that successful Republicans drive down the middle of the right-hand side of the road -- they don't drive off into the ditch on the right," said Whit Ayres, a veteran Virginia-based Republican pollster. "It's hard to say that the Republican Party is in a stronger position today than a year ago," Ayres added. "But I'm hopeful that more and more Republicans are willing to see the light at the end of the long, dark tunnel." That light will be shining on Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., whose 30-point-plus lead in pre-election polls leave him poised to become perhaps the biggest GOP winner in a trying year. Christie's team is hoping for a win that will hold conservative voters and make deep inroads among Latinos, Democrats and independents -- proving that a certain style of leadership can overcome partisan leanings. "His apparent success proves that people will reward decisive action and truth-telling, and that people are prepared to look beyond maybe their own party affiliations or even ideological predispositions where they see an instance of effective action in the public interest," said former Gov. Mitch Daniels, R-Ind., who is now president of Purdue University. "Plainly, that's what's going on when a guy like Gov. Christie is that successful in a state like the one he lives in." Though Republican leaders rarely say so directly, the flip side of that success is evident in Virginia. The GOP candidate for governor, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, has trailed consistently in polls against Democrat Terry McAuliffe, swamped by independents and female voters in particular. Virginia has been trending Democratic in recent years, but Cuccinelli barely sought out the center. His campaign has been defined by his tea party ties and strong social conservative views, with late efforts aimed primarily at turning out the Republican base. McAuliffe, a former Democratic National Committee chairman and longtime friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton, was thought by many Democrats to be deeply flawed as a candidate, owing to a colorful business past and ties to the unsavory money side of politics. He didn't even make it through the Democratic primary when he ran for governor 2009. On the eve of the election, though, McAuliffe aides see national implications in the fact that he's been able to reach moderate voters with a pro-jobs message, without sacrificing support inside the Democratic base. "We have no real conflict in appealing to the base of our party and the center of the electorate," said Geoff Garin, McAuliffe's pollster. "Cuccinelli is emblematic of the Republican dilemma. It is impossible to do both of those things at the same time." Though Republicans remain optimistic publicly about Cuccinelli's prospects, the second-guessing has already begun. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, now a Virginia resident, said Cuccinelli appears to have been too badly outspent by a finely tuned Clinton-backed machine to overcome his own flaws as a candidate. "If he does lose, it may say more about the candidate than the movement," Gingrich said Monday in an interview for the ABC News/Yahoo! News "Power Players" series. "No one survives a 25-to-1 disadvantage in funding [down the stretch]. And this is the first great victory of the Clinton march back to the presidency." "If McAuliffe wins the governorship, he is a Hillary Clinton total devotee," Gingrich continued. "He will spend half of his time as governor trying to help her to win the presidency. And I think it is a sign of the power of the Clinton machine." In New Jersey, meanwhile, Christie is building a machine of his own. A party that's seen its identity defined by tea party firebrands Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul counts among its stars a tough-talking Northeasterner who's proving he can win broadly in a blue state, said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. "Chris Christie has defined himself around this theme -- that he's the person that's different from the national party, the person who's distancing himself from extreme views," Zelizer said. "The message he wants is that his brand of Republican politics is nationally potent." That won't necessarily convince a conservative base that sees Christie as a social moderate who criticized tea party leaders over the government shutdown -- and that remembers Christie's embrace of President Obama's leadership after Hurricane Sandy, Zelizer said. "A lot of conservative Republicans will say, 'We won't care. Ted Cruz is our guy,'" he said. In a sense, the election in Virginia is demonstrating one of Christie's biggest obstacles moving forward. Cuccinelli captured the Republican nomination at a party convention dominated by conservative activists, as opposed to through a traditional primary that would draw a broader swath of voters. "Virginia Republicans made this far harder than this needed to be," said Ayres, the Republican pollster. After John McCain fell short of the presidency in 2008 and Mitt Romney followed with a loss in 2012, the appetite for moderates is limited among Republican primary voters and caucus-goers. The path for Christie, should he choose to pursue it, only gets tougher from here. Should he run for president, he will need to at least neutralize a tea party movement that's grown more restive during the second Obama term. Winning, though, will likely help. "He has a powerful platform from which to preach," Ayres said.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

wIVSLrzKY5O51jam

test

u6wqPLhrzx7BQlaV

politics

American Spectator

http://spectator.org/all-the-lies-theyve-turned-us-into-a-rotting-banana-republic/

OPINION: What makes us any different from Venezuela now?

Jed Babbin, E. Donald Elliott, Geoff Shepard, J.T. Young, John C. Wohlstetter, Jeffrey Lord, Mark Hyman

It ’ s a matter or record . Americans now populate the largest , wealthiest and most powerful banana republic in the world . The differences between Obama ’ s America and Maduro ’ s Venezuela are defined only by degree . The defining characteristics of banana republics are a matter of history . First , the law is not enforced against a chosen class in a banana republic , usually the allies of the autocrat in charge . Second , foreign policy is always performed in the autocrat ’ s interests and often in disregard of the nation ’ s actual interests . This describes how America functions in the era of President Obama . The newly-released FBI documents on the investigation of Hillary Clinton make it clear beyond argument that the fix was in and that the FBI never had any intention of recommending that she should be prosecuted for her crimes . That is very hard to write . I have had very good friends among the agents of the FBI , men of unshakeable dedication to the fair enforcement of the law . But that is no longer the FBI ’ s goal , as just a few references to the documents published last week reveal . First , you had to notice that the FBI agreed that there would be no videotape of its interview of Clinton . Not only would there not be a videotape , but no court reporter would be present to record a transcript . That itself is highly unusual , but there is far more , and far worse . Cheryl Mills , Clinton ’ s chief of staff at the State Department , had to have participated in sending classified material to Clinton on her private and unsecured “ clintonemail.com ” email system . Yet when the FBI questioned Clinton , Mills was permitted to attend as one of Clinton ’ s lawyers . That is not only unethical under the Bar ’ s unenforced ethics standards , but obviously a huge violation of the most elementary of FBI procedures that requires witnesses — and possible suspects — to be questioned separately in isolation from one another . Clinton told the FBI that she relied on others ’ judgment in sending her sensitive information on the unsecured email system . She also claimed that as a result of a head injury she didn ’ t recall key events such as being trained by the State Department on handing classified information or retaining records in accordance with federal law . Clinton , as a U.S. senator , served on the Armed Services Committee from 2003 to 2009 . She was a member of three subcommittees , including the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities . In that capacity , she would have been instructed on how to handle highly-classified information and a great deal of it would have passed through her hands . She would have had many occasions to handle it and to transmit it among her colleagues and staff and executive branch officials . Further training by the State Department would have been unnecessary for her to know how such information had to be protected against disclosure . Clinton ’ s obvious lie was one of many she told the FBI . Let ’ s remember that on at least one occasion , she told her State Department staff to remove the classified markings on some material and send it “ in the clear ” on an unsecured channel — her private email system . The FBI found that Clinton had used a multitude of Blackberry and other personal devices while she was secretary of state . Thirteen of them are missing and have never been recovered . Anyone who has used a Blackberry or other personal email device can testify that they last for years . Clinton , while she was secretary of state , apparently got a new one every six or eight weeks . All of those devices , given the frequency of her communications , would have had classified information on them . How could anyone of sound mind be so careless ? Was her 2012 concussion so severe as to cause frequent memory loss ? Writing about Clinton ’ s health is verboten . Why , if it was so severe that it caused her to work part time as secretary of state , as she told the FBI ? ( At least two devices are said to have been destroyed by her staff . Two others ( an Apple iPad and a thumb drive ) each of which reportedly contained a complete archive of her emails , were sent by a staffer to a person at Platte River Networks , the company Clinton hired to maintain her system , but may never have arrived . ) Let ’ s also remember that in his July statement , FBI director Comey said that of Clinton ’ s State Department emails , “ …110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received . Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent ; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time ; and eight contained Confidential information , which is the lowest level of classification . “ Comey ’ s statement included the fact that , “ Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information . But even if information is not marked ‘ classified ’ in an e-mail , participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it. ” Clinton knew or should have known that the subject matter of those emails was classified because , for example , some discussed coming drone strikes against terrorists . For all of Clinton ’ s lies , and there are far too many to recount , the worst lie of all was Comey ’ s . He said that there was no precedent for a prosecution of someone who had behaved as Clinton had and that no responsible prosecutor would bring charges . ( Former CIA directors John Deutch and David Petraeus each pled guilty to mishandling classified information . Deutch was pardoned in 2001 by Bill Clinton . ) Comey also said that there was evidence that Clinton and her staff had handled classified information in an “ extremely careless ” way . Title 18 Section 793 ( f ) says that anyone who is “ grossly negligent ” in handling classified information is guilty of a federal felony . If we can not trust the FBI to enforce the law , and we can not , America is now characterized by one of the two facts defining a banana republic . As a parting shot , the FBI also found that several email accounts that Clinton had communicated with while secretary of state had been intercepted ( hacked ) by hostile foreign actors , but that they couldn ’ t determine if Clinton ’ s email was hacked . Russia , China , Iran and al-Qaida will have intercepted Clinton ’ s emails as a matter of policy . If she isn ’ t guilty of the federal felony described by Title 18 U.S. Code Section 793 ( f ) , I ’ ll eat her classified emails . And , oh , by the way , Clinton sent classified information on her private email system after she left the secretary of state job . ( That ’ s a separate crime , but who ’ s counting ? ) The bad guys surely have those emails as well . The other revelation last week was David Albright ’ s report on President Obama ’ s nuclear deal . Mr. Albright ’ s Institute for Science and International Security ( not to be confused with the other ISIS ) reported that the international commission running Obama ’ s nuclear weapons deal with Iran has , in secret , allowed Iran to pretend to obey the deal ’ s conditions while violating them . Albright ’ s report says that by the deal ’ s effective date , Iran was obligated to perform certain tasks in order to qualify for relief from the international sanctions that had been imposed . Among them was the disposal of low-enriched uranium ( LEU ) , a limitation on its “ hot cells , ” and the shipment out of Iran of “ heavy water ” ( deuterium oxide ) . Iran didn ’ t dispose of , by shipment to another nation or otherwise , the required amount of LEU , leaving it more than enough to further enrich it to produce nuclear weapons . The “ hot cells ” — which can be used to produce plutonium , another key ingredient of some nuclear weapons — hadn ’ t been reduced in size to prevent the plutonium production . And the heavy water had been shipped to Yemen , where it remains under Iranian control . Under the awful Corker Amendment ( more fully discussed here ) all side agreements , secret or not , were required to be disclosed to the senate . As a couple of senators have said publicly — and one to told me directly but privately — they weren ’ t . Over the weekend , Obama signed the latest economy-killing global warming deal . Both the BBC and the Washington Post reported the event as U.S. ratification of the deal . Article 2 , Section 2 of the Constitution provides that only the Senate can ratify a treaty . Which results in the definition of Obama ’ s Iran deal being precisely concurrent with the other factor defining a banana republic . Obama ’ s autocratic foreign policy has been conducted in secret , and in opposition to our national security interests . You may forgive me , dear reader , if I feel as if I were John Adams in a memorable scene from the musical “ 1776. ” In that scene , Adams sings and shouts to heaven , “ Is anybody there ? Does anybody care ? ”

It’s a matter or record. Americans now populate the largest, wealthiest and most powerful banana republic in the world. The differences between Obama’s America and Maduro’s Venezuela are defined only by degree. The defining characteristics of banana republics are a matter of history. First, the law is not enforced against a chosen class in a banana republic, usually the allies of the autocrat in charge. Second, foreign policy is always performed in the autocrat’s interests and often in disregard of the nation’s actual interests. This describes how America functions in the era of President Obama. The newly-released FBI documents on the investigation of Hillary Clinton make it clear beyond argument that the fix was in and that the FBI never had any intention of recommending that she should be prosecuted for her crimes. That is very hard to write. I have had very good friends among the agents of the FBI, men of unshakeable dedication to the fair enforcement of the law. But that is no longer the FBI’s goal, as just a few references to the documents published last week reveal. First, you had to notice that the FBI agreed that there would be no videotape of its interview of Clinton. Not only would there not be a videotape, but no court reporter would be present to record a transcript. That itself is highly unusual, but there is far more, and far worse. Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department, had to have participated in sending classified material to Clinton on her private and unsecured “clintonemail.com” email system. Yet when the FBI questioned Clinton, Mills was permitted to attend as one of Clinton’s lawyers. That is not only unethical under the Bar’s unenforced ethics standards, but obviously a huge violation of the most elementary of FBI procedures that requires witnesses — and possible suspects — to be questioned separately in isolation from one another. Clinton told the FBI that she relied on others’ judgment in sending her sensitive information on the unsecured email system. She also claimed that as a result of a head injury she didn’t recall key events such as being trained by the State Department on handing classified information or retaining records in accordance with federal law. Clinton, as a U.S. senator, served on the Armed Services Committee from 2003 to 2009. She was a member of three subcommittees, including the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities. In that capacity, she would have been instructed on how to handle highly-classified information and a great deal of it would have passed through her hands. She would have had many occasions to handle it and to transmit it among her colleagues and staff and executive branch officials. Further training by the State Department would have been unnecessary for her to know how such information had to be protected against disclosure. Clinton’s obvious lie was one of many she told the FBI. Let’s remember that on at least one occasion, she told her State Department staff to remove the classified markings on some material and send it “in the clear” on an unsecured channel — her private email system. The FBI found that Clinton had used a multitude of Blackberry and other personal devices while she was secretary of state. Thirteen of them are missing and have never been recovered. Anyone who has used a Blackberry or other personal email device can testify that they last for years. Clinton, while she was secretary of state, apparently got a new one every six or eight weeks. All of those devices, given the frequency of her communications, would have had classified information on them. How could anyone of sound mind be so careless? Was her 2012 concussion so severe as to cause frequent memory loss? Writing about Clinton’s health is verboten. Why, if it was so severe that it caused her to work part time as secretary of state, as she told the FBI? (At least two devices are said to have been destroyed by her staff. Two others (an Apple iPad and a thumb drive) each of which reportedly contained a complete archive of her emails, were sent by a staffer to a person at Platte River Networks, the company Clinton hired to maintain her system, but may never have arrived.) Let’s also remember that in his July statement, FBI director Comey said that of Clinton’s State Department emails, “…110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. “ Comey’s statement included the fact that, “Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.” Clinton knew or should have known that the subject matter of those emails was classified because, for example, some discussed coming drone strikes against terrorists. For all of Clinton’s lies, and there are far too many to recount, the worst lie of all was Comey’s. He said that there was no precedent for a prosecution of someone who had behaved as Clinton had and that no responsible prosecutor would bring charges. (Former CIA directors John Deutch and David Petraeus each pled guilty to mishandling classified information. Deutch was pardoned in 2001 by Bill Clinton.) Comey also said that there was evidence that Clinton and her staff had handled classified information in an “extremely careless” way. Title 18 Section 793(f) says that anyone who is “grossly negligent” in handling classified information is guilty of a federal felony. If we cannot trust the FBI to enforce the law, and we cannot, America is now characterized by one of the two facts defining a banana republic. As a parting shot, the FBI also found that several email accounts that Clinton had communicated with while secretary of state had been intercepted (hacked) by hostile foreign actors, but that they couldn’t determine if Clinton’s email was hacked. Russia, China, Iran and al-Qaida will have intercepted Clinton’s emails as a matter of policy. If she isn’t guilty of the federal felony described by Title 18 U.S. Code Section 793(f), I’ll eat her classified emails. And, oh, by the way, Clinton sent classified information on her private email system after she left the secretary of state job. (That’s a separate crime, but who’s counting?) The bad guys surely have those emails as well. The other revelation last week was David Albright’s report on President Obama’s nuclear deal. Mr. Albright’s Institute for Science and International Security (not to be confused with the other ISIS) reported that the international commission running Obama’s nuclear weapons deal with Iran has, in secret, allowed Iran to pretend to obey the deal’s conditions while violating them. Albright’s report says that by the deal’s effective date, Iran was obligated to perform certain tasks in order to qualify for relief from the international sanctions that had been imposed. Among them was the disposal of low-enriched uranium (LEU), a limitation on its “hot cells,” and the shipment out of Iran of “heavy water” (deuterium oxide). Iran didn’t dispose of, by shipment to another nation or otherwise, the required amount of LEU, leaving it more than enough to further enrich it to produce nuclear weapons. The “hot cells” — which can be used to produce plutonium, another key ingredient of some nuclear weapons — hadn’t been reduced in size to prevent the plutonium production. And the heavy water had been shipped to Yemen, where it remains under Iranian control. Under the awful Corker Amendment (more fully discussed here) all side agreements, secret or not, were required to be disclosed to the senate. As a couple of senators have said publicly — and one to told me directly but privately — they weren’t. Over the weekend, Obama signed the latest economy-killing global warming deal. Both the BBC and the Washington Post reported the event as U.S. ratification of the deal. Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that only the Senate can ratify a treaty. Which results in the definition of Obama’s Iran deal being precisely concurrent with the other factor defining a banana republic. Obama’s autocratic foreign policy has been conducted in secret, and in opposition to our national security interests. You may forgive me, dear reader, if I feel as if I were John Adams in a memorable scene from the musical “1776.” In that scene, Adams sings and shouts to heaven, “Is anybody there? Does anybody care?” The Senate and the FBI don’t care. I do.

www.spectator.org

right

u6wqPLhrzx7BQlaV

test

J2hsNIYNhaB8Tpal

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/capitol-hill-republicans-starting-with-paul-ryan-need-a-backbone/

Capitol Hill Republicans — Starting With Paul Ryan — Need a Backbone

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

As always , a presidential tweet raises the obvious question . Tweeted the President : “ It ’ s very sad that Republicans , even some that were carried over the line on my back , do very little to protect their President . ” “ So why aren ’ t the Committees and investigators , and of course our beleaguered A.G. , looking into Crooked Hillarys crimes & Russia relations ? ” And the President isn ’ t the only one wondering where the GOP investigators are . Appearing on Fox News Monday , former Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz made the same point , saying : Republicans need to get a backbone . Every time the Democrats say they need to call up Jared Kushner or Don Jr. — call up Chelsea Clinton , call up the Clintons . There we have an inspector general who issues a report stating an actual crime . You have Bill Clinton , the former president , taking millions and millions of dollars from countries , that Hillary Clinton is going in and then doing business . So every time a Democrat says “ I got ta talk to Donald Trump Jr. , ” then go up and bring Chelsea Clinton in there , because she was involved in the Benghazi situation , she was involved with the ( Clinton ) Foundation . Chaffetz added the obvious about some of these “ investigators. ” “ They would never , ever , ever do this to the Clintons. ” Exactly . Let ’ s be clear . There was no Trump collusion with Russians to steal the election . It didn ’ t happen . And making every contact with a Russian this-or-that into some sort of grand theft of democracy is ridiculous on its face . Recall that after making a big deal about Jared Kushner or then-Senator Jeff Sessions meeting with the Russian Ambassador , House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was asked the same question — had she ever met with the Russian Ambassador ? “ Not this one ” was her reply — only to have someone produce a photo of her taking a meeting with , yes indeed , the current Russian ambassador . Does this mean Pelosi lied ? Does this mean she was conspiring to steal the election with Russian help ? This is ridiculous . But that hasn ’ t stopped Democrats from demanding — and getting — a “ special counsel ” to investigate the President . After the latter was personally told by then-FBI Director Comey that he wasn ’ t under investigation . And in true special prosecutor style , mission creep has already taken over the Robert Mueller investigation . What began as an investigation of Trump-Russian “ collusion ” to steal an election has now mission-creeped into a demand to look at the President ’ s finances . Headlined Bloomberg : The U.S. special counsel investigating possible ties between the Donald Trump campaign and Russia in last year ’ s election is examining a broad range of transactions involving Trump ’ s businesses as well as those of his associates , according to a person familiar with the probe . FBI investigators and others are looking at Russian purchases of apartments in Trump buildings , Trump ’ s involvement in a controversial SoHo development in New York with Russian associates , the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow and Trump ’ s sale of a Florida mansion to a Russian oligarch in 2008 , the person said . Got that ? We have now gone from investigating whether Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election to nosing into the sale of apartments to Russians years ago ? Votes for condos is the idea ? Seriously ? This investigation is out of control already . This news coming on the heels of the realization that Mueller has staffed up with Clinton supporters , including one lawyer tied to the Clinton Foundation itself . The question here is : Where are the Republicans ? Where are the demands to Mueller that if he is to expanding his Russia investigation then it ’ s past time to bring in the Clintons and investigate the pay-to-play use of the Clinton Foundation , that expensive Bill Clinton speech in Moscow , and the use of the State Department as the ultimate pay-to-play Clinton toy . Newsflash : Democrats and their media allies are playing hardball . They don ’ t want a debate on health care or taxes , they want to delegitimize and overthrow a duly elected President of the United States because they still can ’ t believe they lost the last election . Of all the people to finally come to grips with this reality , there was this from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer : Schumer : Dems , not Russia , are to blame for loss to Trump “ When you lose to somebody who has 40 percent popularity , you don ’ t blame other things — Comey , Russia — you blame yourself , ” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) said in an interview previewing the new plan . “ So what did we do wrong ? People didn ’ t know what we stood for , just that we were against Trump . And still believe that . ” But the GOP on Capitol Hill ? Here is Speaker Ryan per the Hill newspaper : Speaker Ryan : Mueller is ‘ anything but ’ a Dem partisan Speaker Paul Ryan ( R-Wis. ) on Monday defended special counsel Robert Mueller , who is leading the Justice Department ’ s investigation into the Russia election interference , saying he ’ s “ anything but ” a Democratic partisan . “ I don ’ t think many people are saying Bob Mueller is a biased partisan . He ’ s really , sort of , anything but , ” Ryan said on the Wisconsin-based radio program “ The Jay Weber Show , ” which the Washington Examiner highlighted . If true , how does the Speaker explain this from the Washington Free Beacon : Mueller Hires Multiple Hillary Clinton Donors for Special Counsel Team Special counsel Robert Mueller has hired multiple donors who gave to Hillary Clinton ’ s presidential campaign to join his team investigating President Donald Trump . Federal records show that three attorneys who Mueller hired have made political donations , mostly to Democrats , CNN reports . Two of them gave the maximum contribution to Hillary Clinton ’ s 2016 campaign , while another donated to former President Barack Obama ’ s 2008 campaign and the Democratic National Committee . Trump ’ s supporters have begun casting doubt on the impartiality of Mueller and his team . Prominent Trump backer Newt Gingrich tweeted Monday that Mueller was unlikely to be fair . As if that weren ’ t bad enough ? Recall this from Breitbart : Swamp Fights Back : Mueller Hires Clinton Foundation Lawyer for Russia Probe A more controversial pick of Mueller ’ s was former prosecutor and WilmerHale partner Jeannie Rhee . In 2015 , according to Politico , she performed work for the Clinton Foundation , defending it from FOIA requests related to Hillary Clinton ’ s private email server . These developments have raised some red flags on the right . For example , Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told Fox News , “ This is going to be a witch hunt . ” Over at the Daily Caller there was more from that Speaker Ryan radio interview . The incredible headline : Ryan : Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said Monday that it isn ’ t congressional Republicans ’ role to defend President Trump from the investigations into Russian election interference… Here is Rush Limbaugh ’ s take on all of this on his Monday show , bold print for emphasis mine : What Trump is talking about here is : Why aren ’ t these Republican committees , why aren ’ t these Republican investigators — why isn ’ t my attorney general — looking into Hillary Clinton ’ s crimes ? If you ’ re gon na investigate what-all went on with Russia , how in the world do you leave the Democrats out of it ? How do you leave Hillary Clinton out of it ? The Republicans run the show ! It ’ s time for the Republicans to start acting like it . Politics is what it is . The Republicans don ’ t appear to want to play the game.… We can come up with all the guesses ( and we would be right eight out of 10 times ) why they ’ re not investigating Hillary , why they are not investigating the Democrats ’ connection with the Russians . By the way , there ’ s new news out today that the FBI did get hold of some computer equipment from Debbie “ Blabbermouth ” Schultz ’ s IT guy that they would not turn over to the FBI . There ’ s a potential gold mine there to be investigated of Hillary and the Democrats and the Democrat National Committee , and there just doesn ’ t seem ( that we know of , anyway ) to be any energy to uncover it . All of the energy seems to be focused on getting Trump and getting rid of Trump — which I , of course , am not denying that they want to do that . We ’ ve chronicled it here . But an opportunity is being squandered the likes of which ( chuckles ) we never thought we were gon na get . We hoped for it , and it probably is not something we could reasonably expect happen again . If it does , it ’ s only because the Democrats are so hapless . Speaker Gingrich , as always , gets the deal on the spot . This is a witch-hunt designed to bring down the President . The presence of all those Clinton or Obama lawyers on the Mueller staff and the resulting lack of an investigation into the Clintons is no accident . Period . Who bought what Trump apartment years ago or the existence of a beauty pageant in Moscow in 2013 is utterly unrelated to the as-it-is bogus allegation that somehow Russians gave the election to Trump . But the Clinton Foundation-State Department-Clinton campaign Russia ties ? And a blind eye is turned ? All of this and the GOP on Capitol Hill just turns away ? With no less than Speaker Ryan saying , as in the words of the Daily Caller , “ that it isn ’ t congressional Republicans ’ role to defend President Trump . ” Excuse me ? Politics is a team sport . Can anyone seriously say that Democrats didn ’ t spend eight years defending President Obama and his administration ? Or an earlier eight years defending President Clinton ? The reason a Democratic congressman makes news in criticizing Nancy Pelosi is that it is a rarity . And most assuredly any attack on her from Republicans would have Democrats jumping to defend her . As outrageous as ex-Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid could be , Democrats defended him to the hilt . And that statement by Chuck Schumer on Hillary Clinton ? It stands out because Democrats defended her relentlessly and not just as presidential candidate . From Benghazi to her e-mails , her tenure as Secretary of State was tenaciously defended by Democrats who made it their job to do so . President Trump is right . Jason Chaffetz is right . Republicans on Capitol Hill , busily backing away from a seven-year commitment to repeal and replace Obamacare , are yet again showing a lack of backbone not to mention elementary political common sense when it comes to defending the President . The latter , no small point , who is the leader of their party . Which raises the question : Why should Republicans vote for a GOP House and Senate in the first place if they won ’ t stand up for the President Republicans voted for — not to mention that they can ’ t pass the agenda they campaigned on ? Why indeed : 2018 could go down in history as the first time in history a party controlling Congress lost an election because their own party base thought they were better off without them .

As always, a presidential tweet raises the obvious question. Tweeted the President: “It’s very sad that Republicans, even some that were carried over the line on my back, do very little to protect their President.” And a bit later came this other presidential tweet. “So why aren’t the Committees and investigators, and of course our beleaguered A.G., looking into Crooked Hillarys crimes & Russia relations?” Good points, Mr. President. Very good. And the President isn’t the only one wondering where the GOP investigators are. Appearing on Fox News Monday, former Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz made the same point, saying: Republicans need to get a backbone. Every time the Democrats say they need to call up Jared Kushner or Don Jr. — call up Chelsea Clinton, call up the Clintons. There we have an inspector general who issues a report stating an actual crime. You have Bill Clinton, the former president, taking millions and millions of dollars from countries, that Hillary Clinton is going in and then doing business. So every time a Democrat says “I gotta talk to Donald Trump Jr.,” then go up and bring Chelsea Clinton in there, because she was involved in the Benghazi situation, she was involved with the (Clinton) Foundation. Chaffetz added the obvious about some of these “investigators.” “They would never, ever, ever do this to the Clintons.” Exactly. Let’s be clear. There was no Trump collusion with Russians to steal the election. It didn’t happen. And making every contact with a Russian this-or-that into some sort of grand theft of democracy is ridiculous on its face. Recall that after making a big deal about Jared Kushner or then-Senator Jeff Sessions meeting with the Russian Ambassador, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was asked the same question — had she ever met with the Russian Ambassador? “Not this one” was her reply — only to have someone produce a photo of her taking a meeting with, yes indeed, the current Russian ambassador. Does this mean Pelosi lied? Does this mean she was conspiring to steal the election with Russian help? This is ridiculous. But that hasn’t stopped Democrats from demanding — and getting — a “special counsel” to investigate the President. After the latter was personally told by then-FBI Director Comey that he wasn’t under investigation. And in true special prosecutor style, mission creep has already taken over the Robert Mueller investigation. What began as an investigation of Trump-Russian “collusion” to steal an election has now mission-creeped into a demand to look at the President’s finances. Headlined Bloomberg: Mueller Expands Probe to Trump Business Transactions The story begins: The U.S. special counsel investigating possible ties between the Donald Trump campaign and Russia in last year’s election is examining a broad range of transactions involving Trump’s businesses as well as those of his associates, according to a person familiar with the probe. FBI investigators and others are looking at Russian purchases of apartments in Trump buildings, Trump’s involvement in a controversial SoHo development in New York with Russian associates, the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow and Trump’s sale of a Florida mansion to a Russian oligarch in 2008, the person said. Got that? We have now gone from investigating whether Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election to nosing into the sale of apartments to Russians years ago? Votes for condos is the idea? Seriously? This investigation is out of control already. This news coming on the heels of the realization that Mueller has staffed up with Clinton supporters, including one lawyer tied to the Clinton Foundation itself. The question here is: Where are the Republicans? Where are the demands to Mueller that if he is to expanding his Russia investigation then it’s past time to bring in the Clintons and investigate the pay-to-play use of the Clinton Foundation, that expensive Bill Clinton speech in Moscow, and the use of the State Department as the ultimate pay-to-play Clinton toy. Newsflash: Democrats and their media allies are playing hardball. They don’t want a debate on health care or taxes, they want to delegitimize and overthrow a duly elected President of the United States because they still can’t believe they lost the last election. Of all the people to finally come to grips with this reality, there was this from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer: Schumer: Dems, not Russia, are to blame for loss to Trump Said Schumer to the Washington Post: “When you lose to somebody who has 40 percent popularity, you don’t blame other things — Comey, Russia — you blame yourself,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in an interview previewing the new plan. “So what did we do wrong? People didn’t know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that.” Amazing. Even Chuck Schumer gets it. But the GOP on Capitol Hill? Here is Speaker Ryan per the Hill newspaper: Speaker Ryan: Mueller is ‘anything but’ a Dem partisan Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Monday defended special counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading the Justice Department’s investigation into the Russia election interference, saying he’s “anything but” a Democratic partisan. “I don’t think many people are saying Bob Mueller is a biased partisan. He’s really, sort of, anything but,” Ryan said on the Wisconsin-based radio program “The Jay Weber Show,” which the Washington Examiner highlighted. If true, how does the Speaker explain this from the Washington Free Beacon: Mueller Hires Multiple Hillary Clinton Donors for Special Counsel Team Special counsel Robert Mueller has hired multiple donors who gave to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign to join his team investigating President Donald Trump. Federal records show that three attorneys who Mueller hired have made political donations, mostly to Democrats, CNN reports. Two of them gave the maximum contribution to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, while another donated to former President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Trump’s supporters have begun casting doubt on the impartiality of Mueller and his team. Prominent Trump backer Newt Gingrich tweeted Monday that Mueller was unlikely to be fair. As if that weren’t bad enough? Recall this from Breitbart: Swamp Fights Back: Mueller Hires Clinton Foundation Lawyer for Russia Probe A more controversial pick of Mueller’s was former prosecutor and WilmerHale partner Jeannie Rhee. In 2015, according to Politico, she performed work for the Clinton Foundation, defending it from FOIA requests related to Hillary Clinton’s private email server. These developments have raised some red flags on the right. For example, Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told Fox News, “This is going to be a witch hunt.” Over at the Daily Caller there was more from that Speaker Ryan radio interview. The incredible headline: Ryan: We Weren’t Elected To Defend Trump From Investigations The story reads in part: Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said Monday that it isn’t congressional Republicans’ role to defend President Trump from the investigations into Russian election interference… Say what? Here is Rush Limbaugh’s take on all of this on his Monday show, bold print for emphasis mine: What Trump is talking about here is: Why aren’t these Republican committees, why aren’t these Republican investigators — why isn’t my attorney general — looking into Hillary Clinton’s crimes? If you’re gonna investigate what-all went on with Russia, how in the world do you leave the Democrats out of it? How do you leave Hillary Clinton out of it? The Republicans run the show! It’s time for the Republicans to start acting like it. Politics is what it is. The Republicans don’t appear to want to play the game.… We can come up with all the guesses (and we would be right eight out of 10 times) why they’re not investigating Hillary, why they are not investigating the Democrats’ connection with the Russians. By the way, there’s new news out today that the FBI did get hold of some computer equipment from Debbie “Blabbermouth” Schultz’s IT guy that they would not turn over to the FBI. There’s a potential gold mine there to be investigated of Hillary and the Democrats and the Democrat National Committee, and there just doesn’t seem (that we know of, anyway) to be any energy to uncover it. All of the energy seems to be focused on getting Trump and getting rid of Trump — which I, of course, am not denying that they want to do that. We’ve chronicled it here. But an opportunity is being squandered the likes of which (chuckles) we never thought we were gonna get. We hoped for it, and it probably is not something we could reasonably expect happen again. If it does, it’s only because the Democrats are so hapless. Speaker Gingrich, as always, gets the deal on the spot. This is a witch-hunt designed to bring down the President. The presence of all those Clinton or Obama lawyers on the Mueller staff and the resulting lack of an investigation into the Clintons is no accident. Period. Who bought what Trump apartment years ago or the existence of a beauty pageant in Moscow in 2013 is utterly unrelated to the as-it-is bogus allegation that somehow Russians gave the election to Trump. But the Clinton Foundation-State Department-Clinton campaign Russia ties? And a blind eye is turned? All of this and the GOP on Capitol Hill just turns away? With no less than Speaker Ryan saying, as in the words of the Daily Caller, “that it isn’t congressional Republicans’ role to defend President Trump.” Excuse me? Politics is a team sport. Can anyone seriously say that Democrats didn’t spend eight years defending President Obama and his administration? Or an earlier eight years defending President Clinton? The reason a Democratic congressman makes news in criticizing Nancy Pelosi is that it is a rarity. And most assuredly any attack on her from Republicans would have Democrats jumping to defend her. As outrageous as ex-Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid could be, Democrats defended him to the hilt. And that statement by Chuck Schumer on Hillary Clinton? It stands out because Democrats defended her relentlessly and not just as presidential candidate. From Benghazi to her e-mails, her tenure as Secretary of State was tenaciously defended by Democrats who made it their job to do so. President Trump is right. Jason Chaffetz is right. Republicans on Capitol Hill, busily backing away from a seven-year commitment to repeal and replace Obamacare, are yet again showing a lack of backbone not to mention elementary political common sense when it comes to defending the President. The latter, no small point, who is the leader of their party. Which raises the question: Why should Republicans vote for a GOP House and Senate in the first place if they won’t stand up for the President Republicans voted for — not to mention that they can’t pass the agenda they campaigned on? Why indeed: 2018 could go down in history as the first time in history a party controlling Congress lost an election because their own party base thought they were better off without them. Amazing.

www.spectator.org

right

J2hsNIYNhaB8Tpal

test

TxPcZpqbhFzdSPGl

media_bias

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/03/26/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-me-too-believe-women/

Joe Biden Said He Believes All Women. Does He Believe Tara Reade?

2020-03-26

Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Eugene Volokh, Josh Blackman, Johan Norberg, Jacob Sullum, J.D. Tuccille

When it comes to # MeToo sexual misconduct issues , former Vice President Joe Biden , the Democratic Party 's presumptive 2020 presidential nominee , has made it no secret where he stands : automatically believe women . `` For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus , nationally , you 've got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she 's talking about is real , '' said Biden during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh , who faced accusations that as a teenager he had assaulted a woman at a party . As vice president , Biden played an important role in the Obama administration 's efforts to compel colleges and universities to take sexual violence more seriously—and to adopt policies that limited the due process rights and presumption of innocence for the accused . In recent years , his rhetoric on these issues has been in lockstep with # MeToo activists . Despite his public pronunciations on the subject of never touching women without their explicit verbal consent , Biden has previously faced accusations that he was too handsy with people . But now the former vice president is facing a much more serious accusation of sexual assault , from an alleged former staffer named Tara Reade . It remains to be seen whether the mainstream media will assign Reade 's story as much credibility and importance as that of Christine Blasey Ford , the woman who accused Kavanaugh ; they certainly have not done so yet . In any case , supporters of Biden—as well as the candidate himself—should take this opportunity to reflect on whether automatic belief is a useful or practical approach for handling decades ' old claims of misconduct . Reade describes herself as a `` California-based victim rights advocate and activist '' in her interview with the journalist Katie Halper , who has helped bring this accusation to light . Reade says she worked for Biden in the early 1990s and asserts that she was unambiguously assaulted by him in 1993 . According to Reade , he began kissing her without her permission , pushed her against a wall , reached under her skirt , and penetrated her with his fingers . `` He said 'come on man , I heard you liked me , ' '' Reade recalled to Halper in the interview . `` For me , it was like , everything shattered . I looked up to him , he was like my father 's age , he was this champion of women 's rights , in my eyes . I could n't believe it was happening . It was surreal . '' Reade had already complained to her bosses about sexual harassment in Biden 's office—she said a supervisor had once asked her to serve drinks at an event because she had attractive legs—but had shared the more serious accusation against Biden with a few close confidants . She said she once tried to talk to a supervisor about what had happened , but this person shut her down before she could tell the whole story . She also said she filled out an official form detailing her assault , but does not know what became of it . A year ago , Reade—who supported the campaigns of Sens . Elizabeth Warren ( D–Mass . ) and Bernie Sanders ( I–Vt . ) —attempted to come forward with stories of sexual harassment in Biden 's offices . As detailed in an Intercept piece , she reached out to Time 's Up , a project of the National Women 's Law Center that provides support to alleged # MeToo victims . Time 's Up declined to assist Reade ; the organization 's official excuse was that a feud with a national political candidate could jeopardize their status as a 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) non-partisan group . But as The Intercept also notes : The public relations firm that works on behalf of the Time 's Up Legal Defense Fund is SKDKnickerbocker , whose managing director , Anita Dunn , is the top adviser to Biden 's presidential campaign . A spokesperson for Biden declined to comment . The SKDK spokesperson assigned to Time 's Up referred questions back to the NWLC . The mainstream media has given Reade little attention . She was interviewed on Hill.TV by Krystall Ball and Saagar Enjeti ( whose populist impulses often put them at odds with the establishments of both parties ) , but The New York Times , Washington Post , and CNN have all declined to cover the story thus far . The anti-Biden left , however , has seized the opportunity . # IBelieveTaraReade was trending on Twitter on Thursday . Nathan Robinson , editor of the leftist publication Current Affairs , has criticized MSNBC and CNN for failing to cover the story . It 's a really shocking interview and I 'm not sure how people can support Biden after hearing it . https : //t.co/BkzjVG9gq3 — Nathan J Robinson ( @ NathanJRobinson ) March 26 , 2020 Sanders supporters , of course , have every incentive to weaponize this last-minute accusation against Biden in an attempt to deny him the nomination . And Biden fans have every ███ to roll their eyes at these attempts ; they can write off Reade as someone who , at the very least , waited too long to tell her story , and was a supporter of rival campaigns . Both sides have a point . Barring the emergence of some really credible documentation , it 's going to be nearly impossible to informally adjudicate—formal adjudication being absolutely impossible—the accusation . Too much time has passed . On the other hand , the very recent precedent set by the mainstream media and mainstream liberals during the Kavanaugh episode is that all accusations should be revisited , no matter how old . Indeed , one could make a better argument for considering Reade 's accusation than Blasey Ford 's : the latter concerns behavior that occurred during the accused person 's teenage years in the early 1980s , whereas Biden allegedly committed his transgression while a sitting U.S. senator . And again , Biden himself has taken the position that we should believe women even if it takes them a very , very long time to come forward . It seems unlikely the Reade accusation can sink Biden 's candidacy , but whether Democratic primary voters and the mainstream media are willing to air it out as they did Kavanaugh 's will tell us a lot about what `` believe all women '' actually means .

When it comes to #MeToo sexual misconduct issues, former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic Party's presumptive 2020 presidential nominee, has made it no secret where he stands: automatically believe women. "For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you've got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she's talking about is real," said Biden during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who faced accusations that as a teenager he had assaulted a woman at a party. As vice president, Biden played an important role in the Obama administration's efforts to compel colleges and universities to take sexual violence more seriously—and to adopt policies that limited the due process rights and presumption of innocence for the accused. In recent years, his rhetoric on these issues has been in lockstep with #MeToo activists. Despite his public pronunciations on the subject of never touching women without their explicit verbal consent, Biden has previously faced accusations that he was too handsy with people. But now the former vice president is facing a much more serious accusation of sexual assault, from an alleged former staffer named Tara Reade. It remains to be seen whether the mainstream media will assign Reade's story as much credibility and importance as that of Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused Kavanaugh; they certainly have not done so yet. In any case, supporters of Biden—as well as the candidate himself—should take this opportunity to reflect on whether automatic belief is a useful or practical approach for handling decades' old claims of misconduct. Reade describes herself as a "California-based victim rights advocate and activist" in her interview with the journalist Katie Halper, who has helped bring this accusation to light. Reade says she worked for Biden in the early 1990s and asserts that she was unambiguously assaulted by him in 1993. According to Reade, he began kissing her without her permission, pushed her against a wall, reached under her skirt, and penetrated her with his fingers. "He said 'come on man, I heard you liked me,'" Reade recalled to Halper in the interview. "For me, it was like, everything shattered. I looked up to him, he was like my father's age, he was this champion of women's rights, in my eyes. I couldn't believe it was happening. It was surreal." Reade had already complained to her bosses about sexual harassment in Biden's office—she said a supervisor had once asked her to serve drinks at an event because she had attractive legs—but had shared the more serious accusation against Biden with a few close confidants. She said she once tried to talk to a supervisor about what had happened, but this person shut her down before she could tell the whole story. She also said she filled out an official form detailing her assault, but does not know what became of it. A year ago, Reade—who supported the campaigns of Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.)—attempted to come forward with stories of sexual harassment in Biden's offices. As detailed in an Intercept piece, she reached out to Time's Up, a project of the National Women's Law Center that provides support to alleged #MeToo victims. Time's Up declined to assist Reade; the organization's official excuse was that a feud with a national political candidate could jeopardize their status as a 501(c)(3) non-partisan group. But as The Intercept also notes: The public relations firm that works on behalf of the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund is SKDKnickerbocker, whose managing director, Anita Dunn, is the top adviser to Biden's presidential campaign. A spokesperson for Biden declined to comment. The SKDK spokesperson assigned to Time's Up referred questions back to the NWLC. The mainstream media has given Reade little attention. She was interviewed on Hill.TV by Krystall Ball and Saagar Enjeti (whose populist impulses often put them at odds with the establishments of both parties), but The New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN have all declined to cover the story thus far. The anti-Biden left, however, has seized the opportunity. #IBelieveTaraReade was trending on Twitter on Thursday. Nathan Robinson, editor of the leftist publication Current Affairs, has criticized MSNBC and CNN for failing to cover the story. It's a really shocking interview and I'm not sure how people can support Biden after hearing it. https://t.co/BkzjVG9gq3 — Nathan J Robinson (@NathanJRobinson) March 26, 2020 Sanders supporters, of course, have every incentive to weaponize this last-minute accusation against Biden in an attempt to deny him the nomination. And Biden fans have every reason to roll their eyes at these attempts; they can write off Reade as someone who, at the very least, waited too long to tell her story, and was a supporter of rival campaigns. Both sides have a point. Barring the emergence of some really credible documentation, it's going to be nearly impossible to informally adjudicate—formal adjudication being absolutely impossible—the accusation. Too much time has passed. On the other hand, the very recent precedent set by the mainstream media and mainstream liberals during the Kavanaugh episode is that all accusations should be revisited, no matter how old. Indeed, one could make a better argument for considering Reade's accusation than Blasey Ford's: the latter concerns behavior that occurred during the accused person's teenage years in the early 1980s, whereas Biden allegedly committed his transgression while a sitting U.S. senator. And again, Biden himself has taken the position that we should believe women even if it takes them a very, very long time to come forward. It seems unlikely the Reade accusation can sink Biden's candidacy, but whether Democratic primary voters and the mainstream media are willing to air it out as they did Kavanaugh's will tell us a lot about what "believe all women" actually means.

www.reason.com

right

TxPcZpqbhFzdSPGl

test

EwgNXAtr91wctSnT

media_bias

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2018/10/26/nolte-nbc-blackface-megyn-kelly/

NBC Closes the Trap on Megyn Kelly

2018-10-26

John Nolte

According to various reports , Megyn Kelly has not only “ parted ways ” with NBC after losing her coveted 9 a.m. hour on NBC ’ s Today Show , she lost her representation at the powerful CAA talent agency . Worse , when she tried to move to UTA , her “ blackface ” comments closed that door . Because she is now toxic , on Wednesday , Kelly could only hire an attorney to represent her , a move that points to her fighting for every penny left on her three-year , $ 69 million contract — an agreement that was not set to expire with NBC until 2020 . After 12 years as a superstar at Fox News and a disastrous , calamitous , dumpster fire two ( give or take ) years at NBC , Kelly is about to go kicking and screaming as she exits stage left , but exit stage left she will because she has no place left to go… Which I think was always NBC ’ s plan… Luring Megyn Kelly to NBC was never about anything other than destroying Megyn Kelly . What NBC News did to Kelly has happened before . With the lure of a dream job attached to a hook that fulfills a rival ’ s hubris , the rival is humiliated and forever destroyed . It ’ s an old trick and Kelly and her ego fell for it . In 1979 , the New Yorker ’ s Pauline Kael was the most influential film critic in America . With this power , she made Warren Beatty her pet cause throughout the 1970s — and then she turned on him , attacking Beatty and his 1978 hit Heaven Can Wait ( which he co-wrote and directed ) as a sellout , a trifle , a betrayal . Many believe Beatty got his revenge by offering Kael her dream job , the opportunity to work with him on his next film . As quickly as that came together , though , it flamed out . Within a year Kael had very publicly failed in Hollywood and was forced to crawl back to the New Yorker . Only now , she looked foolish and weak , and would never again wield the same power . Throughout the late ’ 80s and early ’ 90s , Michael Ovitz was not only the most powerful agent in Hollywood , he was the town ’ s undisputed King — a powerbroker ’ s powerbroker and the scourge of the studios as he shifted industry power to his clients — to actors and directors . Then Disney chairman Michael Eisner offered Ovitz his dream job , the opportunity to run a studio . Promised he was being groomed to eventually replace Eisner , Ovitz bit . Sixteen months later Eisner fired him , and that was the end of Michael Ovitz . Over at Fox News , Megyn Kelly was not only a ratings powerhouse and superstar , her smarts , preparation , and fearlessness made her an icon — especially to women , who saw in her someone they could relate to . Suddenly , the image of a powerful woman did not need to include the left ’ s noxious politics and man-hating . Like most larger-than-life figures , though , Kelly has a fatal flaw , and like Kael and Ovitz , it is hubris . Being one of the most popular and powerful anchors in the “ ghetto ” of cable news was no longer enough . She wanted it all . She wanted to be accepted and loved by the establishment media . So , through Machiavellian means , starting with the public betrayal of her Fox fans , she let the establishment media know she was ready to become one of them . Her plan was to single-handedly take down Donald Trump . This was her way of sending a message , her way of letting potential suitors know she was ready to sell out , to join the Borg collective , and to enjoy all the rewards that come to sellouts ( see : SE Cupp , Joe Scarborough , Matthew Dowd , Nicolle Wallace , etc… ) . As she betrayed her Fox fans with her shrill and narcissistic attacks on Trump , Kelly readied the second part of her plan , a memoir titled Settle for More . The promotional tour was perfectly timed — it would begin just days after Trump lost the presidential election . The book tour was supposed to be Kelly ’ s triumph , her victory parade where all the Beautiful People would not only credit her for defeating the villainous Trump , but exalt her as noble and brave for doing so by stabbing her own fans in the back . But then… Trump won the presidency , and instead of looking like a champion , Kelly looked exposed — ridiculous , caught off guard , and foolish . By this time , NBC News had already lured her into their trap . By design , by deliberately setting her up for failure , Kelly was doomed from day one at NBC — and it didn ’ t even cost a lot of money . For a mere $ 69 million , a pittance to NBC , the establishment media was able to take out a business and cultural rival in a little over a year . To begin with , NBC intentionally ignored Kelly ’ s strengths , which shine in a live and combative format . First they handed her a 60 Minutes-type program , something she had never done before , and then they slotted Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly directly up against 60 Minutes , which has been a ratings juggernaut for 40 years . Then NBC allowed Kelly to air an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin that made no news . Then they allowed Kelly to interview Alex Jones . Then they allowed her to crash and burn in this format , a format she had no business being a part of , and take 100 % of the blame for that failure . NBC then led Kelly even deeper into alien territory — a gooey morning show geared towards puffery and celebrity interviews . As designed , Megyn Kelly Today was a disaster from day one . Kelly again looked ridiculous , out of her element and depth . Her mishaps were legion , and they were never forgiven because the establishment would never forgive her for her time at Fox News . Rather than circle the wagons , as they always do to protect one of their own , they just pointed and laughed and piled on . Kelly was flailing , drowning , and no one was coming to her rescue . Then she went under… During the Tuesday edition of Megyn Kelly Today , Kelly and her guests were discussing a white woman on The Real Housewives of New York who dressed up like Diana Ross and went so far as to darken her skin with makeup . “ But what is racist ? ” Kelly asked . “ Because truly , you do get in trouble if you are a white person who puts on blackface on Halloween , or a black person who puts on whiteface for Halloween . Like , back when I was a kid , that was okay , as long as you were dressing up as , like , a character . ” With these comments on Monday , Kelly handed NBC the murder weapon they had been waiting for . The entire network turned on her ( even the weatherman ) , and now she is all alone . Megyn Kelly made two massive mistakes . The first , and this is to her credit , is that unlike her fellow sellouts — the repulsive Scarborough and Cupp , etc . — she refused to completely sell out ; she did not offer the establishment her complete soul — only 99 percent of it , when they demand it all . By the time she did offer up that remaining one percent — with Wednesday ’ s Orwellian grovel of an apology for her Halloween WrongThink — it was too late . The second mistake Kelly made , and this is probably why she is about to become a footnote , is that in her quest for establishment media acceptance , she betrayed her base of support , and now she has no one to defend her , no audience to return to . Kelly bet it all , and by doing so sold out her own fans , which left her with no one to come to her defense as NBC outmaneuvered , outsmarted , and circled for the kill — which had been NBC ’ s plan from the beginning . To attract NBC News , Kelly mercilessly wielded virtue signaling against Trump as she shamelessly peacocked her own image by smearing him as a sexist , a pig , a hater of women . And now she will limp out of NBC News a victim of bullying virtue signalers smearing her as racist . Either way , Megyn Kelly is about to limp into a world she created — a world where both right and left have found a reason to unite as they delight in her comeuppance . Follow John Nolte on Twitter @ NolteNC . Follow his Facebook Page here .

According to various reports, Megyn Kelly has not only “parted ways” with NBC after losing her coveted 9 a.m. hour on NBC’s Today Show, she lost her representation at the powerful CAA talent agency. Worse, when she tried to move to UTA, her “blackface” comments closed that door. Because she is now toxic, on Wednesday, Kelly could only hire an attorney to represent her, a move that points to her fighting for every penny left on her three-year, $69 million contract — an agreement that was not set to expire with NBC until 2020. After 12 years as a superstar at Fox News and a disastrous, calamitous, dumpster fire two (give or take) years at NBC, Kelly is about to go kicking and screaming as she exits stage left, but exit stage left she will because she has no place left to go… Which I think was always NBC’s plan… Luring Megyn Kelly to NBC was never about anything other than destroying Megyn Kelly. What NBC News did to Kelly has happened before. With the lure of a dream job attached to a hook that fulfills a rival’s hubris, the rival is humiliated and forever destroyed. It’s an old trick and Kelly and her ego fell for it. In 1979, the New Yorker’s Pauline Kael was the most influential film critic in America. With this power, she made Warren Beatty her pet cause throughout the 1970s — and then she turned on him, attacking Beatty and his 1978 hit Heaven Can Wait (which he co-wrote and directed) as a sellout, a trifle, a betrayal. Many believe Beatty got his revenge by offering Kael her dream job, the opportunity to work with him on his next film. As quickly as that came together, though, it flamed out. Within a year Kael had very publicly failed in Hollywood and was forced to crawl back to the New Yorker. Only now, she looked foolish and weak, and would never again wield the same power. Throughout the late ’80s and early ’90s, Michael Ovitz was not only the most powerful agent in Hollywood, he was the town’s undisputed King — a powerbroker’s powerbroker and the scourge of the studios as he shifted industry power to his clients — to actors and directors. Then Disney chairman Michael Eisner offered Ovitz his dream job, the opportunity to run a studio. Promised he was being groomed to eventually replace Eisner, Ovitz bit. Sixteen months later Eisner fired him, and that was the end of Michael Ovitz. Over at Fox News, Megyn Kelly was not only a ratings powerhouse and superstar, her smarts, preparation, and fearlessness made her an icon — especially to women, who saw in her someone they could relate to. Suddenly, the image of a powerful woman did not need to include the left’s noxious politics and man-hating. Like most larger-than-life figures, though, Kelly has a fatal flaw, and like Kael and Ovitz, it is hubris. Being one of the most popular and powerful anchors in the “ghetto” of cable news was no longer enough. She wanted it all. She wanted to be accepted and loved by the establishment media. So, through Machiavellian means, starting with the public betrayal of her Fox fans, she let the establishment media know she was ready to become one of them. Her plan was to single-handedly take down Donald Trump. This was her way of sending a message, her way of letting potential suitors know she was ready to sell out, to join the Borg collective, and to enjoy all the rewards that come to sellouts (see: SE Cupp, Joe Scarborough, Matthew Dowd, Nicolle Wallace, etc…). As she betrayed her Fox fans with her shrill and narcissistic attacks on Trump, Kelly readied the second part of her plan, a memoir titled Settle for More. The promotional tour was perfectly timed — it would begin just days after Trump lost the presidential election. The book tour was supposed to be Kelly’s triumph, her victory parade where all the Beautiful People would not only credit her for defeating the villainous Trump, but exalt her as noble and brave for doing so by stabbing her own fans in the back. But then… Trump won the presidency, and instead of looking like a champion, Kelly looked exposed — ridiculous, caught off guard, and foolish. By this time, NBC News had already lured her into their trap. By design, by deliberately setting her up for failure, Kelly was doomed from day one at NBC — and it didn’t even cost a lot of money. For a mere $69 million, a pittance to NBC, the establishment media was able to take out a business and cultural rival in a little over a year. To begin with, NBC intentionally ignored Kelly’s strengths, which shine in a live and combative format. First they handed her a 60 Minutes-type program, something she had never done before, and then they slotted Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly directly up against 60 Minutes, which has been a ratings juggernaut for 40 years. Then NBC allowed Kelly to air an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin that made no news. Then they allowed Kelly to interview Alex Jones. Then they allowed her to crash and burn in this format, a format she had no business being a part of, and take 100% of the blame for that failure. NBC then led Kelly even deeper into alien territory — a gooey morning show geared towards puffery and celebrity interviews. As designed, Megyn Kelly Today was a disaster from day one. Kelly again looked ridiculous, out of her element and depth. Her mishaps were legion, and they were never forgiven because the establishment would never forgive her for her time at Fox News. Rather than circle the wagons, as they always do to protect one of their own, they just pointed and laughed and piled on. Kelly was flailing, drowning, and no one was coming to her rescue. Then she went under… During the Tuesday edition of Megyn Kelly Today, Kelly and her guests were discussing a white woman on The Real Housewives of New York who dressed up like Diana Ross and went so far as to darken her skin with makeup. “But what is racist?” Kelly asked. “Because truly, you do get in trouble if you are a white person who puts on blackface on Halloween, or a black person who puts on whiteface for Halloween. Like, back when I was a kid, that was okay, as long as you were dressing up as, like, a character.” With these comments on Monday, Kelly handed NBC the murder weapon they had been waiting for. The entire network turned on her (even the weatherman), and now she is all alone. Megyn Kelly made two massive mistakes. The first, and this is to her credit, is that unlike her fellow sellouts — the repulsive Scarborough and Cupp, etc. — she refused to completely sell out; she did not offer the establishment her complete soul — only 99 percent of it, when they demand it all. By the time she did offer up that remaining one percent — with Wednesday’s Orwellian grovel of an apology for her Halloween WrongThink — it was too late. The second mistake Kelly made, and this is probably why she is about to become a footnote, is that in her quest for establishment media acceptance, she betrayed her base of support, and now she has no one to defend her, no audience to return to. Kelly bet it all, and by doing so sold out her own fans, which left her with no one to come to her defense as NBC outmaneuvered, outsmarted, and circled for the kill — which had been NBC’s plan from the beginning. And the irony is almost too perfect… To attract NBC News, Kelly mercilessly wielded virtue signaling against Trump as she shamelessly peacocked her own image by smearing him as a sexist, a pig, a hater of women. And now she will limp out of NBC News a victim of bullying virtue signalers smearing her as racist. You might say Trump broke her. Either way, Megyn Kelly is about to limp into a world she created — a world where both right and left have found a reason to unite as they delight in her comeuppance. Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

www.breitbart.com

right

EwgNXAtr91wctSnT

test

Le6pQRZM8he8dL8E

media_bias

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/b38818f48561889452c77fe736646454

Facebook to label all rule-breaking posts - even Trump’s

2020-06-26

Barbara Ortutay

FILE - This combination of photos shows logos for social media platforms , from left , Facebook , Twitter and Instagram . The company behind Ben & Jerry ’ s ice cream , Dove soap and a host of other consumer products says it will stop advertising on Facebook , Twitter and Instagram in the U.S. through at least the end of 2020 because of the amount of hate speech online . ( AP Photo ) FILE - This combination of photos shows logos for social media platforms , from left , Facebook , Twitter and Instagram . The company behind Ben & Jerry ’ s ice cream , Dove soap and a host of other consumer products says it will stop advertising on Facebook , Twitter and Instagram in the U.S. through at least the end of 2020 because of the amount of hate speech online . ( AP Photo ) OAKLAND , Calif. ( AP ) — Facebook said Friday that it will flag all “ newsworthy ” posts from politicians that break its rules , including those from President Donald Trump . Separately , Facebook ’ s stock dropped more than 8 % , erasing roughly $ 50 billion from its market valuation , after the European company behind brands such as Ben & Jerry ’ s and Dove announced it would boycott Facebook ads through the end of the year over the amount of hate speech and divisive rhetoric on its platform . Later in the day , Coca-Cola also announced it joined the boycott for at least 30 days . CEO Mark Zuckerberg had previously refused to take action against Trump posts suggesting that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud , saying that people deserved to hear unfiltered statements from political leaders . Twitter , by contrast , slapped a “ get the facts ” label on them . Until Friday , Trump ’ s posts with identical wording to those labeled on Twitter remained untouched on Facebook , sparking criticism from Trump ’ s opponents as well as current and former Facebook employees . Now , Facebook is all but certain to face off with the president the next time he posts something the company deems to be violating its rules . “ The policies we ’ re implementing today are designed to address the reality of the challenges our country is facing and how they ’ re showing up across our community , ” Zuckerberg wrote on his Facebook page announcing the changes . Zuckerberg said the social network is taking additional steps to counter election-related misinformation . In particular , the social network will begin adding new labels to all posts about voting that will direct users to authoritative information from state and local election officials . Facebook is also banning false claims intended to discourage voting , such as stories about federal agents checking legal status at polling places . The company also said it is increasing its enforcement capacity to remove false claims about local polling conditions in the 72 hours before the U.S. election . Ethan Zuckerman , director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ’ s Center for Civic Media , said the changes are a “ reminder of how powerful Facebook may be in terms of spreading disinformation during the upcoming election . ” He said the voting labels will depend on how good Facebook ’ s artificial intelligence is at identifying posts to label . “ If every post that mentions voting links , people will start ignoring those links . If they ’ re targeted to posts that say things like ‘ Police will be checking warrants and unpaid traffic tickets at polls ’ — a classic voter suppression disinfo tactic — and clearly mark posts as disinfo , they might be useful , ” he said . But Zuckerman noted that Facebook “ has a history of trying hard not to alienate right-leaning users , and given how tightly President Trump has aligned himself with voter-suppressing misinfo , it seems likely that Facebook will err on the side of non-intrusive and ignorable labels , which would minimize impact of the campaign . ” Earlier in the day , shares of Facebook and Twitter dropped sharply after consumer-product maker Unilever announced a new ad boycott on Facebook , Twitter and Instagram through at least the end of the year . The European company said it took the move to protest the amount of hate speech online . Unilever said the polarized atmosphere in the United States ahead of November ’ s presidential election placed responsibility on brands to act . In addition to the decline in Facebook shares , Twitter ended the day more than 7 % lower . Unilever , which is based in the Netherlands and Britain , joins a raft of other advertisers pulling back from online platforms . Facebook in particular has been the target of an escalating movement to withhold advertising dollars to pressure it to do more to prevent racist and violent content from being shared on its platform . “ We have decided that starting now through at least the end of the year , we will not run brand advertising in social media newsfeed platforms Facebook , Instagram and Twitter in the U.S. , ” Unilever said . “ Continuing to advertise on these platforms at this time would not add value to people and society . ” Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment . On Thursday , Verizon joined others in the Facebook boycott . Unilever “ has enough influence to persuade other brand advertisers to follow its lead , ” said eMarketer analyst Nicole Perrin . She noted that Unilever pulled back spending “ for longer , on more platforms ( including Twitter ) and for more expansive reasons ” — in particular , by citing problems with “ divisiveness ” as well as hate speech . Sarah Personette , vice president of global client solutions at Twitter , said the company ’ s “ mission is to serve the public conversation and ensure Twitter is a place where people can make human connections , seek and receive authentic and credible information , and express themselves freely and safely . ” She added that Twitter is “ respectful of our partners ’ decisions and will continue to work and communicate closely with them during this time . ”

FILE - This combination of photos shows logos for social media platforms, from left, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. The company behind Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, Dove soap and a host of other consumer products says it will stop advertising on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in the U.S. through at least the end of 2020 because of the amount of hate speech online. (AP Photo) FILE - This combination of photos shows logos for social media platforms, from left, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. The company behind Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, Dove soap and a host of other consumer products says it will stop advertising on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in the U.S. through at least the end of 2020 because of the amount of hate speech online. (AP Photo) OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — Facebook said Friday that it will flag all “newsworthy” posts from politicians that break its rules, including those from President Donald Trump. Separately, Facebook’s stock dropped more than 8%, erasing roughly $50 billion from its market valuation, after the European company behind brands such as Ben & Jerry’s and Dove announced it would boycott Facebook ads through the end of the year over the amount of hate speech and divisive rhetoric on its platform. Later in the day, Coca-Cola also announced it joined the boycott for at least 30 days. CEO Mark Zuckerberg had previously refused to take action against Trump posts suggesting that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud, saying that people deserved to hear unfiltered statements from political leaders. Twitter, by contrast , slapped a “get the facts” label on them. Until Friday, Trump’s posts with identical wording to those labeled on Twitter remained untouched on Facebook, sparking criticism from Trump’s opponents as well as current and former Facebook employees. Now, Facebook is all but certain to face off with the president the next time he posts something the company deems to be violating its rules. ADVERTISEMENT “The policies we’re implementing today are designed to address the reality of the challenges our country is facing and how they’re showing up across our community,” Zuckerberg wrote on his Facebook page announcing the changes. Zuckerberg said the social network is taking additional steps to counter election-related misinformation. In particular, the social network will begin adding new labels to all posts about voting that will direct users to authoritative information from state and local election officials. Facebook is also banning false claims intended to discourage voting, such as stories about federal agents checking legal status at polling places. The company also said it is increasing its enforcement capacity to remove false claims about local polling conditions in the 72 hours before the U.S. election. Ethan Zuckerman, director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Center for Civic Media, said the changes are a “reminder of how powerful Facebook may be in terms of spreading disinformation during the upcoming election.” He said the voting labels will depend on how good Facebook’s artificial intelligence is at identifying posts to label. “If every post that mentions voting links, people will start ignoring those links. If they’re targeted to posts that say things like ‘Police will be checking warrants and unpaid traffic tickets at polls’ — a classic voter suppression disinfo tactic — and clearly mark posts as disinfo, they might be useful,” he said. ADVERTISEMENT But Zuckerman noted that Facebook “has a history of trying hard not to alienate right-leaning users, and given how tightly President Trump has aligned himself with voter-suppressing misinfo, it seems likely that Facebook will err on the side of non-intrusive and ignorable labels, which would minimize impact of the campaign.” Earlier in the day, shares of Facebook and Twitter dropped sharply after consumer-product maker Unilever announced a new ad boycott on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram through at least the end of the year. The European company said it took the move to protest the amount of hate speech online. Unilever said the polarized atmosphere in the United States ahead of November’s presidential election placed responsibility on brands to act. In addition to the decline in Facebook shares, Twitter ended the day more than 7% lower. Unilever, which is based in the Netherlands and Britain, joins a raft of other advertisers pulling back from online platforms. Facebook in particular has been the target of an escalating movement to withhold advertising dollars to pressure it to do more to prevent racist and violent content from being shared on its platform. “We have decided that starting now through at least the end of the year, we will not run brand advertising in social media newsfeed platforms Facebook, Instagram and Twitter in the U.S.,” Unilever said. “Continuing to advertise on these platforms at this time would not add value to people and society.” Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment. On Thursday, Verizon joined others in the Facebook boycott. Unilever “has enough influence to persuade other brand advertisers to follow its lead,” said eMarketer analyst Nicole Perrin. She noted that Unilever pulled back spending “for longer, on more platforms (including Twitter) and for more expansive reasons” — in particular, by citing problems with “divisiveness” as well as hate speech. Sarah Personette, vice president of global client solutions at Twitter, said the company’s “mission is to serve the public conversation and ensure Twitter is a place where people can make human connections, seek and receive authentic and credible information, and express themselves freely and safely.” She added that Twitter is “respectful of our partners’ decisions and will continue to work and communicate closely with them during this time.”

www.apnews.com

center

Le6pQRZM8he8dL8E

test

6rxN35yN7QPLRD6L

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/10/tulsi-gabbard-how-a-progressive-rising-star-is-a-paradox-for-the-left

Tulsi Gabbard: how a progressive rising star is a paradox for the left

2018-08-10

Sabrina Siddiqui

The Hawaii congresswoman is backed by Bernie Sanders , but her controversial opinions have some progressives miffed Tulsi Gabbard , an Iraq War veteran who made history in 2012 as the first Hindu elected to the US Congress , has cemented herself as a rising star within the Democratic party . She has the support of Bernie Sanders , the de facto leader of the progressive movement , and boasts of endorsements from a string of liberal-friendly groups . The environment-focused Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters , labor unions such as the AFL-CIO , Planned Parenthood and National Nurses United have all given Gabbard , a three-term congresswoman , their blessing as she seeks re-election in the November midterm elections . Bloomberg eyes 2020 presidential run as a Democrat , but can a centrist unite the party ? Read more But Gabbard ’ s stated progressive bona fides have been called into question by her opponents , who are waging an ambitious challenge from the left in the hopes of pulling off an upset in Saturday ’ s Hawaii congressional primary . Although their prospects are grim , Gabbard ’ s critics say her views on foreign policy and tolerance for dictators such as Bashar al-Assad deserve another look . As one of the few Democrats to meet with Donald Trump following his election , Gabbard ’ s unorthodox positioning has drawn scrutiny at a time when progressives have rallied their midterm messaging around opposition to the president . Her highly controversial visit last year to Syria , where she met with Assad , also raised eyebrows both nationally and at home . “ The wake up call , for most of us , came when Gabbard met with Trump soon after his inauguration and then with Assad , instead of marching on DC with us and the rest of the Hawaii ’ s congressional delegation during the Women ’ s March in protest of what has become an unprecedented abolition of human and civil rights in America , ” said Sherry Alu Campagna , an environmental scientist who is among Gabbard ’ s most well-known primary challengers . The wake up call , for most of us , came when Gabbard met with Trump soon after his inauguration “ The incumbent clearly has an agenda that does not involve her constituents and we are waking up to the fact that our needs are taking a back seat to her ambitions . ” Gabbard has emerged in recent years as a paradox of the progressive movement . When she was first elected to Congress , MSNBC host Rachel Maddow declared at the time : “ She is on the fast track to being very famous . ” Indeed , Gabbard swiftly cemented herself as one to watch ; she co-founded the Congressional Future Caucus , bringing together the youngest members of Congress with an eye on addressing issues facing millennials , and landed assignments on the House committees on foreign affairs and armed services . In the 2016 election cycle , Gabbard seized on an opportunity to further her rise to national prominence . At the height of the hotly contested Democratic presidential primary , Gabbard resigned from her position as the vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee and endorsed the insurgent candidate Bernie Sanders . Gabbard ’ s move came as Democrats struggled to rein in an intra-party feud stemming from allegations that the DNC was working behind the scenes to influence the nominating contest in Hillary Clinton ’ s favor . Two years later , Gabbard ’ s support for Sanders has paid dividends . Her re-election bid drew the endorsement of Our Revolution , a grassroots political organization launched by veterans of Sanders ’ campaign . “ She has been an ardent supporter of many of the issues in our People ’ s Platform : Medicare for All , transitioning to clean renewable energy , criminal justice reform , and making Wall Street pay their fair share , ” the group said in a statement . When asked about Gabbard ’ s meeting with Assad , the group dubbed Gabbard as “ a passionate advocate for peace and diplomacy , which often requires meeting with people whose actions we do not agree with ” . But Gabbard ’ s critics argue her views on foreign policy , immigration and gun laws warrant more scrutiny and undermine the agenda upon which Democrats are campaigning across the country . “ Nationally , people thought , she checks all the boxes , this is great , ” said Shay Chan Hodges , an activist who unsuccessfully challenged Gabbard in 2016 . “ But I think people have now started looking more closely at her record and what she ’ s saying . ” Gabbard ’ s opponents have cited her refusal to debate them as evidence of her reticence to publicly defend her record on certain hot-button issues . Gabbard was unchallenged in 2014 and has not taken part in a primary debate since the year she was elected . Hawaii News Now attempted to convene a debate between Campagna and Gabbard to no avail ; the congresswoman ’ s campaign defended the move by stating : “ She continues to communicate directly with voters across the district . ” It is not uncommon for dominant incumbents to generally avoid debates . But Gabbard ’ s decision to decline to participate in such a forum has exposed her to charges of hypocrisy , since she forcefully advocated for adding more debates between Clinton and Sanders in 2016 in a high-profile split from other DNC leaders . “ While she may think this is a strategic move to prevent the success of her challengers , what it really does is silence the discussion of important issues that face Hawaii ’ s rural constituents , ” said Campagna . “ It also prevents any opportunities for voters to hold Tulsi accountable . ” In 2015 , Gabbard was among a minority of Democrats who voted for additional restrictions on refugees entering the US from Syria and Iraq . She has also previously expressed “ skepticism ” that the Assad regime is behind chemical weapons attacks in Syria , and aligned herself with nationalist figures such as Narendra Modi of India . Breaking with most Democrats , Gabbard has embraced the use of the phrase “ radical Islam ” – a phrase which to many Muslims has evolved into a dog whistle on the right intended to indict the entire Islamic faith . Gabbard has said she is mindful that most Muslims are not extremists , but joined Republicans in criticizing Clinton and Barack Obama for not employing the phrase , stating : “ It ’ s important that you identify your enemy ” . “ Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has spoken out strongly against the Trump administration ’ s travel/refugee ban , the Trump administration ’ s illegal military strikes against Syria , Trump ’ s decision to pull out of the Iran Nuclear Deal , Trump ’ s decision to end DACA , and other dangerous decisions and policies , ” Erika Tsuji , a spokeswoman for Gabbard ’ s re-election campaign , said in a statement to ███ . Gabbard also stands by her meeting with Assad , her spokeswoman said : “ She has stated time and again that peace can never be achieved if we only meet and speak with our friends . If we really want peace , we need to be fearless enough to sit down and speak directly with our adversaries . ” Although a majority of Democratic voters in Gabbard ’ s district and neighboring areas said she was obligated to debate her rivals , the snub has not appeared to have had much palpable effect on her prospects . Colin Moore , an associate professor of political science at the University of Hawaii , said Gabbard ’ s continued popularity was undeniable . But whereas he predicted Gabbard would sail to another term in Congress , Moore said she has yet to truly be tested nationally — where her ambitions may , in fact , be . “ The Hawaii congressional delegation has often thought of itself as a team whose primary goal is to go to Washington and bring federal dollars back to Hawaii , ” Moore said . “ The way they have done that is work with everyone , keep a very low profile , be around for a very long time and rise in seniority . ” “ Tulsi has really bucked that trend … she is this national political figure , who appears on CNN and other national media outlets quite frequently , talking about issues that don ’ t directly affect Hawaii . ” “ That has led to a sense that she ’ s neglecting her responsibilities and that she isn ’ t really serving her constituents well , ” he added . It was revealed in June that Gabbard is writing a book to be published by a literary agency that boasts of representing presidential contenders . Last October , she traveled on a multi-day swing through the caucus state of Iowa , urging party unity while fueling speculation of higher ambitions . Although her opponents are far from likely to pull off an upset this cycle , the brimming frustration that Gabbard is taking her position for granted – and skepticism around her progressive image – could foreshadow the challenges that lie ahead .

The Hawaii congresswoman is backed by Bernie Sanders, but her controversial opinions have some progressives miffed Tulsi Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran who made history in 2012 as the first Hindu elected to the US Congress, has cemented herself as a rising star within the Democratic party. She has the support of Bernie Sanders, the de facto leader of the progressive movement, and boasts of endorsements from a string of liberal-friendly groups. The environment-focused Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters, labor unions such as the AFL-CIO, Planned Parenthood and National Nurses United have all given Gabbard, a three-term congresswoman, their blessing as she seeks re-election in the November midterm elections. Bloomberg eyes 2020 presidential run as a Democrat, but can a centrist unite the party? Read more But Gabbard’s stated progressive bona fides have been called into question by her opponents, who are waging an ambitious challenge from the left in the hopes of pulling off an upset in Saturday’s Hawaii congressional primary. Although their prospects are grim, Gabbard’s critics say her views on foreign policy and tolerance for dictators such as Bashar al-Assad deserve another look. As one of the few Democrats to meet with Donald Trump following his election, Gabbard’s unorthodox positioning has drawn scrutiny at a time when progressives have rallied their midterm messaging around opposition to the president. Her highly controversial visit last year to Syria, where she met with Assad, also raised eyebrows both nationally and at home. “The wake up call, for most of us, came when Gabbard met with Trump soon after his inauguration and then with Assad, instead of marching on DC with us and the rest of the Hawaii’s congressional delegation during the Women’s March in protest of what has become an unprecedented abolition of human and civil rights in America,” said Sherry Alu Campagna, an environmental scientist who is among Gabbard’s most well-known primary challengers. The wake up call, for most of us, came when Gabbard met with Trump soon after his inauguration “The incumbent clearly has an agenda that does not involve her constituents and we are waking up to the fact that our needs are taking a back seat to her ambitions.” Gabbard has emerged in recent years as a paradox of the progressive movement. When she was first elected to Congress, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow declared at the time: “She is on the fast track to being very famous.” Indeed, Gabbard swiftly cemented herself as one to watch; she co-founded the Congressional Future Caucus, bringing together the youngest members of Congress with an eye on addressing issues facing millennials, and landed assignments on the House committees on foreign affairs and armed services. In the 2016 election cycle, Gabbard seized on an opportunity to further her rise to national prominence. At the height of the hotly contested Democratic presidential primary, Gabbard resigned from her position as the vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee and endorsed the insurgent candidate Bernie Sanders. Gabbard’s move came as Democrats struggled to rein in an intra-party feud stemming from allegations that the DNC was working behind the scenes to influence the nominating contest in Hillary Clinton’s favor. Two years later, Gabbard’s support for Sanders has paid dividends. Her re-election bid drew the endorsement of Our Revolution, a grassroots political organization launched by veterans of Sanders’ campaign. “She has been an ardent supporter of many of the issues in our People’s Platform: Medicare for All, transitioning to clean renewable energy, criminal justice reform, and making Wall Street pay their fair share,” the group said in a statement. When asked about Gabbard’s meeting with Assad, the group dubbed Gabbard as “a passionate advocate for peace and diplomacy, which often requires meeting with people whose actions we do not agree with”. But Gabbard’s critics argue her views on foreign policy, immigration and gun laws warrant more scrutiny and undermine the agenda upon which Democrats are campaigning across the country. “Nationally, people thought, she checks all the boxes, this is great,” said Shay Chan Hodges, an activist who unsuccessfully challenged Gabbard in 2016. “But I think people have now started looking more closely at her record and what she’s saying.” Gabbard’s opponents have cited her refusal to debate them as evidence of her reticence to publicly defend her record on certain hot-button issues. Gabbard was unchallenged in 2014 and has not taken part in a primary debate since the year she was elected. Hawaii News Now attempted to convene a debate between Campagna and Gabbard to no avail; the congresswoman’s campaign defended the move by stating: “She continues to communicate directly with voters across the district.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard on Capitol Hill in Washington DC on 17 November 2016. Photograph: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images It is not uncommon for dominant incumbents to generally avoid debates. But Gabbard’s decision to decline to participate in such a forum has exposed her to charges of hypocrisy, since she forcefully advocated for adding more debates between Clinton and Sanders in 2016 in a high-profile split from other DNC leaders. “While she may think this is a strategic move to prevent the success of her challengers, what it really does is silence the discussion of important issues that face Hawaii’s rural constituents,” said Campagna. “It also prevents any opportunities for voters to hold Tulsi accountable.” In 2015, Gabbard was among a minority of Democrats who voted for additional restrictions on refugees entering the US from Syria and Iraq. She has also previously expressed “skepticism” that the Assad regime is behind chemical weapons attacks in Syria, and aligned herself with nationalist figures such as Narendra Modi of India. Breaking with most Democrats, Gabbard has embraced the use of the phrase “radical Islam” – a phrase which to many Muslims has evolved into a dog whistle on the right intended to indict the entire Islamic faith. Gabbard has said she is mindful that most Muslims are not extremists, but joined Republicans in criticizing Clinton and Barack Obama for not employing the phrase, stating: “It’s important that you identify your enemy”. Gabbard declined an interview for this story. “Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has spoken out strongly against the Trump administration’s travel/refugee ban, the Trump administration’s illegal military strikes against Syria, Trump’s decision to pull out of the Iran Nuclear Deal, Trump’s decision to end DACA, and other dangerous decisions and policies,” Erika Tsuji, a spokeswoman for Gabbard’s re-election campaign, said in a statement to the Guardian. Gabbard also stands by her meeting with Assad, her spokeswoman said: “She has stated time and again that peace can never be achieved if we only meet and speak with our friends. If we really want peace, we need to be fearless enough to sit down and speak directly with our adversaries.” Although a majority of Democratic voters in Gabbard’s district and neighboring areas said she was obligated to debate her rivals, the snub has not appeared to have had much palpable effect on her prospects. Colin Moore, an associate professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, said Gabbard’s continued popularity was undeniable. But whereas he predicted Gabbard would sail to another term in Congress, Moore said she has yet to truly be tested nationally — where her ambitions may, in fact, be. “The Hawaii congressional delegation has often thought of itself as a team whose primary goal is to go to Washington and bring federal dollars back to Hawaii,” Moore said. “The way they have done that is work with everyone, keep a very low profile, be around for a very long time and rise in seniority.” “Tulsi has really bucked that trend … she is this national political figure, who appears on CNN and other national media outlets quite frequently, talking about issues that don’t directly affect Hawaii.” “That has led to a sense that she’s neglecting her responsibilities and that she isn’t really serving her constituents well,” he added. It was revealed in June that Gabbard is writing a book to be published by a literary agency that boasts of representing presidential contenders. Last October, she traveled on a multi-day swing through the caucus state of Iowa, urging party unity while fueling speculation of higher ambitions. Although her opponents are far from likely to pull off an upset this cycle, the brimming frustration that Gabbard is taking her position for granted – and skepticism around her progressive image – could foreshadow the challenges that lie ahead.

www.theguardian.com

left

6rxN35yN7QPLRD6L

test

u6jRZYdAl1zGcttW

politics

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43755990

James Comey's FBI memoir: Six claims about Trump

The latest salvo by former FBI Director James Comey in his feud with President Donald Trump included the charge that the president was morally unfit and may have obstructed justice . In a primetime television interview , which precedes his book publication on Tuesday , he also said the Russians may have compromising information on Mr Trump . The book likens Mr Trump to a mob boss and details his fixation on claims he consorted with prostitutes in Moscow . On Twitter , Mr Trump branded him `` Slippery James Comey '' , and says he lied to Congress . Here is a selection of what Mr Comey said in the interview , with analysis from the BBC 's Anthony Zurcher in Washington . ABC News has released a full 42,000-word transcript of the interview . Host presenter George Stephanopoulos on ABC 's 20/20 programme interviewed Mr Comey on Sunday night . When asked if he considered Mr Trump fit to lead , the former FBI director said he did not believe claims about Mr Trump 's mental health , but did see him as `` morally unfit '' to be president . `` A person who sees moral equivalence in Charlottesville , who talks about and treats women like they 're pieces of meat , who lies constantly about matters big and small and insists the American people believe it , that person 's not fit to be president of the United States , '' he told Mr Stephanopoulos . Mr Comey was referring to President Trump 's argument that `` both sides '' were at fault for white supremacist violence in Charlottesville , Virginia , last year . Anthony 's take : Mr Comey 's book , separated from its newsworthy , tell-all portions , is really an extended rumination on the nature of moral leadership . While it may come across as preachy to some , and others will highlight his own ( admitted ) shortcomings in this regard , Mr Comey has strong views on the standards those who seek high office should meet . In the most dramatic , final portion of his interview , he is definitive in saying Mr Trump has failed . Another portion of the interview handled the sacking of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn in February 2017 for lying about contacts with the Russian ambassador in Washington . The former FBI head said Mr Trump had tried to pressure him into dropping any investigation into Mr Flynn . `` I took it as a direction , '' he told Mr Stephanopoulos . `` He 's - his words were , though , ' I hope you can let it go ' . '' Mr Comey says he let the comment pass , but concedes he should perhaps have suggested to the president that it would amount to obstruction of justice . `` It 's certainly some evidence of obstruction of justice . It would depend and - and I 'm just a witness in this case , not the investigator or prosecutor , it would depend upon other things that reflected on his intent . '' Anthony 's take : When told that the president disputes his version of events , Mr Comey almost shrugs . `` Yeah , well , what am I going to do ? '' he asks . Both Mr Comey and Mr Trump , in very different language and tactics , are accusing the other of lying . The former director says he has contemporary memos that back up his claims . Mr Trump 's defenders want to see those documents , and accuse him of perjury and leaking classified information . For those investigating obstruction of justice - and , ultimately , the America people - it comes down to credibility . Who has it - and who does n't ? But despite all this , Mr Comey does not think the president should be impeached . `` I think impeaching and removing Donald Trump from office would let the American people off the hook , '' he told Mr Stephanopoulos . Instead , he believes the American people are `` duty-bound '' to remove Mr Trump `` directly '' at the ballot box . In the memoir itself , Mr Comey reportedly compares Mr Trump to a crime lord . He writes that interactions with the president gave him `` flashbacks to my earlier career as a prosecutor against the mob '' . The former FBI chief was a prosecutor earlier in his career , and helped break up the Gambino crime family . `` The silent circle of assent , '' he continues . `` The boss in complete control . The loyalty oaths . The us-versus-them worldview . `` The lying about all things , large and small , in service to some code of loyalty that put the organisation above morality and above the truth . '' Anthony 's take : After laying out a stunning moral indictment of Mr Trump , Mr Comey essentially says this is a choice the American people made - and one they have to correct themselves . Barring some sort of damning evidence , he says ending the Trump presidency is n't a job for prosecutors or politicians . The toll of such a move on an already deeply divided American society would be too high . It 's an interesting perspective for a former top-ranking law enforcement official to have - particularly one who earlier in the interview asserted that his 2016 investigations were done with no regard to the impact they would have on the `` political fortunes '' of those involved . In the TV interview , Mr Comey said his belief that Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 presidential elections was a factor in how he handled the investigation into the Democrat candidate 's use of classified emails on a private server while she was the secretary of state . `` I was operating in a world where Hillary Clinton was going to beat Donald Trump , '' Mr Comey said . `` And so I 'm sure that it - that it was a factor . `` I do n't remember spelling it out , but it had to have been . That - that she 's going to be elected president , and if I hide this from the American people , she 'll be illegitimate the moment she 's elected , the moment this comes out . '' In July 2016 , Mr Comey said Hillary Clinton had been `` extremely careless '' in her handling of the emails , but the FBI would not press charges . However , in October , days before the vote , he sent a letter to Congress telling them the FBI was reopening an investigation after finding more emails . The letter went public - and Mrs Clinton has said she would have won the election without it . On 6 November , the FBI said it had completed its review into the new trove of emails and there would , again , be no charges . Anthony 's take : In an unaired portion of the Comey interview , the former director says that the emails discovered in October were from early in Mrs Clinton 's tenure as secretary of state , before she started using her private server . If there were evidence of criminal misconduct , it would probably come from this time period . In the end , there was nothing revelatory - but Mr Comey cites this to explain why he made such a dramatic move . He decided to let a political bombshell go off just a week before the election , rather than try to defuse it in private and risk an even bigger explosion in the days after a presidential contest he believed Mrs Clinton would win . History will judge his choice . The former FBI boss writes that on at least four occasions Mr Trump raised the matter of unverified claims that he watched prostitutes urinate in a hotel suite during a 2013 Moscow trip . The allegations surfaced in a raw intelligence dossier compiled by a former British spy who had been hired by Mr Trump 's political enemies to dig up dirt on him . Mr Comey says Mr Trump angrily denied the claims and asked him to have the FBI disprove them because they were `` terrible '' for his wife , Melania Trump . He writes that he first broached the matter at a Trump Tower meeting in January 2017 shortly before the president 's inauguration . Mr Comey said in the interview : `` He interrupted very defensively and started talking about it , you know , 'Do I look like a guy who needs hookers ? ' `` And I assumed he was asking that rhetorically , I did n't answer that , and I just moved on and explained , 'Sir , I 'm not saying that we credit this , I 'm not saying we believe it . We just thought it very important that you know . ' '' Mr Comey added : `` I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth , but I do n't know whether the current president of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013 . It 's possible , but I do n't know . '' Anthony 's take : There is a moment as Mr Comey is recalling his Trump Tower conversation with the president-elect about Russian prostitutes that he expresses amazement over what is taking place , describing it like an out-of-body experience . `` I was floating above myself , looking down . '' It 's a sentiment with which many Americans - particularly those who have Mr Comey 's establishment sensibilities - can probably identify . Even a year on , they ca n't quite believe the Trump presidency is really happening - or that the man is governing , tweets and all , the way he campaigned . That aside , the December 2016 meeting was the first between the two men . Afterwards , it should have been clear that they were almost certainly heading on a collision course . Mr Comey , who is 6ft 8in ( 2.03m ) , says that when he first met the 6ft 3in president-elect , he appeared shorter than he did on TV . `` His face appeared slightly orange , '' writes Mr Comey , `` with bright white half-moons under his eyes where I assumed he placed small tanning goggles , and impressively coifed , bright blond hair , which upon close inspection looked to be all his . `` As he extended his hand , I made a mental note to check its size . It was smaller than mine , but did not seem unusually so . '' Elaborating on this in the TV interview , he said : `` His tie was too long as it always is ... he looked slightly orange up close . '' Anthony 's take : This interview should put to bed any question about whether Mr Comey has a natural talent for public relations . He sprinkles his comments throughout with the kind of little details and colour that keep an audience engaged . There 's the tidbits about the president 's personal appearance , his description of drinking wine out of a paper cup on flight home after being fired and his joke in the early days of the Clinton investigation that `` nobody gets out alive '' . Mr Comey would probably make a good politician - if he had n't spent the past two years , at different points , making almost everybody hate him .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Comey assesses Trump in new memoir The latest salvo by former FBI Director James Comey in his feud with President Donald Trump included the charge that the president was morally unfit and may have obstructed justice. In a primetime television interview, which precedes his book publication on Tuesday, he also said the Russians may have compromising information on Mr Trump. The book likens Mr Trump to a mob boss and details his fixation on claims he consorted with prostitutes in Moscow. On Twitter, Mr Trump branded him "Slippery James Comey", and says he lied to Congress. Here is a selection of what Mr Comey said in the interview, with analysis from the BBC's Anthony Zurcher in Washington. 1. 'Morally unfit' ABC News has released a full 42,000-word transcript of the interview. Host presenter George Stephanopoulos on ABC's 20/20 programme interviewed Mr Comey on Sunday night. When asked if he considered Mr Trump fit to lead, the former FBI director said he did not believe claims about Mr Trump's mental health, but did see him as "morally unfit" to be president. "A person who sees moral equivalence in Charlottesville, who talks about and treats women like they're pieces of meat, who lies constantly about matters big and small and insists the American people believe it, that person's not fit to be president of the United States," he told Mr Stephanopoulos. Mr Comey was referring to President Trump's argument that "both sides" were at fault for white supremacist violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, last year. Image copyright Reuters Image caption Mr Trump drew bipartisan criticism for his comments on Charlottesville Anthony's take: Mr Comey's book, separated from its newsworthy, tell-all portions, is really an extended rumination on the nature of moral leadership. While it may come across as preachy to some, and others will highlight his own (admitted) shortcomings in this regard, Mr Comey has strong views on the standards those who seek high office should meet. In the most dramatic, final portion of his interview, he is definitive in saying Mr Trump has failed. 2. Obstruction of justice Another portion of the interview handled the sacking of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn in February 2017 for lying about contacts with the Russian ambassador in Washington. The former FBI head said Mr Trump had tried to pressure him into dropping any investigation into Mr Flynn. "I took it as a direction," he told Mr Stephanopoulos. "He's - his words were, though, 'I hope you can let it go'." Mr Comey says he let the comment pass, but concedes he should perhaps have suggested to the president that it would amount to obstruction of justice. "It's certainly some evidence of obstruction of justice. It would depend and - and I'm just a witness in this case, not the investigator or prosecutor, it would depend upon other things that reflected on his intent." Mr Trump strongly denies Mr Comey's account. Anthony's take:When told that the president disputes his version of events, Mr Comey almost shrugs. "Yeah, well, what am I going to do?" he asks. Both Mr Comey and Mr Trump, in very different language and tactics, are accusing the other of lying. The former director says he has contemporary memos that back up his claims. Mr Trump's defenders want to see those documents, and accuse him of perjury and leaking classified information. For those investigating obstruction of justice - and, ultimately, the America people - it comes down to credibility. Who has it - and who doesn't? Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Michael Flynn resigned as President Trump's national security adviser after just 23 days 3. Impeachment? But despite all this, Mr Comey does not think the president should be impeached. "I think impeaching and removing Donald Trump from office would let the American people off the hook," he told Mr Stephanopoulos. Instead, he believes the American people are "duty-bound" to remove Mr Trump "directly" at the ballot box. In the memoir itself, Mr Comey reportedly compares Mr Trump to a crime lord. He writes that interactions with the president gave him "flashbacks to my earlier career as a prosecutor against the mob". The former FBI chief was a prosecutor earlier in his career, and helped break up the Gambino crime family. "The silent circle of assent," he continues. "The boss in complete control. The loyalty oaths. The us-versus-them worldview. "The lying about all things, large and small, in service to some code of loyalty that put the organisation above morality and above the truth." Anthony's take:After laying out a stunning moral indictment of Mr Trump, Mr Comey essentially says this is a choice the American people made - and one they have to correct themselves. Barring some sort of damning evidence, he says ending the Trump presidency isn't a job for prosecutors or politicians. The toll of such a move on an already deeply divided American society would be too high. It's an interesting perspective for a former top-ranking law enforcement official to have - particularly one who earlier in the interview asserted that his 2016 investigations were done with no regard to the impact they would have on the "political fortunes" of those involved. 4. Clinton emails probe In the TV interview, Mr Comey said his belief that Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 presidential elections was a factor in how he handled the investigation into the Democrat candidate's use of classified emails on a private server while she was the secretary of state. "I was operating in a world where Hillary Clinton was going to beat Donald Trump," Mr Comey said. "And so I'm sure that it - that it was a factor. "I don't remember spelling it out, but it had to have been. That - that she's going to be elected president, and if I hide this from the American people, she'll be illegitimate the moment she's elected, the moment this comes out." In July 2016, Mr Comey said Hillary Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her handling of the emails, but the FBI would not press charges. However, in October, days before the vote, he sent a letter to Congress telling them the FBI was reopening an investigation after finding more emails. The letter went public - and Mrs Clinton has said she would have won the election without it. On 6 November, the FBI said it had completed its review into the new trove of emails and there would, again, be no charges. Anthony's take: In an unaired portion of the Comey interview, the former director says that the emails discovered in October were from early in Mrs Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, before she started using her private server. If there were evidence of criminal misconduct, it would probably come from this time period. In the end, there was nothing revelatory - but Mr Comey cites this to explain why he made such a dramatic move. He decided to let a political bombshell go off just a week before the election, rather than try to defuse it in private and risk an even bigger explosion in the days after a presidential contest he believed Mrs Clinton would win. History will judge his choice. 5. 'Moscow prostitutes' The former FBI boss writes that on at least four occasions Mr Trump raised the matter of unverified claims that he watched prostitutes urinate in a hotel suite during a 2013 Moscow trip. The allegations surfaced in a raw intelligence dossier compiled by a former British spy who had been hired by Mr Trump's political enemies to dig up dirt on him. Mr Comey says Mr Trump angrily denied the claims and asked him to have the FBI disprove them because they were "terrible" for his wife, Melania Trump. He writes that he first broached the matter at a Trump Tower meeting in January 2017 shortly before the president's inauguration. Mr Comey said in the interview: "He interrupted very defensively and started talking about it, you know, 'Do I look like a guy who needs hookers?' Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Do Trump voters care about the Russia investigation? "And I assumed he was asking that rhetorically, I didn't answer that, and I just moved on and explained, 'Sir, I'm not saying that we credit this, I'm not saying we believe it. We just thought it very important that you know.'" Mr Comey added: "I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don't know whether the current president of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013. It's possible, but I don't know." Anthony's take: There is a moment as Mr Comey is recalling his Trump Tower conversation with the president-elect about Russian prostitutes that he expresses amazement over what is taking place, describing it like an out-of-body experience. "I was floating above myself, looking down." It's a sentiment with which many Americans - particularly those who have Mr Comey's establishment sensibilities - can probably identify. Even a year on, they can't quite believe the Trump presidency is really happening - or that the man is governing, tweets and all, the way he campaigned. That aside, the December 2016 meeting was the first between the two men. Afterwards, it should have been clear that they were almost certainly heading on a collision course. 6. Trump's hair and hands Mr Comey, who is 6ft 8in (2.03m), says that when he first met the 6ft 3in president-elect, he appeared shorter than he did on TV. "His face appeared slightly orange," writes Mr Comey, "with bright white half-moons under his eyes where I assumed he placed small tanning goggles, and impressively coifed, bright blond hair, which upon close inspection looked to be all his. "As he extended his hand, I made a mental note to check its size. It was smaller than mine, but did not seem unusually so." Elaborating on this in the TV interview, he said: "His tie was too long as it always is... he looked slightly orange up close." Anthony's take:This interview should put to bed any question about whether Mr Comey has a natural talent for public relations. He sprinkles his comments throughout with the kind of little details and colour that keep an audience engaged. There's the tidbits about the president's personal appearance, his description of drinking wine out of a paper cup on flight home after being fired and his joke in the early days of the Clinton investigation that "nobody gets out alive". Mr Comey would probably make a good politician - if he hadn't spent the past two years, at different points, making almost everybody hate him.

www.bbc.com

center

u6jRZYdAl1zGcttW

test

GTK7bdAVk3ZseTML

national_defense

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46694206

Trump in Iraq: Recognition, fiction, friction

Donald Trump 's unannounced Christmas visit to US troops in Iraq succeeded as a morale-boosting exercise , judging from the standing ovation the president got . Equally , and perhaps predictably , the trip had its controversial moments - and his legendary attachment to social media had something to do with it . Mr Trump travelled to al-Asad airbase , west of Baghdad , to thank armed forces personnel for what they had achieved in Iraq against Islamic State ( IS ) , the Sunni Muslim militant group , during his tenure as commander-in-chief : `` Two years ago when I became president they were a very dominant group , today they 're not so dominant any more . Great job . '' `` We 're no longer the suckers , folks , '' he said . `` We 're respected again as a nation . '' Mr Trump was accompanied by First Lady Melania Trump on the first trip of his presidency to a war zone . The couple walked amid troops , posing for selfies and signing autographs . More than 5,000 US troops remain in Iraq to train and advise local forces , who are fighting what remains of IS following a string a victories last year . Exposure : Did smiling Navy Seals know the whole world would see their faces ? Shortly after he left Iraqi airspace , Mr Trump proudly shared a video of what he 'd been up to during the visit . But it did n't take long for eagle-eyed watchers to point out something it seemed Mr Trump and his team might have missed . It appears that those in the video include an elite US Navy Seal team , according to Newsweek . A team , the magazine pointed out , which would usually have their identities protected . Malcolm Nance , a former US Navy intelligence specialist , told the magazine it would be a very unusual decision to picture them so clearly while on duty because , if any of them were captured , `` there would be no denying who you are and what you do '' . Mr Trump also took a selfie with US Navy Lt Cmdr Kyu Lee , who told him he was with Seal Team Five - a fact later reported by the pool of reporters travelling with the president . The White House has not commented on why they decided against taking such precautions , as some of his predecessors did . The president also announced that he had secured a sizable pay increase for troops . Some of his advisers had suggested 2 , 3 or 4 % , he said , adding that he had made clear that this was not enough : `` I said : 'No . Make it 10 % . Make it more than 10 % . ' Because it 's been a long time , it 's been more than 10 years . '' But as a number of US commentators noted , armed forces personnel have in fact received a pay rise in each of the past 10 years . The increase for 2019 , approved by Congress and signed by the president in August , will be 2.6 % . It is the largest rise for troops since 2010 , but not significantly more than last year 's 2.4 % . Any trip by a US president has to be planned down to the last detail , to make sure there are no holes in the security arrangements . A trip to an active war zone has to be planned with special care - and secretly . Mr Trump was apparently very happy , regaling reporters with tales of how they had travelled with the windows closed and lights off so as not to attract any attention . But unfortunately , when you are in arguably the world 's most recognisable aircraft , the chance of being spotted is always high . And on this occasion , Alan Meloy captured a perfect image of the plane soaring over Sheffield , UK , on Boxing Day . From there , Twitter sleuths and plane enthusiasts began to track the aircraft as it made its way across Europe and to Iraq , with a number of people guessing where it was headed . Mr Trump is , of course , not the only president to travel on Air Force One on a secret visit to a warzone . His predecessors have done so . However , the fact it was quite so easy to follow what the president was doing had more than a few people concerned . `` Sources telling me Trump 's on his way to visit troops - possibly in Iraq . Better late than never , '' tweeted Paul Rieckhoff , founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America . `` But also a bit troubling that so many folks seem to already know about this if it has n't happened already . # OpSec anyone ? '' President Trump was due to meet Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi during the trip but the talks were cancelled over what Mr Mahdi 's office called `` disagreements '' over organisation . Iraqi MPs told Reuters news agency that Mr Trump had asked for the meeting to take place at the al-Asad military base , an offer declined by the prime minister . When asked if he had had concerns about the visit , Mr Trump told reporters : `` Absolutely . I had concerns for the institution of the presidency - not for myself , personally . I had concerns for the first lady , I will tell you . '' Mr Mahdi 's office said US officials had given Iraq advance notice of the presidential visit , but powerful local figures clearly took umbrage . Sabah al-Saadi , who leads the Shia Muslim parliamentary bloc Islah , called it a `` blatant violation of Iraq 's sovereignty '' . Qais al-Khazali , commander of Asaib Ahl al-Haqq , Iraq 's most powerful Shia Muslim militia , also objected to the trip . He warned in a tweet that parliament would respond to the visit by `` forcing the US troops to leave Iraq '' .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption US President Donald Trump: 'We're no longer the suckers, folks' Donald Trump's unannounced Christmas visit to US troops in Iraq succeeded as a morale-boosting exercise, judging from the standing ovation the president got. Equally, and perhaps predictably, the trip had its controversial moments - and his legendary attachment to social media had something to do with it. Recognition: 'We're no longer the suckers' Mr Trump travelled to al-Asad airbase, west of Baghdad, to thank armed forces personnel for what they had achieved in Iraq against Islamic State (IS), the Sunni Muslim militant group, during his tenure as commander-in-chief: "Two years ago when I became president they were a very dominant group, today they're not so dominant any more. Great job." "We're no longer the suckers, folks," he said. "We're respected again as a nation." Image copyright AFP Image caption President Trump and his wife met military personnel at the al-Asad airbase, west of Baghdad Mr Trump was accompanied by First Lady Melania Trump on the first trip of his presidency to a war zone. The couple walked amid troops, posing for selfies and signing autographs. More than 5,000 US troops remain in Iraq to train and advise local forces, who are fighting what remains of IS following a string a victories last year. Exposure: Did smiling Navy Seals know the whole world would see their faces? Shortly after he left Iraqi airspace, Mr Trump proudly shared a video of what he'd been up to during the visit. But it didn't take long for eagle-eyed watchers to point out something it seemed Mr Trump and his team might have missed. It appears that those in the video include an elite US Navy Seal team, according to Newsweek. A team, the magazine pointed out, which would usually have their identities protected. Malcolm Nance, a former US Navy intelligence specialist, told the magazine it would be a very unusual decision to picture them so clearly while on duty because, if any of them were captured, "there would be no denying who you are and what you do". Mr Trump also took a selfie with US Navy Lt Cmdr Kyu Lee, who told him he was with Seal Team Five - a fact later reported by the pool of reporters travelling with the president. The White House has not commented on why they decided against taking such precautions, as some of his predecessors did. Fiction: What was the pay rise figure? The president also announced that he had secured a sizable pay increase for troops. Some of his advisers had suggested 2, 3 or 4%, he said, adding that he had made clear that this was not enough: "I said: 'No. Make it 10%. Make it more than 10%.' Because it's been a long time, it's been more than 10 years." Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Is this the end for Islamic State? But as a number of US commentators noted, armed forces personnel have in fact received a pay rise in each of the past 10 years. The increase for 2019, approved by Congress and signed by the president in August, will be 2.6%. It is the largest rise for troops since 2010, but not significantly more than last year's 2.4%. Secret's out: Trump's plane tracked Any trip by a US president has to be planned down to the last detail, to make sure there are no holes in the security arrangements. A trip to an active war zone has to be planned with special care - and secretly. Mr Trump was apparently very happy, regaling reporters with tales of how they had travelled with the windows closed and lights off so as not to attract any attention. But unfortunately, when you are in arguably the world's most recognisable aircraft, the chance of being spotted is always high. And on this occasion, Alan Meloy captured a perfect image of the plane soaring over Sheffield, UK, on Boxing Day. From there, Twitter sleuths and plane enthusiasts began to track the aircraft as it made its way across Europe and to Iraq, with a number of people guessing where it was headed. Mr Trump is, of course, not the only president to travel on Air Force One on a secret visit to a warzone. His predecessors have done so. However, the fact it was quite so easy to follow what the president was doing had more than a few people concerned. "Sources telling me Trump's on his way to visit troops - possibly in Iraq. Better late than never," tweeted Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. "But also a bit troubling that so many folks seem to already know about this if it hasn't happened already. #OpSec anyone?" Friction: Iraqi host not too pleased President Trump was due to meet Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi during the trip but the talks were cancelled over what Mr Mahdi's office called "disagreements" over organisation. Iraqi MPs told Reuters news agency that Mr Trump had asked for the meeting to take place at the al-Asad military base, an offer declined by the prime minister. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Mr Trump said he was concerned for Melania during their Iraq visit When asked if he had had concerns about the visit, Mr Trump told reporters: "Absolutely. I had concerns for the institution of the presidency - not for myself, personally. I had concerns for the first lady, I will tell you." Mr Mahdi's office said US officials had given Iraq advance notice of the presidential visit, but powerful local figures clearly took umbrage. Sabah al-Saadi, who leads the Shia Muslim parliamentary bloc Islah, called it a "blatant violation of Iraq's sovereignty". Qais al-Khazali, commander of Asaib Ahl al-Haqq, Iraq's most powerful Shia Muslim militia, also objected to the trip. He warned in a tweet that parliament would respond to the visit by "forcing the US troops to leave Iraq".

www.bbc.com

center

GTK7bdAVk3ZseTML

test

qlbu5BqkftXRK0Op

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/15/mitch-mcconnell-on-allowing-debt-ceiling-vote-i-had-to-do-whats-best-for-the-country/

Mitch McConnell on allowing debt-ceiling vote: "I had to do what's best for the country"

2014-02-15

Washington ( CNN ) - Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Kentucky , on Friday defended his decision back home in Kentucky to join Democrats in a vote to clear a filibuster hurdle that allowed a vote to raise the debt ceiling . `` My job is to protect the country when I can and to step up and lead on those occasions when it 's required . That 's what I did , '' he said at a campaign appearance in Louisville . McConnell was one of 12 Republican senators to join Democrats on Tuesday in voting to end debate on the debt-ceiling bill that will extend the federal debt limit for a year , a move his opponents have been quick to criticize him for . President Obama signed the bill into law Saturday in California , the White House said in a statement . Matt Bevin , a tea party conservative who is challenging McConnell in the Kentucky GOP primary in May , said in a statement after the vote Tuesday , `` Kentucky and America can literally no longer afford such financially reckless behavior from the likes of Mitch McConnell . '' Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas , who threatened to filibuster the vote , criticized Senate Republicans for joining with Democrats to vote for the bill saying , `` Every Senate Republican should have stood together . '' Commenting on McConnell 's vote , Cruz said that it `` is ultimately a decision for the voters in Kentucky . '' Both Bevin and Cruz also said that McConnell and other Senate Republicans helped give Obama a `` blank check . '' Appearing on Mark Levin 's radio program Thursday night , Cruz said , `` If 41 Republicans had stood together and just voted no , the clean debt ceiling , the blank check for President Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi , would have been denied . '' On Friday Bevin tweeted , `` @ Team_Mitch gave Obama blank check to 'take one for the team ' Which team is he talkin about ? '' When asked about his opponents ’ comments , McConnell defended his position at the event Friday saying , `` My preference is for a debt ceiling to carry additional legislation that does something about the debt . '' `` I 've obviously demonstrated that , '' McConnell said . `` I negotiated the Budget Control Act with Vice President Biden in August of 2011 . It led to a deficit-reduction package that actually reduced government spending for two years in a row for the first time since right after the Korean War . '' McConnell said the House 's inability to come together on a different version of the bill gave him no choice but to vote in favor of passing a clean debt-ceiling bill . `` My first choice would be to pass a debt ceiling that had something related to doing something about the debt on it , but as you know , the House of Representatives could n't pass anything else other than a clean debt ceiling . They could n't pass anything else . '' `` The Speaker tried a whole lot of different versions , add-ons to the debt ceiling . He could n't get to 218 no matter what combination . So we were confronted with a clean debt ceiling in the Senate or default . '' House Speaker John Boehner , after unsuccessfully trying to gather enough Republicans to vote on a new version of the bill joked on February 6th , `` You know , Mother Teresa is a saint now , but if the Congress wanted to make her a saint and attach that to the debt ceiling , you probably could n't get 218 Republican votes . '' McConnell also defended his record as a legislator who averts crises , saying : `` I believe I have to act in the best interest of the country , and every time we 've been confronted with a potential crisis , the guy you 're looking at is the one who stepped up and solved the problem , ” he said . “ Whether it was the fiscal cliff deal at the end of 2012 , when everyone 's taxes were going up . Whether it was last October in the 16th day of the government shutdown or yesterday , or Thursday , when it was clear that we needed to produce enough procedural votes to get to a debt ceiling vote in order to avoid a default . ''

6 years ago Washington (CNN) - Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, on Friday defended his decision back home in Kentucky to join Democrats in a vote to clear a filibuster hurdle that allowed a vote to raise the debt ceiling. "My job is to protect the country when I can and to step up and lead on those occasions when it's required. That's what I did," he said at a campaign appearance in Louisville. McConnell was one of 12 Republican senators to join Democrats on Tuesday in voting to end debate on the debt-ceiling bill that will extend the federal debt limit for a year, a move his opponents have been quick to criticize him for. President Obama signed the bill into law Saturday in California, the White House said in a statement. Follow @politicaltickerFollow @sarafischer Matt Bevin, a tea party conservative who is challenging McConnell in the Kentucky GOP primary in May, said in a statement after the vote Tuesday, "Kentucky and America can literally no longer afford such financially reckless behavior from the likes of Mitch McConnell." Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who threatened to filibuster the vote, criticized Senate Republicans for joining with Democrats to vote for the bill saying, "Every Senate Republican should have stood together." Commenting on McConnell's vote, Cruz said that it "is ultimately a decision for the voters in Kentucky." Both Bevin and Cruz also said that McConnell and other Senate Republicans helped give Obama a "blank check." Appearing on Mark Levin's radio program Thursday night, Cruz said, "If 41 Republicans had stood together and just voted no, the clean debt ceiling, the blank check for President Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, would have been denied." On Friday Bevin tweeted, "@Team_Mitch gave Obama blank check to 'take one for the team' Which team is he talkin about?" When asked about his opponents’ comments, McConnell defended his position at the event Friday saying, "My preference is for a debt ceiling to carry additional legislation that does something about the debt." "I've obviously demonstrated that," McConnell said. "I negotiated the Budget Control Act with Vice President Biden in August of 2011. It led to a deficit-reduction package that actually reduced government spending for two years in a row for the first time since right after the Korean War." McConnell said the House's inability to come together on a different version of the bill gave him no choice but to vote in favor of passing a clean debt-ceiling bill. "My first choice would be to pass a debt ceiling that had something related to doing something about the debt on it, but as you know, the House of Representatives couldn't pass anything else other than a clean debt ceiling. They couldn't pass anything else." "The Speaker tried a whole lot of different versions, add-ons to the debt ceiling. He couldn't get to 218 no matter what combination. So we were confronted with a clean debt ceiling in the Senate or default." House Speaker John Boehner, after unsuccessfully trying to gather enough Republicans to vote on a new version of the bill joked on February 6th, "You know, Mother Teresa is a saint now, but if the Congress wanted to make her a saint and attach that to the debt ceiling, you probably couldn't get 218 Republican votes." McConnell also defended his record as a legislator who averts crises, saying: "I believe I have to act in the best interest of the country, and every time we've been confronted with a potential crisis, the guy you're looking at is the one who stepped up and solved the problem,” he said. “Whether it was the fiscal cliff deal at the end of 2012, when everyone's taxes were going up. Whether it was last October in the 16th day of the government shutdown or yesterday, or Thursday, when it was clear that we needed to produce enough procedural votes to get to a debt ceiling vote in order to avoid a default."

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

qlbu5BqkftXRK0Op

test

cWou6I8u5QCHCGhE

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2017/06/29/donald-trumps-myth-is-coming-unglued-how-did-the-supposed-master-dealmaker-become-a-spectacularly-incompetent-president/

Donald Trump’s myth is coming unglued: How did the supposed master dealmaker become a spectacularly incompetent president?

2017-06-29

Heather Digparton

Last year on the campaign trail , Donald Trump made a lot of promises , almost always adding that he planned to fulfill them `` quickly . '' He would say , `` We will defeat ISIS and we will do it very , very quickly , '' or `` We 're disrespected right now all over the world . But that will change very , very quickly . '' ( He was right about that one . It changed very quickly , but not for the better . ) I will ask Congress to convene a special session so we can repeal and replace and it will be such an honor for me , for you and for everybody in this country , because Obamacare has to be replaced . And we will do it and we will do it very , very quickly . No one understood why Trump would need to convene a special session of Congress but it sounded very forceful and `` strong '' ( another word he uses constantly ) . He got so grandiose in his promises to act quickly that at one point he pledged to get nearly his entire agenda done on the very first day . What his followers truly loved about him , of course , was that he was saying out loud all the politically incorrect things they felt inhibited from saying in polite company , for fear of someone thinking they are n't nice people . His candidacy , especially the rallies , provided one gigantic safe space for people to cheer for things that liberals hate . But when you asked people why they thought he would make a good president , it was always because he was a successful businessman who knew how to get things done . Trump 's entire pitch was based on his supposedly legendary ability to negotiate . He flogged `` The Art of the Deal '' like it was the Bible , signing it on rope lines for his adoring fans and constantly calling it the bestselling business book of all time . This was the myth underlying his reality TV `` Apprentice '' persona , which was inspired by the book . Trump was supposed to be a master negotiator who would singlehandedly cut new global trade deals to favor U.S. businesses and leave the rest of the world happily promising to pay more and get less . He would stare down world leaders and they would respect him for his manly strength and determination . He would bring Democrats and Republicans together in a room and bang their heads together until they came to an agreement . He was that good . Do I even need to say it ? None of that has worked out . The Republicans ca n't seem to get any legislation to Trump 's desk , and he has proven to be counterproductive whenever he gets involved . Not only has n't he lived up to the hype , he 's actually much worse at negotiating than any president in modern memory . Glenn Thrush and Jonathan Martin , reporting for the New York Times , examined why Trump ca n't seem to make any deals as president , and found that much of it is because of his terrible relationships with many Republican officials . Issuing crude threats against Republican senators who come out against him , as a Trump-allied Super PAC did this week when Sen. Dean Heller announced he would n't vote for the Senate health care bill , has been called `` beyond stupid '' by none other than Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell himself . A senator who supports the bill left the meeting at the White House with a sense that the president did not have a grasp of some basic elements of the Senate plan — and seemed especially confused when a moderate Republican complained that opponents of the bill would cast it as a massive tax break for the wealthy , according to an aide who received a detailed readout of the exchange . Mr. Trump said he planned to tackle tax reform later , ignoring the repeal ’ s tax implications , the staff member added . It is widely understood , including by its Republican authors , that the bill was a massive tax cut disguised as health care legislation . That the president did n't know that means he clearly had n't read the bill in any depth nor had he read the news media reports about it . Washington is n't the real estate and brand licensing world that Trump is used to . It 's clear that he 's in way over his head . But it 's worth remembering that there 's a lot of evidence that he was never very good at making deals . Tony Schwartz , Trump 's ghostwriter on `` The Art of the Deal , '' came forward during the campaign to confess that most of what he 'd written in that book , which is the basis for the Trump myth , is just that -- a myth . Trump inherited a lot of money from his father , who had political juice in New York and co-signed Trump 's deals for years . He struggled for years , through bankruptcy and failed entrepreneurial ventures , managing to survive by finding new and novel ways to fund his lifestyle ( some of which are being investigated by the FBI and the special prosecutor right now ) . The `` Trump brand '' was slapped on any cheap consumer product he could persuade to take it . Trump 's particular problem in politics is that he has an extremely short attention span , which means that the learning curve for the presidency , which is steep for anyone , may just be too much for him to master . Schwartz told the New Yorker 's Jane Mayer that this problem has left Trump with “ a stunning level of superficial knowledge and plain ignorance , '' explaining , “ that ’ s why he so prefers TV as his first news source — information comes in easily digestible sound bites . ” It 's impossible , Schwartz said , `` to keep [ Trump ] focussed on any topic , other than his own self-aggrandizement , for more than a few minutes , and even then ... if he had to be briefed on a crisis in the Situation Room , it ’ s impossible to imagine him paying attention over a long period of time . '' Schwartz described Trump as not a dealmaker at all but merely a self-promoter who craves “ money , praise , and celebrity '' and never gets enough of it . These are not unusual traits among leaders , but they are not sufficient or even necessary for the job he has now . Trump seems to have thought being president was a performance , like the fantasy role he played on `` The Apprentice . '' There 's a lot more to it than just holding photo-ops sitting behind a desk announcing something that you have n't read and do n't really understand . So far he has n't shown any evidence whatever that he 's up to the task .

Last year on the campaign trail, Donald Trump made a lot of promises, almost always adding that he planned to fulfill them "quickly." He would say, "We will defeat ISIS and we will do it very, very quickly," or "We're disrespected right now all over the world. But that will change very, very quickly." (He was right about that one. It changed very quickly, but not for the better.) Just before the election in November he said this: Advertisement: I will ask Congress to convene a special session so we can repeal and replace and it will be such an honor for me, for you and for everybody in this country, because Obamacare has to be replaced. And we will do it and we will do it very, very quickly. No one understood why Trump would need to convene a special session of Congress but it sounded very forceful and "strong" (another word he uses constantly). He got so grandiose in his promises to act quickly that at one point he pledged to get nearly his entire agenda done on the very first day. What his followers truly loved about him, of course, was that he was saying out loud all the politically incorrect things they felt inhibited from saying in polite company, for fear of someone thinking they aren't nice people. His candidacy, especially the rallies, provided one gigantic safe space for people to cheer for things that liberals hate. But when you asked people why they thought he would make a good president, it was always because he was a successful businessman who knew how to get things done. Trump's entire pitch was based on his supposedly legendary ability to negotiate. He flogged "The Art of the Deal" like it was the Bible, signing it on rope lines for his adoring fans and constantly calling it the bestselling business book of all time. This was the myth underlying his reality TV "Apprentice" persona, which was inspired by the book. Advertisement: Trump was supposed to be a master negotiator who would singlehandedly cut new global trade deals to favor U.S. businesses and leave the rest of the world happily promising to pay more and get less. He would stare down world leaders and they would respect him for his manly strength and determination. He would bring Democrats and Republicans together in a room and bang their heads together until they came to an agreement. He was that good. Do I even need to say it? None of that has worked out. The Republicans can't seem to get any legislation to Trump's desk, and he has proven to be counterproductive whenever he gets involved. Not only hasn't he lived up to the hype, he's actually much worse at negotiating than any president in modern memory. Glenn Thrush and Jonathan Martin, reporting for the New York Times, examined why Trump can't seem to make any deals as president, and found that much of it is because of his terrible relationships with many Republican officials. Issuing crude threats against Republican senators who come out against him, as a Trump-allied Super PAC did this week when Sen. Dean Heller announced he wouldn't vote for the Senate health care bill, has been called "beyond stupid" by none other than Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell himself. Advertisement: But the larger problem for Trump is that he simply lacks the knowledge one needs to be able to negotiate successfully. Thrush and Martin note: A senator who supports the bill left the meeting at the White House with a sense that the president did not have a grasp of some basic elements of the Senate plan — and seemed especially confused when a moderate Republican complained that opponents of the bill would cast it as a massive tax break for the wealthy, according to an aide who received a detailed readout of the exchange. Mr. Trump said he planned to tackle tax reform later, ignoring the repeal’s tax implications, the staff member added. It is widely understood, including by its Republican authors, that the bill was a massive tax cut disguised as health care legislation. That the president didn't know that means he clearly hadn't read the bill in any depth nor had he read the news media reports about it. Advertisement: Washington isn't the real estate and brand licensing world that Trump is used to. It's clear that he's in way over his head. But it's worth remembering that there's a lot of evidence that he was never very good at making deals. Tony Schwartz, Trump's ghostwriter on "The Art of the Deal," came forward during the campaign to confess that most of what he'd written in that book, which is the basis for the Trump myth, is just that -- a myth. Trump inherited a lot of money from his father, who had political juice in New York and co-signed Trump's deals for years. He struggled for years, through bankruptcy and failed entrepreneurial ventures, managing to survive by finding new and novel ways to fund his lifestyle (some of which are being investigated by the FBI and the special prosecutor right now). The "Trump brand" was slapped on any cheap consumer product he could persuade to take it. Trump's particular problem in politics is that he has an extremely short attention span, which means that the learning curve for the presidency, which is steep for anyone, may just be too much for him to master. Schwartz told the New Yorker's Jane Mayer that this problem has left Trump with “a stunning level of superficial knowledge and plain ignorance," explaining, “that’s why he so prefers TV as his first news source — information comes in easily digestible sound bites.” Advertisement: It's impossible, Schwartz said, "to keep [Trump] focussed on any topic, other than his own self-aggrandizement, for more than a few minutes, and even then ... if he had to be briefed on a crisis in the Situation Room, it’s impossible to imagine him paying attention over a long period of time." Schwartz described Trump as not a dealmaker at all but merely a self-promoter who craves “money, praise, and celebrity" and never gets enough of it. These are not unusual traits among leaders, but they are not sufficient or even necessary for the job he has now. Trump seems to have thought being president was a performance, like the fantasy role he played on "The Apprentice." There's a lot more to it than just holding photo-ops sitting behind a desk announcing something that you haven't read and don't really understand. So far he hasn't shown any evidence whatever that he's up to the task.

www.salon.com

left

cWou6I8u5QCHCGhE

test

22vN4p6LM3wu7uI0

media_bias

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/08/chinese-propaganda-china-daily-washington-post/

Chinese Propaganda Outlet Has Paid US Newspapers $19 Million For Advertising, Printing

2020-06-08

One of China ’ s main propaganda outlets has paid American newspapers nearly $ 19 million for advertising and printing expenses over the past four years , according to documents filed with the Justice Department . China Daily , an English-language newspaper controlled by the Chinese Communist Party , has paid more than $ 4.6 million to The Washington Post and nearly $ 6 million to The Wall Street Journal since November 2016 , the records show . Both newspapers have published paid supplements that China Daily produces called “ China Watch. ” The inserts are designed to look like real news articles , though they often contain a pro-Beijing spin on contemporary news events . One insert from September 2018 touted an initiative pushed by Chinese President Xi Jinping with the headline : “ Belt and Road aligns with African nations. ” The same insert ran a story titled “ Tariffs to take toll on U.S. homebuyers ” that asserted that U.S. tariffs on Chinese lumber would raise the cost of building homes in the United States . China Daily also paid for advertising in several other newspapers : The New York Times ( $ 50,000 ) , Foreign Policy ( $ 240,000 ) , The Des Moines Register ( $ 34,600 ) and CQ-Roll Call ( $ 76,000 ) . It spent a total of $ 11,002,628 on advertising in U.S. newspapers , and another $ 265,822 on advertising with Twitter . China Daily has also paid out more than $ 7.6 million to newspapers and printing companies for its newspaper for U.S.-based readers , the Justice Department ’ s filings show . ( RELATED : PBS Stations That Received Millions In Federal Funds Partnered With Chinese Foreign Agent On Pro-Beijing Film ) The Los Angeles Times , The Seattle Times , The Atlanta Journal-Constitution , The Chicago Tribune , The Houston Chronicle and The Boston Globe are all listed as clients of China Daily . The Chinese outlet paid the Los Angeles Times $ 657,523 for printing services , according to the FARA filings . The Justice Department has for years required China Daily to disclose its activities semi-annually under the Foreign Agents Registration Act ( FARA ) . The most recent filing , which China Daily submitted on June 1 , is the first to include detailed breakdowns of payments to American news outlets . The outlet disclosed those expenditures for the period between November 2016 and April 2020 . ( RELATED : Chinese Propaganda Has Influenced The Daily Mail ’ s Coronavirus Coverage ) It is unclear if China Daily submitted the more detailed filings under pressure from the Justice Department or on its own . Pro-democracy groups have long warned about the Chinese government ’ s attempts to push propaganda through American news outlets . Freedom House and the Hoover Institution have both drawn attention to China Daily ’ s paid inserts in reports on the Chinese government ’ s efforts to influence the media . China Daily and other Beijing-controlled propaganda mills have come under intense scrutiny amid the coronavirus pandemic . Chinese government officials have tried to divert blame for the spread of the virus to the United States and other Western nations . Many of the regime-controlled outlets , including China Daily , have echoed the communist leaders ’ talking points . China Daily has slowed its advertising expenditures in recent months , the filings show . China Daily last paid The Washington Post for advertising in December 2019 . Its payments to The Wall Street Journal have been less than half their average amount since February 2020 , the documents show . China Daily did not respond to a request for comment .

One of China’s main propaganda outlets has paid American newspapers nearly $19 million for advertising and printing expenses over the past four years, according to documents filed with the Justice Department. China Daily, an English-language newspaper controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, has paid more than $4.6 million to The Washington Post and nearly $6 million to The Wall Street Journal since November 2016, the records show. Both newspapers have published paid supplements that China Daily produces called “China Watch.” The inserts are designed to look like real news articles, though they often contain a pro-Beijing spin on contemporary news events. One insert from September 2018 touted an initiative pushed by Chinese President Xi Jinping with the headline: “Belt and Road aligns with African nations.” The same insert ran a story titled “Tariffs to take toll on U.S. homebuyers” that asserted that U.S. tariffs on Chinese lumber would raise the cost of building homes in the United States. China Daily also paid for advertising in several other newspapers: The New York Times ($50,000), Foreign Policy ($240,000), The Des Moines Register ($34,600) and CQ-Roll Call ($76,000). It spent a total of $11,002,628 on advertising in U.S. newspapers, and another $265,822 on advertising with Twitter. China Daily has also paid out more than $7.6 million to newspapers and printing companies for its newspaper for U.S.-based readers, the Justice Department’s filings show. (RELATED: PBS Stations That Received Millions In Federal Funds Partnered With Chinese Foreign Agent On Pro-Beijing Film) The Los Angeles Times, The Seattle Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Chicago Tribune, The Houston Chronicle and The Boston Globe are all listed as clients of China Daily. The Chinese outlet paid the Los Angeles Times $657,523 for printing services, according to the FARA filings. The Justice Department has for years required China Daily to disclose its activities semi-annually under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The most recent filing, which China Daily submitted on June 1, is the first to include detailed breakdowns of payments to American news outlets. The outlet disclosed those expenditures for the period between November 2016 and April 2020. (RELATED: Chinese Propaganda Has Influenced The Daily Mail’s Coronavirus Coverage) It is unclear if China Daily submitted the more detailed filings under pressure from the Justice Department or on its own. Pro-democracy groups have long warned about the Chinese government’s attempts to push propaganda through American news outlets. Freedom House and the Hoover Institution have both drawn attention to China Daily’s paid inserts in reports on the Chinese government’s efforts to influence the media. China Daily and other Beijing-controlled propaganda mills have come under intense scrutiny amid the coronavirus pandemic. Chinese government officials have tried to divert blame for the spread of the virus to the United States and other Western nations. Many of the regime-controlled outlets, including China Daily, have echoed the communist leaders’ talking points. China Daily has slowed its advertising expenditures in recent months, the filings show. China Daily last paid The Washington Post for advertising in December 2019. Its payments to The Wall Street Journal have been less than half their average amount since February 2020, the documents show. China Daily did not respond to a request for comment. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

www.dailycaller.com

right

22vN4p6LM3wu7uI0

test

SKU8tjEo854GxRCQ

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/24/how_to_demolish_the_oligarchy_in_3_easy_steps/

How to demolish the oligarchy in 3 easy steps

2015-04-24

Michael Lind

“ Equal rights for all , special privileges for none. ” That was the motto of Jacksonian democracy . I ’ m generally not a fan of Jacksonian politics in general , but Jacksonian hostility to “ class legislation , ” or different policies for different classes and categories of citizens , is an idea that people on left , right and center can embrace . Case in point : We need to replace a bewildering miscellany of tax and economic security programs targeted at different constituencies with a few simple and universal policies that are identical for every Americans , rich , poor and middle class . Let ’ s start with health care . Following the passage of the Affordable Care Act , we Americans now have a means-tested program for the poor , Medicaid , divided between the federal government and the states ; another means-tested , state-based program for children , SCHIP ( State Children ’ s Health Insurance Program ) ; a purely federal system for the elderly , Medicare ; employer-based health insurance subsidized by the tax code ; a system of tax-subsidized individual health insurance for working-age people purchased through exchanges ; and the Veterans ’ Administration , a separate system for retired military personnel . And those are only the major public health care programs . That ’ s right . We have six separate , major American health care programs , with different streams of revenue and based on different systems . Medicaid and Medicare are single-payer , multiple provider . The Veterans Administration is single-payer/single-provider . The ACA exchanges are based on an individual mandate . Medicare and the VA system and the subsidy to employer-provided health insurance provided by the federal tax code are purely federal policies . Medicaid and the exchanges and SCHIP are partly federal , partly state-based . America ’ s health care policies are a dog ’ s breakfast . America ’ s retirement policies are a dog ’ s breakfast that a dog barfed up later . We have a universal , federal public defined benefit ( DB ) system : Social Security . We have federal tax subsidies to employer-based DB pensions . And that ’ s not all . We have a variety of tax-favored private defined contribution ( DC ) systems , including IRAs and 401 ( k ) s. Oh , and most public employees—teachers , fire fighters , police—are covered by separate , public DB pension plans—huge pools of state-controlled money frequently raided by state legislators or milked by finance-industry friends of corrupt state governors and mayors . By my count , that ’ s four distinct major retirement systems in the U.S . Education ? We have public provision : public K-12 and public community colleges and state universities . Outside of this system of direct public educational provision , we have a separate system of federal student loans . And a third system of federal grants . And because three incompatible systems of aiding higher education are not enough—this is America ! —we have yet a fourth , completely different system of tax-favored college savings accounts . America ’ s system of funding higher education is not quite as insanely complicated as our health care and retirement systems . But we ’ re getting there ! The political scientist Steven Teles calls this kind of baroque public policy “ kludgeocracy. ” Another way to describe it would be that Rube Goldberg gets elected and promotes various goals—health care , retirement security , educational access—by means of needlessly elaborate contraptions involving candles , levers , and gerbils running on wheels . Who benefits from this complexity ? Lobbyists , tax preparers , accountants , and rent-seeking parasites in the private sector who figure out how to game these needlessly elaborate systems to skim money from taxpayers and rate payers . Complexity is the friend of corruption . Simplicity , on the other hand , promotes democracy . So here ’ s a suggestion , in the spirit of Jacksonian frontier violence as well as Jacksonian democracy : Blow it up . Blow it all up . Blow up retirement policy , health care policy , and education policy . Replace them with simple , universal , purely federal policies that are the same for everybody , no matter what your income or age or state of residence . Total demolition is not necessary . We can pick one or two of the existing systems in each area and expand them and universalize them , while demolishing the other policies . Let ’ s start with health care policy . What should stay and what should go ? In good Jacksonian fashion— “ equal rights for all ” —we prefer universal programs which treat all citizens of all economic classes identically to means-tested programs based on income . So we will keep Medicare and Obamacare ( the exchanges ) and get rid of the means-tested programs , Medicaid and SCHIP . It also makes no sense to maintain a separate medical system for retired military personnel , and recent scandals have cast doubt on the argument that the VA is a model of good medical practice . So let ’ s scrap the VA as well . We could combine universal Obamacare for working-age people with universal Medicare for the elderly . Or we could choose between two universal , lifelong systems : universal , lifelong Medicare or universal , lifelong Obamacare . The main problem with U.S. health care is not on the payer side , but on the provider side—the Big Pharma oligopoly , the hospital oligopoly and the physician cartel use their monopoly power to extort excessive payments from American society . The solution , used even by countries like Switzerland with purely private , individual-mandate systems , is “ all-payer regulation ” —the conversion of the medical-industrial sector from a group of price-gouging profiteers into a publicly-regulated utility with regulated prices . As long as medical prices are regulated and profiteering drug companies , hospitals and doctors are reined in , then health care will be affordable whether you have lifelong universal Medicare or lifelong universal Obamacare . Next let ’ s blow up American retirement policy . Let ’ s begin by phasing out employer defined benefit ( DB ) pensions . Your retirement income , like your health care access , should not depend on particular employers . The biggest employer pensions are those of state employees . Many state employees were left out of the Social Security system in 1935 because state public pension systems already existed . That was 80 years ago . It ’ s the 21st century . All American workers—public and private alike—should be part of a single universal retirement system , independent of particular employers . If we get rid of tax-favored pensions from public and private employers alike , we are left with a public DB pension—Social Security—and various private defined contribution ( DC ) plans like IRAs and 401 ( k ) s. Most other democracies have a mix of both systems . We can as well . Let ’ s have a two-tier system : Social Security plus a federal , tax-favored DC plan on top of it ( preferably one less easily gamed by sleazy , fee-skimming money managers ) . The left and right can fight over the relative proportions of Social Security and the tax-favored defined contribution plan . But progressives and conservatives might be able to agree to phase out public and private defined benefit pensions . Education policy ? Here , too , there is a need for incineration , followed by reconstruction . The student loan system has turned out to be one of the biggest policy errors in American history—saddling students with debt while enriching bankers and indirectly subsidizing bloated university administrations . So let ’ s get rid of federal student loans . Let ’ s get rid of Pell grants , too . Pell grants go to students who can ’ t afford to pay for college . But this misdiagnoses the problem , which is affordability on the provider side , not lack of income on the part of the student . We already have a system of public community colleges and state universities . Why not make admission free to all students who get in , as President Obama has suggested in the case of community colleges ? We don ’ t charge students admission to public K-to-12 education . We pay for it with taxes . Let ’ s have a taxpayer-funded K-16 system . Most American students go to public institutions of higher education . What about the minority of students who go to private colleges and universities ? Wealthy private universities , like Yale and Harvard ( I went to the former , and have taught at the latter ) could afford free admission for everyone , not just the needy . If their greed leads them to continue to soak middle-class and upper-class students , at least the Ivies and other private universities can provide scholarships for low-income students . Private universities are tax-exempt institutions . They ought to act like charities , not hedge funds or for-profit conglomerates . So here ’ s an idea : Limit tax-exempt status to private universities with free tuition for all students . If schools want to charge tuition , let them be taxed as for-profit corporations . We have now , in our thought experiment , blown up and burned down American health care policy , American retirement policy , and American higher education policy . We have then built , upon the smoldering ruins of present-day complexity , a new , simple , universal , purely national system that is the same for every citizen , rich and poor . In health care , there is only universal , lifelong Medicare or lifelong Obamacare—a single federal program with portable benefits , the same for everybody , with no role for the states or private employers at all . Simple . In retirement policy , there are only two universal federal programs : Social Security , and a simple , universal defined contribution private savings plan on top of it . In higher ed policy , we now have two simple systems of free higher education . All public community colleges and state universities now offer free tuition , paid for by state taxes and federal grants . Tax-exempt private colleges and universities also offer free tuition , paid for out of their tax-favored endowments . Fantasy ? In the short term , sure . The well-paid parasites who profit from complexity will see to that . But there are two kinds of politics : Moving the ball and moving the goal-posts . This is about moving the goal-posts . This is about the next generation , not the next election . Rome was not built in a day , and the antiquated , crumbling , rat-infested fire hazard that is American public policy will not be condemned , demolished and replaced by a clean , modern , solid structure overnight . But the sooner we start the demolition , the better . In the meantime , “ Equal rights for all , special privileges for none ” would make a good campaign slogan in 2016 .

“Equal rights for all, special privileges for none.” That was the motto of Jacksonian democracy. I’m generally not a fan of Jacksonian politics in general, but Jacksonian hostility to “class legislation,” or different policies for different classes and categories of citizens, is an idea that people on left, right and center can embrace. Case in point: We need to replace a bewildering miscellany of tax and economic security programs targeted at different constituencies with a few simple and universal policies that are identical for every Americans, rich, poor and middle class. Let’s start with health care. Following the passage of the Affordable Care Act, we Americans now have a means-tested program for the poor, Medicaid, divided between the federal government and the states; another means-tested, state-based program for children, SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program); a purely federal system for the elderly, Medicare; employer-based health insurance subsidized by the tax code; a system of tax-subsidized individual health insurance for working-age people purchased through exchanges; and the Veterans’ Administration, a separate system for retired military personnel. And those are only the major public health care programs. Advertisement: That’s right. We have six separate, major American health care programs, with different streams of revenue and based on different systems. Medicaid and Medicare are single-payer, multiple provider. The Veterans Administration is single-payer/single-provider. The ACA exchanges are based on an individual mandate. Medicare and the VA system and the subsidy to employer-provided health insurance provided by the federal tax code are purely federal policies. Medicaid and the exchanges and SCHIP are partly federal, partly state-based. Are you still with me, class? Quiz tomorrow. America’s health care policies are a dog’s breakfast. America’s retirement policies are a dog’s breakfast that a dog barfed up later. Advertisement: We have a universal, federal public defined benefit (DB) system: Social Security. We have federal tax subsidies to employer-based DB pensions. And that’s not all. We have a variety of tax-favored private defined contribution (DC) systems, including IRAs and 401(k)s. Oh, and most public employees—teachers, fire fighters, police—are covered by separate, public DB pension plans—huge pools of state-controlled money frequently raided by state legislators or milked by finance-industry friends of corrupt state governors and mayors. By my count, that’s four distinct major retirement systems in the U.S. Education? We have public provision: public K-12 and public community colleges and state universities. Outside of this system of direct public educational provision, we have a separate system of federal student loans. And a third system of federal grants. And because three incompatible systems of aiding higher education are not enough—this is America!—we have yet a fourth, completely different system of tax-favored college savings accounts. America’s system of funding higher education is not quite as insanely complicated as our health care and retirement systems. But we’re getting there! Advertisement: The political scientist Steven Teles calls this kind of baroque public policy “kludgeocracy.” Another way to describe it would be that Rube Goldberg gets elected and promotes various goals—health care, retirement security, educational access—by means of needlessly elaborate contraptions involving candles, levers, and gerbils running on wheels. Who benefits from this complexity? Lobbyists, tax preparers, accountants, and rent-seeking parasites in the private sector who figure out how to game these needlessly elaborate systems to skim money from taxpayers and rate payers. Complexity is the friend of corruption. Simplicity, on the other hand, promotes democracy. So here’s a suggestion, in the spirit of Jacksonian frontier violence as well as Jacksonian democracy: Blow it up. Advertisement: Blow it all up. Blow up retirement policy, health care policy, and education policy. Replace them with simple, universal, purely federal policies that are the same for everybody, no matter what your income or age or state of residence. Equal rights for all, special privileges for none. Total demolition is not necessary. We can pick one or two of the existing systems in each area and expand them and universalize them, while demolishing the other policies. Advertisement: Let’s start with health care policy. What should stay and what should go? In good Jacksonian fashion—“equal rights for all”—we prefer universal programs which treat all citizens of all economic classes identically to means-tested programs based on income. So we will keep Medicare and Obamacare (the exchanges) and get rid of the means-tested programs, Medicaid and SCHIP. It also makes no sense to maintain a separate medical system for retired military personnel, and recent scandals have cast doubt on the argument that the VA is a model of good medical practice. So let’s scrap the VA as well. We could combine universal Obamacare for working-age people with universal Medicare for the elderly. Or we could choose between two universal, lifelong systems: universal, lifelong Medicare or universal, lifelong Obamacare. Advertisement: The main problem with U.S. health care is not on the payer side, but on the provider side—the Big Pharma oligopoly, the hospital oligopoly and the physician cartel use their monopoly power to extort excessive payments from American society. The solution, used even by countries like Switzerland with purely private, individual-mandate systems, is “all-payer regulation”—the conversion of the medical-industrial sector from a group of price-gouging profiteers into a publicly-regulated utility with regulated prices. As long as medical prices are regulated and profiteering drug companies, hospitals and doctors are reined in, then health care will be affordable whether you have lifelong universal Medicare or lifelong universal Obamacare. Next let’s blow up American retirement policy. Let’s begin by phasing out employer defined benefit (DB) pensions. Your retirement income, like your health care access, should not depend on particular employers. The biggest employer pensions are those of state employees. Many state employees were left out of the Social Security system in 1935 because state public pension systems already existed. That was 80 years ago. It’s the 21st century. All American workers—public and private alike—should be part of a single universal retirement system, independent of particular employers. If we get rid of tax-favored pensions from public and private employers alike, we are left with a public DB pension—Social Security—and various private defined contribution (DC) plans like IRAs and 401(k)s. Most other democracies have a mix of both systems. We can as well. Let’s have a two-tier system: Social Security plus a federal, tax-favored DC plan on top of it (preferably one less easily gamed by sleazy, fee-skimming money managers). The left and right can fight over the relative proportions of Social Security and the tax-favored defined contribution plan. But progressives and conservatives might be able to agree to phase out public and private defined benefit pensions. Advertisement: Education policy? Here, too, there is a need for incineration, followed by reconstruction. The student loan system has turned out to be one of the biggest policy errors in American history—saddling students with debt while enriching bankers and indirectly subsidizing bloated university administrations. So let’s get rid of federal student loans. Let’s get rid of Pell grants, too. Pell grants go to students who can’t afford to pay for college. But this misdiagnoses the problem, which is affordability on the provider side, not lack of income on the part of the student. We already have a system of public community colleges and state universities. Why not make admission free to all students who get in, as President Obama has suggested in the case of community colleges? We don’t charge students admission to public K-to-12 education. We pay for it with taxes. Let’s have a taxpayer-funded K-16 system. Most American students go to public institutions of higher education. What about the minority of students who go to private colleges and universities? Wealthy private universities, like Yale and Harvard (I went to the former, and have taught at the latter) could afford free admission for everyone, not just the needy. If their greed leads them to continue to soak middle-class and upper-class students, at least the Ivies and other private universities can provide scholarships for low-income students. Private universities are tax-exempt institutions. They ought to act like charities, not hedge funds or for-profit conglomerates. So here’s an idea: Limit tax-exempt status to private universities with free tuition for all students. If schools want to charge tuition, let them be taxed as for-profit corporations. Advertisement: We have now, in our thought experiment, blown up and burned down American health care policy, American retirement policy, and American higher education policy. We have then built, upon the smoldering ruins of present-day complexity, a new, simple, universal, purely national system that is the same for every citizen, rich and poor. In health care, there is only universal, lifelong Medicare or lifelong Obamacare—a single federal program with portable benefits, the same for everybody, with no role for the states or private employers at all. Simple. Equal rights for all, special privileges for none. In retirement policy, there are only two universal federal programs: Social Security, and a simple, universal defined contribution private savings plan on top of it. Advertisement: Equal rights for all, special privileges for none. In higher ed policy, we now have two simple systems of free higher education. All public community colleges and state universities now offer free tuition, paid for by state taxes and federal grants. Tax-exempt private colleges and universities also offer free tuition, paid for out of their tax-favored endowments. Equal rights for all, special privileges for none. Fantasy? In the short term, sure. The well-paid parasites who profit from complexity will see to that. But there are two kinds of politics: Moving the ball and moving the goal-posts. This is about moving the goal-posts. This is about the next generation, not the next election. Rome was not built in a day, and the antiquated, crumbling, rat-infested fire hazard that is American public policy will not be condemned, demolished and replaced by a clean, modern, solid structure overnight. But the sooner we start the demolition, the better. In the meantime, “Equal rights for all, special privileges for none” would make a good campaign slogan in 2016.

www.salon.com

left

SKU8tjEo854GxRCQ

test

qlHNt13wXSk2uOeC

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Dershowitz-Hastert-indictment-Newsmax-TV/2015/05/29/id/647617/

Dershowitz on Hastert Indictment: 'This Case Just Smells'

2015-05-29

Cathy Burke

A federal indictment of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert for agreeing to pay $ 3.5 million in hush money , reportedly to keep someone quiet about past sexual misconduct , `` puts the government in the position of essentially being part of the blackmail , '' Alan Dershowitz tells ███ TV . In an interview with `` ███ Prime '' host J.D . Hayworth , the noted lawyer and author of `` Terror Tunnels : The Case For Israel 's Just War Against Hamas , '' calls the former Republican lawmaker `` a victim if the story is true of extortion . `` `` This case just smells , '' Dershowitz said . `` I 'm shocked that a prosecutor would allow this kind of case to be brought knowing that it will reveal the secrets , that it would open doors up to things that are alleged or have occurred almost half a century ago . … This is not a case that should 've been brought in federal court '' Watch ███ TV on DirecTV Ch . 349 , DISH Ch . 223 and Verizon FiOS Ch . 115 . Get ███ TV on your cable system — Click Here Now Dershowitz noted the federal `` structuring statutes '' Hastert is accused of breaking `` were intended to prevent money laundering , to prevent drug dealing , to prevent income tax evasion . `` `` Paying hush money is not illegal , '' Dershowitz said . `` He did n't want anybody to know about it , so he took money out in small amounts and the banks would n't report it . That is not within the heartland of what this statute was intended to cover – and then to have an indictment which essentially reveals that which Hastert was trying to conceal puts the government in the position of essentially being part of the blackmail – and it 's just not right . `` Dershowitz called the case `` an abusive prosecutorial discretion '' for using the structuring statute `` to try to go after somebody who was trying to solve a rather personal problem .... '' And , he predicted , the feds wo n't win this one . `` When they go after politicians , whether it be Tom DeLay or … several other of these high-profile cases , they lose them all , '' he said . `` I suspect they 're going to lose this one . ''

A federal indictment of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert for agreeing to pay $3.5 million in hush money, reportedly to keep someone quiet about past sexual misconduct , "puts the government in the position of essentially being part of the blackmail," Alan Dershowitz tells Newsmax TV. In an interview with "Newsmax Prime" host J.D. Hayworth, the noted lawyer and author of "Terror Tunnels: The Case For Israel's Just War Against Hamas," calls the former Republican lawmaker "a victim if the story is true of extortion.""This case just smells," Dershowitz said. "I'm shocked that a prosecutor would allow this kind of case to be brought knowing that it will reveal the secrets, that it would open doors up to things that are alleged or have occurred almost half a century ago. … This is not a case that should've been brought in federal court" Watch Newsmax TV on DirecTV Ch. 349, DISH Ch. 223 and Verizon FiOS Ch. 115. Get Newsmax TV on your cable system — Click Here Now Dershowitz noted the federal "structuring statutes" Hastert is accused of breaking "were intended to prevent money laundering, to prevent drug dealing, to prevent income tax evasion. ""Paying hush money is not illegal," Dershowitz said. "He didn't want anybody to know about it, so he took money out in small amounts and the banks wouldn't report it. That is not within the heartland of what this statute was intended to cover – and then to have an indictment which essentially reveals that which Hastert was trying to conceal puts the government in the position of essentially being part of the blackmail – and it's just not right."Dershowitz called the case "an abusive prosecutorial discretion" for using the structuring statute "to try to go after somebody who was trying to solve a rather personal problem...."And, he predicted, the feds won't win this one."When they go after politicians, whether it be Tom DeLay or … several other of these high-profile cases, they lose them all," he said. "I suspect they're going to lose this one."

www.newsmax.com

right

qlHNt13wXSk2uOeC

test

hMB3VzJsnSmLStjl

race_and_racism

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/25/food-brands-racist-mascots-sports-teams

Food brands are phasing out racist mascots. Will sports teams follow?

2020-06-25

Norma Dunning still remembers the elderly passenger on a flight who asked her , “ Where are you from ? ” “ Edmonton , ” Dunning replied , but the woman shook her head . “ No , no , no . Where are you from ? ” Dunning understood the woman wanted to know her ethnicity . But when she answered , “ Inuit , ” she got a blank stare . Finally , Dunning said , “ I ’ m Eskimo . ” She dislikes the term , but caricatures of her ethnic group in popular culture , including food branding , make it the term non-Indigenous people know best . Eskimo Pie , which has been around since 1921 , features a smiling boy in a fur-lined parka on its packaging . The Canadian slurpee brand Cold Sucks also includes a parka-clad Inuit boy . These depictions , Dunning asserts , lead strangers to believe that if Inuit individuals don ’ t have harpoons and eat raw meat , they ’ re inauthentic . “ We can never get away from that image , ” said Dunning , whose book , Eskimo Pie : A Poetics of Inuit Identity just debuted . “ We have to think about how these renderings of Indigenous people have a subconscious effect on the public imagination . ” Hopefully , that ’ s about to change . In a statement last week to ███ , a spokesperson for Dreyer ’ s Grand Ice Cream said : “ We have been reviewing our Eskimo Pie business for some time and will be changing the brand name and marketing . We… recognize the term is derogatory . ” As support for Black Lives Matter spreads across the globe , attention has turned to how stereotypical images of people of color are an inherent facet of mainstream culture , right down to our breakfast options . Prompted by this moment of national reckoning , Quaker announced last week it would remove the image and name of Aunt Jemima from its products because the character originated from a stereotype . This cued the parent companies of Cream of Wheat and Uncle Ben ’ s to announce they are also re-evaluating their imagery . Not everyone is pleased . In response to Eskimo Pie ’ s imminent name change , Donald Trump Jr tweeted : “ The bullshit never ends. ” But for people from ethnic groups that receive little other representation , in media or otherwise , these food rebrands could help change public perception about them – and stop reinforcing centuries-old stereotypes . “ It ’ s a part of the narrative that black people were happy as slaves and , then , later , as servants during the Jim Crow period , ” David Pilgrim said . Founder and curator at the Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia in Big Rapids , Michigan , Pilgrim educates visitors about artifacts that dehumanize people of color . Pilgrim , who is also vice president of diversity and inclusion at Ferris State University , says brands like Aunt Jemima not only stem from racial stereotypes but popularized them too . Aunt Jemima creator Charles Rutt used the name after seeing a minstrel show skit about a mammy called Jemima in the late 1800s ; he proceeded to use real-life black women to portray the character . Such figures would later appear in films such as 1934 ’ s Imitation of Life in which a black character gifts her pancake recipe to a white woman who becomes rich as a result . This storyline illustrates the insidiousness of the mammy – she doesn ’ t question her servitude or challenge the whites profiting from it . The names Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben trouble Pilgrim because they reflect how whites refused to call African Americans Mrs or Mr – titles they didn ’ t think black people deserved . But the name Rastus , the character on Cream of Wheat products , is even more offensive . “ It is a racist slur , ” he said . “ We don ’ t hear it much any more , but when you look at old racist jokes that appeared in newspapers and magazines , black characters were often named Rastus and portrayed as being barely intelligent . ” It ’ s hard to comprehend the longevity of these characters , given their racist origins . Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben have both undergone makeovers over the years to make them more palatable . The former got a headband to replace her kerchief in 1968 and was restyled as a “ young grandmother ” in 1989 , while the latter was rebranded as chairman of the board instead of a domestic servant in 2007 . But Americus Reed II , a marketing professor at the University of Pennsylvania ’ s Wharton School , said that Covid-19 and Black Lives Matter protests have given Americans time to reflect on their values and connect the dehumanizing branding of people of color to systemic inequality . “ In normal times , you don ’ t have the heightened consumer awareness that ’ s been triggered by Covid and George Floyd , ” Reed said . Economic instability and state lockdowns have made Americans pickier shoppers . This trend lines up with the racial awakening the nation is now undergoing , with customers threatening to boycott brands accused of racial discrimination . “ Making Aunt Jemima into a hip modern grandma could probably be tolerated ordinarily , ” Reed said . But after America reshapes in the wake of civil unrest and a pandemic , “ [ Brands ] basically have to change if they want consumers to come back to them . ” Socially conscious consumers may be inspiring food companies to rebrand , but don ’ t expect sports teams to follow suit . The longevity of racist mascots parallels the longevity of racist food branding and indicates the historic dehumanization of black and indigenous peoples in North America is interlinked . “ From our name , the Jim Crow museum , you wouldn ’ t know it , but we have hundreds of pieces which defame Native Americans , and there are lots of parallels , ” Pilgrim said . “ Any time we use racist portrayals of any group of people , it is harmful . ” As Eskimo Pies are phased out , Dunning hopes that it will spark other changes , like Canadian football team the Edmonton Eskimos , for instance . In the US , calls for the Washington Redskins , Chicago Blackhawks , Cleveland Indians , and Atlanta Braves to rename themselves have long gone unheard . For Megan Red Shirt-Shaw , founder of the literary publication Natives in America , the Washington name is most offensive . “ We don ’ t love the other terms either , ” she said , “ but that ’ s the most problematic , and I think the hope is that if that ’ s the first one to be removed , the other teams would also follow suit with their names and logos . ” Washington owner Dan Snyder refuses to change the team name , despite new demands to do so and the removal of team founder George Preston Marshall ’ s statue from RFK Stadium last week . Red Shirt-Shaw , who is Oglala Lakota , said the name has caused generations of trauma . “ I was meeting people who had never met a Native person , and their only conception of Native peoples is from this branding of sports teams or old western movies , ” she said . “ I think the more we can move away from that imagery , the more we can be given the opportunity to define ourselves to the American public . ”

Norma Dunning still remembers the elderly passenger on a flight who asked her, “Where are you from?” “Edmonton,” Dunning replied, but the woman shook her head. “No, no, no. Where are you from?” Dunning understood the woman wanted to know her ethnicity. But when she answered, “Inuit,” she got a blank stare. Finally, Dunning said, “I’m Eskimo.” She dislikes the term, but caricatures of her ethnic group in popular culture, including food branding, make it the term non-Indigenous people know best. Eskimo Pie, which has been around since 1921, features a smiling boy in a fur-lined parka on its packaging. The Canadian slurpee brand Cold Sucks also includes a parka-clad Inuit boy. These depictions, Dunning asserts, lead strangers to believe that if Inuit individuals don’t have harpoons and eat raw meat, they’re inauthentic. “We can never get away from that image,” said Dunning, whose book, Eskimo Pie: A Poetics of Inuit Identity just debuted. “We have to think about how these renderings of Indigenous people have a subconscious effect on the public imagination.” Hopefully, that’s about to change. In a statement last week to the Guardian, a spokesperson for Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream said: “We have been reviewing our Eskimo Pie business for some time and will be changing the brand name and marketing. We… recognize the term is derogatory.” A 1930s print ad for Aunt Jemima. Photograph: Reuters As support for Black Lives Matter spreads across the globe, attention has turned to how stereotypical images of people of color are an inherent facet of mainstream culture, right down to our breakfast options. Prompted by this moment of national reckoning, Quaker announced last week it would remove the image and name of Aunt Jemima from its products because the character originated from a stereotype. This cued the parent companies of Cream of Wheat and Uncle Ben’s to announce they are also re-evaluating their imagery. Not everyone is pleased. In response to Eskimo Pie’s imminent name change, Donald Trump Jr tweeted: “The bullshit never ends.” But for people from ethnic groups that receive little other representation, in media or otherwise, these food rebrands could help change public perception about them – and stop reinforcing centuries-old stereotypes. ••• “It’s a part of the narrative that black people were happy as slaves and, then, later, as servants during the Jim Crow period,” David Pilgrim said. Founder and curator at the Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia in Big Rapids, Michigan, Pilgrim educates visitors about artifacts that dehumanize people of color. Pilgrim, who is also vice president of diversity and inclusion at Ferris State University, says brands like Aunt Jemima not only stem from racial stereotypes but popularized them too. Aunt Jemima creator Charles Rutt used the name after seeing a minstrel show skit about a mammy called Jemima in the late 1800s; he proceeded to use real-life black women to portray the character. Such figures would later appear in films such as 1934’s Imitation of Life in which a black character gifts her pancake recipe to a white woman who becomes rich as a result. This storyline illustrates the insidiousness of the mammy – she doesn’t question her servitude or challenge the whites profiting from it. The names Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben trouble Pilgrim because they reflect how whites refused to call African Americans Mrs or Mr – titles they didn’t think black people deserved. But the name Rastus, the character on Cream of Wheat products, is even more offensive. “It is a racist slur,” he said. “We don’t hear it much any more, but when you look at old racist jokes that appeared in newspapers and magazines, black characters were often named Rastus and portrayed as being barely intelligent.” It’s hard to comprehend the longevity of these characters, given their racist origins. Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben have both undergone makeovers over the years to make them more palatable. The former got a headband to replace her kerchief in 1968 and was restyled as a “young grandmother” in 1989, while the latter was rebranded as chairman of the board instead of a domestic servant in 2007. But Americus Reed II, a marketing professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, said that Covid-19 and Black Lives Matter protests have given Americans time to reflect on their values and connect the dehumanizing branding of people of color to systemic inequality. “In normal times, you don’t have the heightened consumer awareness that’s been triggered by Covid and George Floyd,” Reed said. Economic instability and state lockdowns have made Americans pickier shoppers. This trend lines up with the racial awakening the nation is now undergoing, with customers threatening to boycott brands accused of racial discrimination. “Making Aunt Jemima into a hip modern grandma could probably be tolerated ordinarily,” Reed said. But after America reshapes in the wake of civil unrest and a pandemic, “[Brands] basically have to change if they want consumers to come back to them.” Socially conscious consumers may be inspiring food companies to rebrand, but don’t expect sports teams to follow suit. The longevity of racist mascots parallels the longevity of racist food branding and indicates the historic dehumanization of black and indigenous peoples in North America is interlinked. “From our name, the Jim Crow museum, you wouldn’t know it, but we have hundreds of pieces which defame Native Americans, and there are lots of parallels,” Pilgrim said. “Any time we use racist portrayals of any group of people, it is harmful.” As Eskimo Pies are phased out, Dunning hopes that it will spark other changes, like Canadian football team the Edmonton Eskimos, for instance. In the US, calls for the Washington Redskins, Chicago Blackhawks, Cleveland Indians, and Atlanta Braves to rename themselves have long gone unheard. For Megan Red Shirt-Shaw, founder of the literary publication Natives in America, the Washington name is most offensive. “We don’t love the other terms either,” she said, “but that’s the most problematic, and I think the hope is that if that’s the first one to be removed, the other teams would also follow suit with their names and logos.” Washington owner Dan Snyder refuses to change the team name, despite new demands to do so and the removal of team founder George Preston Marshall’s statue from RFK Stadium last week. Red Shirt-Shaw, who is Oglala Lakota, said the name has caused generations of trauma. “I was meeting people who had never met a Native person, and their only conception of Native peoples is from this branding of sports teams or old western movies,” she said. “I think the more we can move away from that imagery, the more we can be given the opportunity to define ourselves to the American public.”

www.theguardian.com

left

hMB3VzJsnSmLStjl

test

5j6YUe0QhJCsRBhy

media_bias

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/03/obama-townhall-trump-newsmax-viewership/

Obama Townhall Viewership Surpasses Trump’s Newsmax Interview

2020-06-03

President Barack Obama ’ s townhall Wdnesday on police reform drew hundreds of thousands of concurrent viewers on YouTube , while President Donald Trump ’ s interview on Newsmax , which overlapped with Obama ’ s event , didn ’ t even break one thousand . Former White House press secretary Sean Spicer interviewed Trump for Newsmax regarding the state of the country amid widespread protests over the death of George Floyd . Obama addressed the same topic in a townhall put on by the Obama Foundation . Screenshots taken at 6:18pm EST , while both events were going on simultaneously , show Obama was pulling in just under 180,000 viewers , and Trump had just 518 . The presidential interviews came as waves of unrest have continued to crash against the nation following the death of George Floyd in Minnesota . ( RELATED : Philadelphia Inquirer Apologizes For Telling Protestors ‘ Buildings Matter , Too ’ ) Trump addressed the nation Monday evening , telling Americans he is a “ law and order president. ” Violent protests and looting have surged across the country , with Washington , D.C. and New York City being among the worst hit . Hundreds of buildings were also destroyed in Minneapolis , where the protests began . Obama ’ s townhall emphasized the need for police reforms , while Trump ’ s message during the riots has been to crack down on demonstrators . Trump has floated the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy the U.S. military , but Defense Secretary Mark Esper has already pushed back on the idea . “ The option to use active duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort , and only in the most urgent and dire of situations , ” Esper told reporters during a press conference Wednesday . “ We are not in one of those situations now . I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act . ” Trump had already deployed military assets to Washington , D.C. as it is not a state , but those forces are reportedly returning to their bases .

President Barack Obama’s townhall Wdnesday on police reform drew hundreds of thousands of concurrent viewers on YouTube, while President Donald Trump’s interview on Newsmax, which overlapped with Obama’s event, didn’t even break one thousand. Former White House press secretary Sean Spicer interviewed Trump for Newsmax regarding the state of the country amid widespread protests over the death of George Floyd. Obama addressed the same topic in a townhall put on by the Obama Foundation. Screenshots taken at 6:18pm EST, while both events were going on simultaneously, show Obama was pulling in just under 180,000 viewers, and Trump had just 518. The presidential interviews came as waves of unrest have continued to crash against the nation following the death of George Floyd in Minnesota. (RELATED: Philadelphia Inquirer Apologizes For Telling Protestors ‘Buildings Matter, Too’) Trump addressed the nation Monday evening, telling Americans he is a “law and order president.” Violent protests and looting have surged across the country, with Washington, D.C. and New York City being among the worst hit. Hundreds of buildings were also destroyed in Minneapolis, where the protests began. Obama’s townhall emphasized the need for police reforms, while Trump’s message during the riots has been to crack down on demonstrators. Trump has floated the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy the U.S. military, but Defense Secretary Mark Esper has already pushed back on the idea. “The option to use active duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort, and only in the most urgent and dire of situations,” Esper told reporters during a press conference Wednesday. “We are not in one of those situations now. I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act.” Trump had already deployed military assets to Washington, D.C. as it is not a state, but those forces are reportedly returning to their bases.

www.dailycaller.com

right

5j6YUe0QhJCsRBhy

test

umbmkCEHgp6tXBkb

national_defense

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40871416

North Korea 'considering missile strike on US Guam base'

North Korea has said it is considering carrying out missile strikes on the US Pacific territory of Guam . The North 's official news agency said on Tuesday the plan involved firing medium-to-long-range rockets at Guam , where US strategic bombers are based . US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson , flying into Guam , said there was no imminent threat from North Korea . He also defended President Donald Trump , who on Tuesday threatened Pyongyang with `` fire and fury '' . Mr Tillerson said that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un did not understand diplomatic language , and a strong message was needed that he would understand . `` I think the president just wanted to be clear to the North Korean regime that the US ... will defend itself and its allies , '' he said . On Wednesday , Mr Trump tweeted that the US nuclear arsenal was `` more powerful than ever before '' , but added he was hopeful `` we will never have to use this power '' . The recent exchanges mark a sharp rise in rhetoric between Washington and Pyongyang , but China has urged calm . A foreign ministry statement quoted by Reuters called on all sides to avoid words or actions which might escalate the situation and to make greater efforts to resolve the issue via talks . The UN recently approved further economic sanctions on North Korea , which Pyongyang said were a `` violent violation of our sovereignty '' , warning the US would `` pay a price '' . On Wednesday , the official KCNA news agency said North Korea was `` carefully examining the operational plan for making an enveloping fire at the areas around Guam '' using its domestically made medium-to-long-range Hwasong-12 missiles . The news agency reported a military statement issued on Tuesday , which probably came in response to US military drills in Guam . However , there has been no indication that any attack on Guam by North Korea is imminent . In a message to the public , the governor of Guam Eddie Baza Calvo said there was currently `` no threat '' to the island and the Marianas archipelago , but that Guam was `` prepared for any eventuality '' . North Korea 's statement is the latest stage in a heating up of rhetoric and tension . Pyongyang , which has tested nuclear devices five times , launched two intercontinental ballistic missiles ( ICBMs ) in July , claiming it now had the ability to hit mainland US . On Tuesday , media reports in the US claimed the North had achieved its goal of making a nuclear warhead small enough to fit inside its missiles . While not confirmed , this was seen as one of the last obstacles to North Korea being a fully nuclear-armed state . A report in the Washington Post , citing US intelligence officials , suggested North Korea was developing nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US at a much faster rate than expected . A Japanese government defence white paper also said the weapons programme had `` advanced considerably '' and that North Korea possibly now had nuclear weapons . In response , President Trump warned North Korea to stop threatening the US , saying they would be `` met with fire and fury like the world has never seen '' . However , veteran US Senator John McCain was sceptical about Mr Trump 's statement , saying he was `` not sure that President Trump is ready to act '' . 'Scary ' situation - BBC 's Yogita Limaye in Seoul , South Korea On the streets of Seoul , barely 50km ( 30 miles ) from the border with North Korea , the latest developments have drawn mixed reactions . Kim Seong-su , 62 , said he thought Pyongyang was bluffing to preserve its regime and justify its nuclear programme . But others are more concerned . Yeon Eui-sook says she finds the situation scary . `` I hope everyone can live in peace . Kim Jong-un keeps doing this and making us worry , '' she said . Analysts say the language from Pyongyang always gets more aggressive in August , when the US and South Korea conduct joint military exercises . But this time - with a US president who also uses strong words - the confrontation is getting even fiercer than usual . North Korea had reacted angrily after the fresh sanctions were announced on Saturday by the UN , in an attempt to pressure it into giving up its nuclear ambitions . The sanctions aim to reduce North Korea 's export revenues by a third . KCNA said North Korea would retaliate and make `` the US pay a price '' for drafting the new measures . It called the sanctions a `` violent violation of our sovereignty '' , the news agency said . Meanwhile on Wednesday the UK Foreign Office said it would `` continue to work with the US and our international partners to maintain pressure on North Korea '' . `` We have been consistently clear and forthright in our condemnation of North Korea 's destabilising and illegal behaviour , including through support for UN Security Council resolutions to bring in sanctions that will limit North Korea 's ability to pursue its nuclear weapons programme , '' a spokesman said . A spokesman for Germany 's foreign ministry , quoted by AFP , said it was watching the situation `` with the greatest concern '' and called on all sides to use restraint . The 541sq km ( 209 sq miles ) volcanic and coral island in the Pacific between the Philippines and Hawaii . It is a `` non-incorporated '' US territory , with a population of about 163,000 . That means people born in Guam are US citizens , have an elected governor and House Representative , but can not vote for a president in US national elections . US military bases cover about a quarter of the island . About 6,000 personnel are based there and there are plans to move in thousands more . It was a key US base in World War Two , and remains a vital staging post for US operations , giving access to potential flashpoints like the South China Sea , the Koreas and the Taiwan Straits . Get news from the BBC in your inbox , each weekday morning

Image copyright Reuters Image caption The Pacific island of Guam is home to the US Air Force's Andersen air base North Korea has said it is considering carrying out missile strikes on the US Pacific territory of Guam. The North's official news agency said on Tuesday the plan involved firing medium-to-long-range rockets at Guam, where US strategic bombers are based. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, flying into Guam, said there was no imminent threat from North Korea. He also defended President Donald Trump, who on Tuesday threatened Pyongyang with "fire and fury". Mr Tillerson said that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un did not understand diplomatic language, and a strong message was needed that he would understand. "I think the president just wanted to be clear to the North Korean regime that the US... will defend itself and its allies," he said. On Wednesday, Mr Trump tweeted that the US nuclear arsenal was "more powerful than ever before", but added he was hopeful "we will never have to use this power". The recent exchanges mark a sharp rise in rhetoric between Washington and Pyongyang, but China has urged calm. A foreign ministry statement quoted by Reuters called on all sides to avoid words or actions which might escalate the situation and to make greater efforts to resolve the issue via talks. The UN recently approved further economic sanctions on North Korea, which Pyongyang said were a "violent violation of our sovereignty", warning the US would "pay a price". Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption President Trump threatened a response 'like the world has never seen' On Wednesday, the official KCNA news agency said North Korea was "carefully examining the operational plan for making an enveloping fire at the areas around Guam" using its domestically made medium-to-long-range Hwasong-12 missiles. The news agency reported a military statement issued on Tuesday, which probably came in response to US military drills in Guam. However, there has been no indication that any attack on Guam by North Korea is imminent. In a message to the public, the governor of Guam Eddie Baza Calvo said there was currently "no threat" to the island and the Marianas archipelago, but that Guam was "prepared for any eventuality". North Korea's statement is the latest stage in a heating up of rhetoric and tension. Pyongyang, which has tested nuclear devices five times, launched two intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in July, claiming it now had the ability to hit mainland US. On Tuesday, media reports in the US claimed the North had achieved its goal of making a nuclear warhead small enough to fit inside its missiles. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption North Korea's second intercontinental missile launched last month was "seen from Japan" While not confirmed, this was seen as one of the last obstacles to North Korea being a fully nuclear-armed state. A report in the Washington Post, citing US intelligence officials, suggested North Korea was developing nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US at a much faster rate than expected. A Japanese government defence white paper also said the weapons programme had "advanced considerably" and that North Korea possibly now had nuclear weapons. North Korea's missile programme explained In response, President Trump warned North Korea to stop threatening the US, saying they would be "met with fire and fury like the world has never seen". However, veteran US Senator John McCain was sceptical about Mr Trump's statement, saying he was "not sure that President Trump is ready to act". 'Scary' situation - BBC's Yogita Limaye in Seoul, South Korea On the streets of Seoul, barely 50km (30 miles) from the border with North Korea, the latest developments have drawn mixed reactions. Kim Seong-su, 62, said he thought Pyongyang was bluffing to preserve its regime and justify its nuclear programme. But others are more concerned. Yeon Eui-sook says she finds the situation scary. "I hope everyone can live in peace. Kim Jong-un keeps doing this and making us worry," she said. Analysts say the language from Pyongyang always gets more aggressive in August, when the US and South Korea conduct joint military exercises. But this time - with a US president who also uses strong words - the confrontation is getting even fiercer than usual. North Korea had reacted angrily after the fresh sanctions were announced on Saturday by the UN, in an attempt to pressure it into giving up its nuclear ambitions. The sanctions aim to reduce North Korea's export revenues by a third. KCNA said North Korea would retaliate and make "the US pay a price" for drafting the new measures. It called the sanctions a "violent violation of our sovereignty", the news agency said. Meanwhile on Wednesday the UK Foreign Office said it would "continue to work with the US and our international partners to maintain pressure on North Korea". "We have been consistently clear and forthright in our condemnation of North Korea's destabilising and illegal behaviour, including through support for UN Security Council resolutions to bring in sanctions that will limit North Korea's ability to pursue its nuclear weapons programme," a spokesman said. A spokesman for Germany's foreign ministry, quoted by AFP, said it was watching the situation "with the greatest concern" and called on all sides to use restraint. The tiny but important island of Guam The 541sq km (209 sq miles) volcanic and coral island in the Pacific between the Philippines and Hawaii. It is a "non-incorporated" US territory, with a population of about 163,000. That means people born in Guam are US citizens, have an elected governor and House Representative, but cannot vote for a president in US national elections. US military bases cover about a quarter of the island. About 6,000 personnel are based there and there are plans to move in thousands more. It was a key US base in World War Two, and remains a vital staging post for US operations, giving access to potential flashpoints like the South China Sea, the Koreas and the Taiwan Straits. Guam profile from BBC Monitoring Get news from the BBC in your inbox, each weekday morning

www.bbc.com

center

umbmkCEHgp6tXBkb

test

N359tLU0Vggi429w

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2017/02/15/repeal-no-wait

Repeal! No, Wait!

2017-02-15

John Stossel, Eugene Volokh, Noah Shepardson, Zuri Davis, Christian Britschgi, Cosmo Wenman, Billy Binion, Joe Setyon

Republicans promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act . But now they are hesitating . Most Americans opposed Obamacare ever since the Democrats imposed it . But now that Congress actually might kill it , more ( about half those polled ) say , `` Wait , I like Obamacare ! '' Once people get a subsidy , they 'll fight to keep it—fight hard . People fight even to keep subsidies and guarantees that are obviously destructive . French job `` protections , '' such as a 35-hour work week , have so wrecked France 's economy that its socialist president tried to lengthen the work week , as well as raise the retirement age to 62 years old . Thousands of people protested , blocking roads to airports . The reform plan died . Greek day care workers took to the streets when their bankrupt government tried to get them to work more than 30 hours per week . Recently , Mexico said it would stop subsidizing people 's gasoline . Seems reasonable . But the riots were so severe that people died . I hope Donald Trump 's attempts to end bad programs have more success . But I wo n't count on it . President Reagan promised to abolish both the Education and Energy Departments . But his Congress increased funding for Education . Farm subsidies were supposed to be a temporary Depression-era `` fix . '' They would protect America against food shortages . Now America has food surpluses ; our citizens are fat ; and farmers are richer than most Americans . Did farm subsidies diminish ? No . They rose from $ 3 billion to $ 23.3 billion . U.S. sugar quotas raise the price of everything that 's sweet . Our crazy rules are why Coke is made with corn syrup in America but sugar in most of the world . This enriches Florida 's Fanjul family , which protects its handout by donating to both Republicans and Democrats . Peanut subsidies will soon approach the total value of the whole U.S. peanut crop itself . Insane . Yet the subsidies continue . After World War II , American sheep and goat farmers convinced politicians that mohair deserved special protection because it was used in soldiers ' uniforms . Today , uniforms are made of synthetics , but mohair subsidies have n't stopped . My former colleague Sam Donaldson even got some because his family raised sheep . When I confronted him , Sam agreed that the payments are `` a horrible mess '' but said he 'd keep the money since `` the law is on the books . '' He could have made the same point about another bad federal program , government flood insurance . That 's one that paid … me . Sorry . I wo n't do it again . In 1995 , the Clinton administration did manage to get rid of the mohair subsidy . But five years later , Congress brought it back . Why ? Recipients of corporate welfare are motivated lobbyists . They have lots of money at stake . You , by contrast , pay a little more in taxes or a few pennies more for soda . Will you bother your congressman about that ? Probably not . Congressman Jason Chaffetz ( R-Utah ) is still trying to kill the mohair subsidy . I wish him luck . At one point , he got help from , of all people , Congressman Anthony Weiner ( D-NY ) . Weiner brought a goat to Capitol Hill to draw attention to the dumb handout . It may have been the only sensible thing Weiner ever did . But even the goat did n't work . Congress rejected Chaffetz 's bill . And the goat stabbed Weiner 's hand with his horn . Farm subsidies are terrible , but America 's biggest handouts are entitlements : Social Security , Medicare and Medicaid . You say , `` Social Security and Medicare are not handouts ! I paid a premium every year . '' You are right , but you do n't realize that your medical bills will likely cost three times what you 've paid in . Medicare is mostly a handout . But good luck to any politician who proposes cutting it . One ray of hope : In the '70s , the Ford and Carter administrations eliminated the Interstate Commerce Commission , the Civil Aeronautics Board and the jobs of bureaucrats who regulated gas prices . Leftists and people in industry screamed , but the reformers prevailed .

Republicans promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But now they are hesitating. I understand why. Most Americans opposed Obamacare ever since the Democrats imposed it. But now that Congress actually might kill it, more (about half those polled) say, "Wait, I like Obamacare!" Once people get a subsidy, they'll fight to keep it—fight hard. People fight even to keep subsidies and guarantees that are obviously destructive. French job "protections," such as a 35-hour work week, have so wrecked France's economy that its socialist president tried to lengthen the work week, as well as raise the retirement age to 62 years old. Thousands of people protested, blocking roads to airports. The reform plan died. Greek day care workers took to the streets when their bankrupt government tried to get them to work more than 30 hours per week. Recently, Mexico said it would stop subsidizing people's gasoline. Seems reasonable. But the riots were so severe that people died. I hope Donald Trump's attempts to end bad programs have more success. But I won't count on it. President Reagan promised to abolish both the Education and Energy Departments. But his Congress increased funding for Education. Farm subsidies were supposed to be a temporary Depression-era "fix." They would protect America against food shortages. Now America has food surpluses; our citizens are fat; and farmers are richer than most Americans. Did farm subsidies diminish? No. They rose from $3 billion to $23.3 billion. U.S. sugar quotas raise the price of everything that's sweet. Our crazy rules are why Coke is made with corn syrup in America but sugar in most of the world. This enriches Florida's Fanjul family, which protects its handout by donating to both Republicans and Democrats. Peanut subsidies will soon approach the total value of the whole U.S. peanut crop itself. Insane. Yet the subsidies continue. After World War II, American sheep and goat farmers convinced politicians that mohair deserved special protection because it was used in soldiers' uniforms. Today, uniforms are made of synthetics, but mohair subsidies haven't stopped. My former colleague Sam Donaldson even got some because his family raised sheep. When I confronted him, Sam agreed that the payments are "a horrible mess" but said he'd keep the money since "the law is on the books." He could have made the same point about another bad federal program, government flood insurance. That's one that paid … me. Sorry. I won't do it again. In 1995, the Clinton administration did manage to get rid of the mohair subsidy. But five years later, Congress brought it back. Why? Recipients of corporate welfare are motivated lobbyists. They have lots of money at stake. You, by contrast, pay a little more in taxes or a few pennies more for soda. Will you bother your congressman about that? Probably not. Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) is still trying to kill the mohair subsidy. I wish him luck. At one point, he got help from, of all people, Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY). Weiner brought a goat to Capitol Hill to draw attention to the dumb handout. It may have been the only sensible thing Weiner ever did. But even the goat didn't work. Congress rejected Chaffetz's bill. And the goat stabbed Weiner's hand with his horn. Farm subsidies are terrible, but America's biggest handouts are entitlements: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. You say, "Social Security and Medicare are not handouts! I paid a premium every year." You are right, but you don't realize that your medical bills will likely cost three times what you've paid in. Medicare is mostly a handout. But good luck to any politician who proposes cutting it. One ray of hope: In the '70s, the Ford and Carter administrations eliminated the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Civil Aeronautics Board and the jobs of bureaucrats who regulated gas prices. Leftists and people in industry screamed, but the reformers prevailed. That saved Americans billions of dollars. It can be done. COPYRIGHT 2017 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

www.reason.com

right

N359tLU0Vggi429w

test

G1Ltdx8To7SAvOvP

race_and_racism

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/28/baltimore-riots-explode-leftist-race-myths/

Baltimore Riots Explode Leftist Race Myths

2015-04-28

Ben Shapiro

As rioters rushed through the streets of Baltimore , torching police vehicles , looting local stores , and attacking police officers and reporters alike , some intrepid leftists justified the activity . Marc Lamont Hill stated on MSNBC , “ There shouldn ’ t be calm tonight . I think there can be resistance to oppression , and when resistance occurs , you can ’ t circumscribe resistance. ” He added that the riots should be called “ uprisings . The city is not burning because of those protesters . The city is burning because the police killed Freddie Gray. ” Sally Kohn of CNN tweeted , “ Looting is a real shame . But FAR MORE shameful is pattern of police violence against black community ! Perspective , people . # BaltimoreRising . ” Baltimore ’ s riots have prompted a state of emergency in the city , as well as the calling of the National Guard . But the riots should also demonstrate conclusively that leftist myths about what drives race riots are just that : myths . It turns out that all the excuses given for the riots in Ferguson simply do not apply to the situation in Baltimore . The “ White Police ” Myth . As rioters tore up Ferguson last year in the aftermath of the justifiable shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson , media members rushed to explain that the disproportionate whiteness of the police force was to blame . Media outlet after media outlet after media outlet after media outlet blamed the unrest on the failure of the police department to reflect the community . But as of 2010 , “ Half of the sworn command staff are minorities , ” according to the Baltimore Sun . And in Baltimore County , 55 percent of new applicants to the police department are minority , a number the police department has been attempting to boost . Racially reflecting the community , in other words , doesn ’ t seem to be helping . The “ Evil Police Chief ” Myth . In Ferguson , the media targeted as its chosen villain Chief Thomas Jackson , who is white . After the Department of Justice found that the Ferguson Police Department had serious racial problems thanks in part to its disproportionate whiteness , Jackson stepped down . Media found Jackson particularly galling because Jackson released footage of Michael Brown strong-arm robbing a convenience store minutes before his confrontation with Wilson . It is difficult to blame the riots in Baltimore on similar circumstances . The police chief , Anthony Batts , who is black , said in February that crime should be addressed “ through social justice as a whole , ” and added that “ Leadership should be focused not just on crime-fighting , but tackling racism. ” He then stated , “ When I go to Baltimore , on the East Coast , I ’ m dealing with 1950s-level black-and-white racism . ” The “ Evil Mayor ” Myth . As Ferguson burned , media focused in on Ferguson Mayor James Knowles , a white man . They suggested that Knowles didn ’ t understand his own community thanks to his race , exacerbating racial tensions . He ’ s currently at risk of recall . The same is not true in Baltimore , where Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake runs the show . Rawlings-Blake , who is black , said a month ago , “ To this day , if I go out with a mixed crowd , people are automatically suspicious , questioning : ‘ How do you know this person ? ’ We have a long way to go…Baltimore , like many other cities , still faces the challenges of racism. ” As the riots spun out of control , she infamously commented , “ It ’ s a very delicate balancing act , because , while we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on , we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. ” That didn ’ t stop the riots . The “ Disproportionate White Power Structure Myth. ” The nation watched the recent local elections in Ferguson , Missouri , of the City Council with baited breath . That ’ s because the media suggested that the power structure in Ferguson , being disproportionately white , had somehow contributed to shadowy racism within the city . The Washington Post complained , “ while Ferguson is 67 percent black , five of the six council members and the mayor are all white. ” Not so in Baltimore , where the nine of the 15 council members are black . The mayor is black . The police chief is black . Baltimore burns anyway . The “ Not Enough Government ” Myth . In Ferguson , the media and governmental actors suggested that lack of governmental intervention led to the riots . Education Secretary Arne Duncan wrote an open letter in December 2014 suggesting just that : We should take away from Ferguson that we need a conversation to rebuild those relationships , throughout the country , and that need is urgent . It needs to involve everyone – our young people , our parents , our schools , our faith communities , our government officials , and the police . It needs to happen now . Lack of government is not the problem in Baltimore . Every single member of the Baltimore City Council is a Democrat . All 15 of them . The mayor is a Democrat . Baltimore has not had a Republican mayor since 1967 . The tax rates in Baltimore are astronomical ; the city carries the fourth highest tax rate of any city in the nation . The poverty rate within the city is nearly 25 percent . Households in Baltimore earn approximately 56 percent of the overall state average . Crime rates , of course , are out of control . Modern race riots do not occur because of the supposed white superstructure or a legacy of governmental underservice . They occur because valueless rioters act in valueless ways . Baltimore is evidence that glossing over lack of values with leftist pabulum about social justice doesn ’ t stop cities from burning . Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of ███ and author of the new book , The People vs. Barack Obama : The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration ( Threshold Editions , June 10 , 2014 ) . He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org . Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @ benshapiro .

As rioters rushed through the streets of Baltimore, torching police vehicles, looting local stores, and attacking police officers and reporters alike, some intrepid leftists justified the activity. Marc Lamont Hill stated on MSNBC, “There shouldn’t be calm tonight. I think there can be resistance to oppression, and when resistance occurs, you can’t circumscribe resistance.” He added that the riots should be called “uprisings. The city is not burning because of those protesters. The city is burning because the police killed Freddie Gray.” Sally Kohn of CNN tweeted, “Looting is a real shame. But FAR MORE shameful is pattern of police violence against black community! Perspective, people. #BaltimoreRising.” Baltimore’s riots have prompted a state of emergency in the city, as well as the calling of the National Guard. But the riots should also demonstrate conclusively that leftist myths about what drives race riots are just that: myths. It turns out that all the excuses given for the riots in Ferguson simply do not apply to the situation in Baltimore. The “White Police” Myth. As rioters tore up Ferguson last year in the aftermath of the justifiable shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson, media members rushed to explain that the disproportionate whiteness of the police force was to blame. Media outlet after media outlet after media outlet after media outlet blamed the unrest on the failure of the police department to reflect the community. But as of 2010, “Half of the sworn command staff are minorities,” according to the Baltimore Sun. And in Baltimore County, 55 percent of new applicants to the police department are minority, a number the police department has been attempting to boost. Racially reflecting the community, in other words, doesn’t seem to be helping. The “Evil Police Chief” Myth. In Ferguson, the media targeted as its chosen villain Chief Thomas Jackson, who is white. After the Department of Justice found that the Ferguson Police Department had serious racial problems thanks in part to its disproportionate whiteness, Jackson stepped down. Media found Jackson particularly galling because Jackson released footage of Michael Brown strong-arm robbing a convenience store minutes before his confrontation with Wilson. It is difficult to blame the riots in Baltimore on similar circumstances. The police chief, Anthony Batts, who is black, said in February that crime should be addressed “through social justice as a whole,” and added that “Leadership should be focused not just on crime-fighting, but tackling racism.” He then stated, “When I go to Baltimore, on the East Coast, I’m dealing with 1950s-level black-and-white racism.” The “Evil Mayor” Myth. As Ferguson burned, media focused in on Ferguson Mayor James Knowles, a white man. They suggested that Knowles didn’t understand his own community thanks to his race, exacerbating racial tensions. He’s currently at risk of recall. The same is not true in Baltimore, where Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake runs the show. Rawlings-Blake, who is black, said a month ago, “To this day, if I go out with a mixed crowd, people are automatically suspicious, questioning: ‘How do you know this person?’ We have a long way to go…Baltimore, like many other cities, still faces the challenges of racism.” As the riots spun out of control, she infamously commented, “It’s a very delicate balancing act, because, while we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.” That didn’t stop the riots. The “Disproportionate White Power Structure Myth.” The nation watched the recent local elections in Ferguson, Missouri, of the City Council with baited breath. That’s because the media suggested that the power structure in Ferguson, being disproportionately white, had somehow contributed to shadowy racism within the city. The Washington Post complained, “while Ferguson is 67 percent black, five of the six council members and the mayor are all white.” Not so in Baltimore, where the nine of the 15 council members are black. The mayor is black. The police chief is black. Baltimore burns anyway. The “Not Enough Government” Myth. In Ferguson, the media and governmental actors suggested that lack of governmental intervention led to the riots. Education Secretary Arne Duncan wrote an open letter in December 2014 suggesting just that: We should take away from Ferguson that we need a conversation to rebuild those relationships, throughout the country, and that need is urgent. It needs to involve everyone – our young people, our parents, our schools, our faith communities, our government officials, and the police. It needs to happen now. Lack of government is not the problem in Baltimore. Every single member of the Baltimore City Council is a Democrat. All 15 of them. The mayor is a Democrat. Baltimore has not had a Republican mayor since 1967. The tax rates in Baltimore are astronomical; the city carries the fourth highest tax rate of any city in the nation. The poverty rate within the city is nearly 25 percent. Households in Baltimore earn approximately 56 percent of the overall state average. Crime rates, of course, are out of control. Modern race riots do not occur because of the supposed white superstructure or a legacy of governmental underservice. They occur because valueless rioters act in valueless ways. Baltimore is evidence that glossing over lack of values with leftist pabulum about social justice doesn’t stop cities from burning. Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

www.breitbart.com

right

G1Ltdx8To7SAvOvP

test

MyEPZSaqk8Fj22ac

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/12/sean-spicer-contradicts-trumps-manafort-claims-in-new-book

Sean Spicer contradicts Trump's Manafort claims in new book

2018-07-12

Tom Mccarthy

Exclusive : Trump ’ s former press secretary describes Manafort as impactful and describes the president as ‘ a unicorn , riding a unicorn over a rainbow ’ Dreamily envisioning Donald Trump as “ a unicorn , riding a unicorn over a rainbow ” , former press secretary Sean Spicer has filled a new book with breathless memories of his role in recent American history – while admitting that Paul Manafort , suspected of being a tool of Moscow , played a central role in the Trump campaign . Paul Manafort says he 's being treated 'like a VIP ' in jail Read more In The Briefing : Politics , the Press and the President , which will be released on 24 July and a copy of which was obtained by ███ , Spicer dramatically compares the work of a press secretary to that of fighter jet pilot , champion boxer and tightrope artist . At impressive length , the book purports to set the record straight on an extensive string of micro-episodes and mini-scandals from the Trump campaign and early presidency . But Spicer ’ s description in the book of Manafort ’ s campaign role belies Trump ’ s characterization of former campaign chairman Manafort as a minor campaign figure . Last year , Trump said Manafort had only been with the campaign for a “ very short period of time ” . The book also contradicts Spicer ’ s own March 2017 statement at the White House that Manafort had “ played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time ” . But in the book Spicer portrays Manafort as having an important and impactful role . “ Paul brought a much-needed maturity to the Trump campaign when it needed an experienced political professional operative more than anything else , ” Spicer writes of Manafort ’ s hiring in the spring of 2016 . “ There was no semblance of a campaign structure , just a few , distraught , overworked people constantly barking into their phones . Paul immediately set up and staffed the political and communications operations necessary to take on the Clinton machine . “ The Manafort message was clear : Trump will be our nominee and our next president , and anyone who didn ’ t want to work to that end could spend the next four years in political Siberia . ( No Russia pun intended . ) ” Manafort resigned as Trump campaign chairman in August 2016 , after the national spotlight focused on undeclared payments that he had received for work in the former Soviet bloc . He was jailed last month as he awaits trial on charges of money laundering , tax fraud , failure to register as a foreign agent and obstruction of justice . Manafort has denied all wrongdoing . Elsewhere in the book , the reader finds out what really was happening behind the scenes when Spicer , now an unpaid Fox News guest with a podcast and an Instagram , attacked the press for pointing out the small size of Trump ’ s inauguration day crowd ; when Spicer first saw Melissa McCarthy ’ s impression of him on Saturday Night Live ; when Spicer denied that Adolf Hitler used chemical weapons ; when Anthony Scaramucci was appointed as Spicer ’ s boss ; when Spicer was excluded from a papal audience ; when Spicer allegedly hid in the White House bushes on the night of James Comey ’ s firing ( didn ’ t happen , Spicer says ) ; and when Trump ’ s Access Hollywood “ Grab ’ em by the pussy ” tape emerged . “ I was surprised by how many women who contacted me did not consider Trump ’ s comments a big deal , ” Spicer writes of the latter episode . “ One prominent Republican woman told me , ‘ You all talk like this ; we know it. ’ ( Actually , we men don ’ t all talk like this , but I held my tongue . ) ” Spicer , whose six-month stint as White House press secretary lasted only one month longer than Manafort ’ s job with the Trump campaign , loads his memoir with painstakingly thorough descriptions of his own intensively incremental career calculations . “ I had talked to White House chief of staff Reince Priebus and chief strategist Steve Bannon about me stepping away from the podium and taking a more strategic role , ” Spicer writes at one stage , “ which I thought better suited my talents . ” But Spicer ’ s admiration for Trump shines through all of his reflections on the frustrations of the job . While Spicer in one passage applies the words “ erratic ” and “ mercurial ” to the president , the book – which begins with a scene of Trump determinedly refusing Spicer ’ s resignation – is filled with emotionally charged passages starring the president . ( The book also includes an eloquent passage in which Spicer writes about the tragic loss of his father to cancer during the presidential transition . ) After what he judged to be a particularly strong early outing as press secretary , Spicer rushes back to where Trump has been watching on television . “ To my eternal surprise , he rose up and gave me a bear hug , ” Spicer writes . “ ‘ That ’ s my Sean . Good job , ’ he said . ‘ Right way to do it ’ . ” Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) A friend of mine and a man who has truly seen politics and life as few others ever will , Sean Spicer , has written a great new book , “ The Briefing : Politics , the Press and the President. ” It is a story told with both heart and knowledge . Really good , go get it ! Spicer proudly recounts the story of lending the president a green tie for a meeting with the Irish taoiseach – and not getting the tie back . He lards on the praise for the president ’ s political skills . “ I don ’ t think we will ever again see a candidate like Donald Trump , ” Spicer writes . “ His high-wire act is one that few could ever follow . He is a unicorn , riding a unicorn over a rainbow . His verbal bluntness involves risks that few candidates would dare take . His ability to pivot from a seemingly career-ending moment to a furious assault on his opponents is a talent few politicians can muster . ” But an early episode in Spicer ’ s time as press secretary almost ruined his relationship with Trump . On the day after the inauguration , Trump , who had been watching TV coverage of his small inauguration crowd size , called up Spicer , who writes : ‘ Sean , have you seen the news ? ’ The president was clear : this needed to be addressed – now ... I assumed that was the approach the president would want to see again : strong , aggressive , no questions . I was wrong . ” In a hastily convened press briefing , Spicer attacked the media as biased and dismissed photographs that showed Barack Obama ’ s inauguration crowd as having been much bigger than Trump ’ s . “ This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration – period – both in person and around the globe , ” Spicer insisted at the time – and in his book , he refuses to back down from the assertion , claiming there was some enormous international online streaming audience . But his audience of one thought Spicer had botched it , he writes : I went back to my office , expecting an ‘ attaboy ’ from the president ; instead Reince was waiting for me and said the president wasn ’ t happy at all with how I had performed . He didn ’ t like my not taking questions . He thought I was hung up on the wrong issues . He wanted to know why I hadn ’ t run my statement by him . Minutes later , the president himself called , and he was not pleased . And I started to wonder if my first day would be my last ... I had made a bad first impression , and looking back , that was the beginning of the end . The moment spawned what may be the most indelible popular image of Spicer , the impression of him on Saturday Night Live as a pugnacious , mendacious pulverizer of chewing gum . The biggest Trump resignations and firings so far Read more “ Taking a deep breath , I went to the DVR and saw Melissa McCarthy wearing my suit , downing gum by the bucket ( guilty as charged , but never at the lectern ) , and yelling at the media , ” Spicer writes of watching the skit . “ I had no choice but to laugh . ” Spicer handed in his resignation after the flamboyant former Wall Streeter Scaramucci , whose personality Spicer describes as “ pungent ” , was hired as communications director . Lest any reader come away with the impression of Spicer as a prisoner to his affection for the president , or as clinging too eagerly to scraps of a frankly fairly brief past , he closes his book with a declaration of independence . “ I spent my career in service to powerful people , always in a supporting role to someone else who played the part of the principal – a member of Congress , an RNC chairman , a president of the United States , ” writes Spicer . “ Now I was my own principal . Now , at last , I was free to be my own man . ”

Exclusive: Trump’s former press secretary describes Manafort as impactful and describes the president as ‘a unicorn, riding a unicorn over a rainbow’ Dreamily envisioning Donald Trump as “a unicorn, riding a unicorn over a rainbow”, former press secretary Sean Spicer has filled a new book with breathless memories of his role in recent American history – while admitting that Paul Manafort, suspected of being a tool of Moscow, played a central role in the Trump campaign. Paul Manafort says he's being treated 'like a VIP' in jail Read more In The Briefing: Politics, the Press and the President, which will be released on 24 July and a copy of which was obtained by the Guardian, Spicer dramatically compares the work of a press secretary to that of fighter jet pilot, champion boxer and tightrope artist. At impressive length, the book purports to set the record straight on an extensive string of micro-episodes and mini-scandals from the Trump campaign and early presidency. But Spicer’s description in the book of Manafort’s campaign role belies Trump’s characterization of former campaign chairman Manafort as a minor campaign figure. Last year, Trump said Manafort had only been with the campaign for a “very short period of time”. The book also contradicts Spicer’s own March 2017 statement at the White House that Manafort had “played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time”. Facebook Twitter Pinterest The cover of Sean Spicer’s book. Photograph: AP But in the book Spicer portrays Manafort as having an important and impactful role. “Paul brought a much-needed maturity to the Trump campaign when it needed an experienced political professional operative more than anything else,” Spicer writes of Manafort’s hiring in the spring of 2016. “There was no semblance of a campaign structure, just a few, distraught, overworked people constantly barking into their phones. Paul immediately set up and staffed the political and communications operations necessary to take on the Clinton machine. “The Manafort message was clear: Trump will be our nominee and our next president, and anyone who didn’t want to work to that end could spend the next four years in political Siberia. (No Russia pun intended.)” Manafort resigned as Trump campaign chairman in August 2016, after the national spotlight focused on undeclared payments that he had received for work in the former Soviet bloc. He was jailed last month as he awaits trial on charges of money laundering, tax fraud, failure to register as a foreign agent and obstruction of justice. Manafort has denied all wrongdoing. Elsewhere in the book, the reader finds out what really was happening behind the scenes when Spicer, now an unpaid Fox News guest with a podcast and an Instagram, attacked the press for pointing out the small size of Trump’s inauguration day crowd; when Spicer first saw Melissa McCarthy’s impression of him on Saturday Night Live; when Spicer denied that Adolf Hitler used chemical weapons; when Anthony Scaramucci was appointed as Spicer’s boss; when Spicer was excluded from a papal audience; when Spicer allegedly hid in the White House bushes on the night of James Comey’s firing (didn’t happen, Spicer says); and when Trump’s Access Hollywood “Grab ’em by the pussy” tape emerged. “I was surprised by how many women who contacted me did not consider Trump’s comments a big deal,” Spicer writes of the latter episode. “One prominent Republican woman told me, ‘You all talk like this; we know it.’ (Actually, we men don’t all talk like this, but I held my tongue.)” Spicer, whose six-month stint as White House press secretary lasted only one month longer than Manafort’s job with the Trump campaign, loads his memoir with painstakingly thorough descriptions of his own intensively incremental career calculations. “I had talked to White House chief of staff Reince Priebus and chief strategist Steve Bannon about me stepping away from the podium and taking a more strategic role,” Spicer writes at one stage, “which I thought better suited my talents.” But Spicer’s admiration for Trump shines through all of his reflections on the frustrations of the job. While Spicer in one passage applies the words “erratic” and “mercurial” to the president, the book – which begins with a scene of Trump determinedly refusing Spicer’s resignation – is filled with emotionally charged passages starring the president. (The book also includes an eloquent passage in which Spicer writes about the tragic loss of his father to cancer during the presidential transition.) After what he judged to be a particularly strong early outing as press secretary, Spicer rushes back to where Trump has been watching on television. “To my eternal surprise, he rose up and gave me a bear hug,” Spicer writes. “‘That’s my Sean. Good job,’ he said. ‘Right way to do it’.” Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) A friend of mine and a man who has truly seen politics and life as few others ever will, Sean Spicer, has written a great new book, “The Briefing: Politics, the Press and the President.” It is a story told with both heart and knowledge. Really good, go get it! Spicer proudly recounts the story of lending the president a green tie for a meeting with the Irish taoiseach – and not getting the tie back. He lards on the praise for the president’s political skills. “I don’t think we will ever again see a candidate like Donald Trump,” Spicer writes. “His high-wire act is one that few could ever follow. He is a unicorn, riding a unicorn over a rainbow. His verbal bluntness involves risks that few candidates would dare take. His ability to pivot from a seemingly career-ending moment to a furious assault on his opponents is a talent few politicians can muster.” But an early episode in Spicer’s time as press secretary almost ruined his relationship with Trump. On the day after the inauguration, Trump, who had been watching TV coverage of his small inauguration crowd size, called up Spicer, who writes: ‘Sean, have you seen the news?’ The president was clear: this needed to be addressed – now ... I assumed that was the approach the president would want to see again: strong, aggressive, no questions. I was wrong.” In a hastily convened press briefing, Spicer attacked the media as biased and dismissed photographs that showed Barack Obama’s inauguration crowd as having been much bigger than Trump’s. “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration – period – both in person and around the globe,” Spicer insisted at the time – and in his book, he refuses to back down from the assertion, claiming there was some enormous international online streaming audience. But his audience of one thought Spicer had botched it, he writes: I went back to my office, expecting an ‘attaboy’ from the president; instead Reince was waiting for me and said the president wasn’t happy at all with how I had performed. He didn’t like my not taking questions. He thought I was hung up on the wrong issues. He wanted to know why I hadn’t run my statement by him. Minutes later, the president himself called, and he was not pleased. And I started to wonder if my first day would be my last ... I had made a bad first impression, and looking back, that was the beginning of the end. The moment spawned what may be the most indelible popular image of Spicer, the impression of him on Saturday Night Live as a pugnacious, mendacious pulverizer of chewing gum. The biggest Trump resignations and firings so far Read more “Taking a deep breath, I went to the DVR and saw Melissa McCarthy wearing my suit, downing gum by the bucket (guilty as charged, but never at the lectern), and yelling at the media,” Spicer writes of watching the skit. “I had no choice but to laugh.” Spicer handed in his resignation after the flamboyant former Wall Streeter Scaramucci, whose personality Spicer describes as “pungent”, was hired as communications director. Lest any reader come away with the impression of Spicer as a prisoner to his affection for the president, or as clinging too eagerly to scraps of a frankly fairly brief past, he closes his book with a declaration of independence. “I spent my career in service to powerful people, always in a supporting role to someone else who played the part of the principal – a member of Congress, an RNC chairman, a president of the United States,” writes Spicer. “Now I was my own principal. Now, at last, I was free to be my own man.”

www.theguardian.com

left

MyEPZSaqk8Fj22ac

test

ERwGEudcdfhIctiN

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2018/05/21/why-young-americans-are-drawn-to-sociali

Why Young Americans Are Drawn to Socialism

2018-05-21

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

Capitalism has been the most dynamic force for economic progress in history . Over the past century , it has delivered billions of people out of miserable poverty , raised living standards to once-unimaginable heights , and enabled an unprecedented flourishing of productive creativity . But among young Americans , it finds itself on trial . The University of Chicago 's GenForward Survey of Americans ages 18 to 34 finds that 62 percent think `` we need a strong government to handle today 's complex economic problems , '' with just 35 percent saying `` the free market can handle these problems without government being involved . '' Overall , 49 percent in this group hold a favorable opinion of capitalism—and 45 percent have a positive view of socialism . Socialism gets higher marks than capitalism from Hispanics , Asian-Americans , and African-Americans . Sixty-one percent of Democrats take a positive view of socialism—and so do 25 percent of Republicans . Contrast the millennials ' opinions with those of their parents . A survey last year found that only 26 percent of baby boomers would prefer to live in a socialist country . Among young people , the figure was 44 percent . What explains this generational divergence ? The first factor is that young adults may take for granted the bounty capitalism has bestowed , from cellphones to inexpensive air travel to an endless array of food and beverage options . They ca n't remember the time when those things did n't exist . But they will never forget the pain and uncertainty caused by the brutal recession of 2007-09 , which has taken years to overcome . Financial catastrophe is bound to foster disenchantment with the economic order . The Great Depression of the 1930s gave rise to a far more powerful and intrusive federal government—and caused some people to embrace communism . This found an echo in the Great Recession , as a lot of young people reached adulthood in a dismal job market . Their earnings and advancement suffered—and the effects persist . Many of them associate capitalism with crisis , not progress . That may change as the economy continues expanding . But some of capitalism 's more dogmatic advocates have done it lasting harm . For eight years , as the economy steadily improved , many Republicans denounced President Barack Obama as a socialist out to demolish the free market . Obama left office with a 77 percent approval rating among millennials . If he was a socialist , many of them must have decided , socialism ca n't be so bad . Without that experience , Bernie Sanders could not have come so close to getting the Democratic nomination in 2016 . The socialist label lost much of its stigma from being cynically overused by the right . The demise of Marxism in so many countries has actually been a boon to the left . Socialism was once seen as the path to communism . But with the Soviet Union dead and China only pretending to be socialist , those fears have faded . It does n't help the reputation of capitalism that many of those fervently opposed to government interference and redistribution are strongly at odds with millennials on social issues—including gay rights , racial inequality , immigration , gun control , and abortion rights . The refusal of most conservatives to recognize the human role in global warming alienates those who will have to live with the environmental damage their elders did . In many minds , free markets have been discredited by their association with intolerance , rejection of science , and disregard for the poor . For baby boomers , the champion of capitalism was Ronald Reagan . For millennials , it 's Donald Trump . Among those who are 15 to 34 , a recent poll found , two-thirds disapprove of his performance as president—and most regard him as `` dishonest , '' `` racist , '' and `` mentally unfit . '' What millennials may not realize is that many of the distinctive burdens they face are caused at least as much by government involvement as by free markets . Federal loans and grants have pushed up college tuition . Medicare inflates demand for health care . High housing costs in New York and San Francisco owe a lot to rent control and land-use restrictions . When markets are allowed to work , they continue to generate innovations that expand options and reduce costs . Amazon , Apple , Uber , Starbucks , and Walmart have made life better for consumers . Food and clothing take less of our disposable income than ever before . Cars , TVs , and appliances are better and more reliable than they used to be . In the end , though , economic systems have to retain their moral and political legitimacy if they are to last . Capitalism has always had to overcome its critics . But today , it may suffer more from its friends .

Capitalism has been the most dynamic force for economic progress in history. Over the past century, it has delivered billions of people out of miserable poverty, raised living standards to once-unimaginable heights, and enabled an unprecedented flourishing of productive creativity. But among young Americans, it finds itself on trial. The University of Chicago's GenForward Survey of Americans ages 18 to 34 finds that 62 percent think "we need a strong government to handle today's complex economic problems," with just 35 percent saying "the free market can handle these problems without government being involved." Overall, 49 percent in this group hold a favorable opinion of capitalism—and 45 percent have a positive view of socialism. Socialism gets higher marks than capitalism from Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and African-Americans. Sixty-one percent of Democrats take a positive view of socialism—and so do 25 percent of Republicans. Contrast the millennials' opinions with those of their parents. A survey last year found that only 26 percent of baby boomers would prefer to live in a socialist country. Among young people, the figure was 44 percent. What explains this generational divergence? The first factor is that young adults may take for granted the bounty capitalism has bestowed, from cellphones to inexpensive air travel to an endless array of food and beverage options. They can't remember the time when those things didn't exist. But they will never forget the pain and uncertainty caused by the brutal recession of 2007-09, which has taken years to overcome. Financial catastrophe is bound to foster disenchantment with the economic order. The Great Depression of the 1930s gave rise to a far more powerful and intrusive federal government—and caused some people to embrace communism. This found an echo in the Great Recession, as a lot of young people reached adulthood in a dismal job market. Their earnings and advancement suffered—and the effects persist. Many of them associate capitalism with crisis, not progress. That may change as the economy continues expanding. But some of capitalism's more dogmatic advocates have done it lasting harm. For eight years, as the economy steadily improved, many Republicans denounced President Barack Obama as a socialist out to demolish the free market. Obama left office with a 77 percent approval rating among millennials. If he was a socialist, many of them must have decided, socialism can't be so bad. Without that experience, Bernie Sanders could not have come so close to getting the Democratic nomination in 2016. The socialist label lost much of its stigma from being cynically overused by the right. The demise of Marxism in so many countries has actually been a boon to the left. Socialism was once seen as the path to communism. But with the Soviet Union dead and China only pretending to be socialist, those fears have faded. It doesn't help the reputation of capitalism that many of those fervently opposed to government interference and redistribution are strongly at odds with millennials on social issues—including gay rights, racial inequality, immigration, gun control, and abortion rights. The refusal of most conservatives to recognize the human role in global warming alienates those who will have to live with the environmental damage their elders did. In many minds, free markets have been discredited by their association with intolerance, rejection of science, and disregard for the poor. For baby boomers, the champion of capitalism was Ronald Reagan. For millennials, it's Donald Trump. Among those who are 15 to 34, a recent poll found, two-thirds disapprove of his performance as president—and most regard him as "dishonest," "racist," and "mentally unfit." What millennials may not realize is that many of the distinctive burdens they face are caused at least as much by government involvement as by free markets. Federal loans and grants have pushed up college tuition. Medicare inflates demand for health care. High housing costs in New York and San Francisco owe a lot to rent control and land-use restrictions. When markets are allowed to work, they continue to generate innovations that expand options and reduce costs. Amazon, Apple, Uber, Starbucks, and Walmart have made life better for consumers. Food and clothing take less of our disposable income than ever before. Cars, TVs, and appliances are better and more reliable than they used to be. In the end, though, economic systems have to retain their moral and political legitimacy if they are to last. Capitalism has always had to overcome its critics. But today, it may suffer more from its friends.

www.reason.com

right

ERwGEudcdfhIctiN

test

XOa8V3f0RuQBFFnV

media_bias

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/30/pro-press-groups-assault-fox-news-reporter-leland-vittert/

Some Press Groups Remain Silent About Assault Against Fox News Reporter As Others Condemn It

2020-05-30

Some press groups condemned the attack by protesters against Fox News reporter Leland Vittert in Washington , D.C. but others remained silent – despite speaking out against the arrest of a CNN reporter one day earlier . Vittert was reporting in Lafayette Park , D.C. and covering protests sparked by the death of George Floyd . Vittert and his crew were accosted and chased out of the area by protesters early Saturday morning , footage captured by ███ News Foundation shows . ( RELATED : CNN Correspondent Arrested Live On-Air During Minneapolis Riots ) Many of the groups contacted by ███ previously publicly issued statements condemning Friday ’ s arrest of CNN correspondent Omar Jimenez and his crew . The two events , while both suppression of press , do have a noteworthy difference . The CNN crew was arrested by police , and the Fox News crew was attacked by protesters . First Amendment Coalition and Freedom of the Press Foundation did not respond to requests for comment from ███ . The Committee to Protect Journalists ( CPJ ) told ███ that it did not have “ have a specific statement in that specific incident ” when asked for its thoughts regarding the attack against Vittert . CPJ wrote that it is “ investigating several reported attacks on journalists covering protests around the country and urges police and protesters alike to refrain from targeting journalists so that they can safely cover these newsworthy event . ” When asked for clarification regarding whether CPJ specifically condemns the attack on Vittert , the group wrote that it is “ investigating , ” adding they “ do not make statements without doing our own reporting first . ” CPJ condemned the CNN reporter ’ s arrest shortly after the incident occurred Friday morning . It also issued a general statement condemning all attacks against journalists . “ It ’ s difficult to imagine what police needed as ‘ confirmation that these individuals were members of the media ’ beyond Omar Jimenez showing his press badge while he spoke into a CNN camera surrounded by his producer and crew , ” CPJ Program Director Carlos Martinez de la Serna said , according to its website . “ Journalists have a responsibility to report on matters of public interest , such as protests , and should be able to freely cover these events without fear of retaliation from authorities . These arrests ring of intimidation and are simply outrageous . ” CPJ also issued a tweet condemning the arrest , had its advocacy director partake in a Newsy interview and retweeted numerous comments on the incident . The Society of Professional Journalists ( SPJ ) president explained that it had not yet issued a public statement regarding the Vittert attack because they “ missed this one . ” “ I would just say we missed this one , ” Patricia Gallagher Newberry , president of SPJ , told ███ when asked for comment on the protesters ’ attack . The group added that it was working on a statement “ that essentially calls on police and protesters to remember that journalists play a particular role in these news happenings and that we are there to tell the story . ” “ We are going to double down on our position which is journalists should be free to do their jobs , they should not be impeded from doing their jobs they most certainly should not be attacked by protesters or police as they seek to do their jobs , ” Newberry said , adding that SPJ stands “ with journalists at this time when they ’ re being , yet again , vilified in America for simply doing their jobs . ” Newberry then specifically condemned the protesters ’ actions against Vittert , calling the attack “ inexcusable. ” ( RELATED : Minneapolis 3rd Police Precinct On Fire After Officers Evacuate Building Amid George Floyd Riots ) “ He ’ s being taunted , he ’ s being called the f-word , he ’ s a journalist on the street trying to cover the story … he ’ s trying to do his job like every other journalist in America , ” Newberry told ███ . “ He , from what I could see of the video that I watched , he reacted exactly as he should have . He did not engage , he did not spit back any vitriol to his taunters , he walked away , he sought protection . ” “ He behaved in an extremely responsible and ethical manner in the face of a great challenge to his safety … It ’ s not right for police to attack journalists , it ’ s not right for protesters to attack journalists . Not cool , what the protesters there in D.C. did to Mr. Vittert . ” SPJ issued a general open letter to protesters and police Saturday evening urging them to allow journalists to do their jobs in covering the protests . SPJ asks police officers to let journalists do their jobs in covering the # GeorgeFloyd protests . Take a moment and think before you take action against a journalist there to do their job . Treat us with the same respect and dignity that you would want . https : //t.co/OgzaluO7X3 pic.twitter.com/m8rXB5N223 — Society of Professional Journalists ( @ spj_tweets ) May 30 , 2020 SPJ previously specifically condemned Jimenez ’ s arrest and wrote that it “ demands answers from the Minnesota State Patrol . ” “ Mr . Jimenez and his team were clearly doing nothing but their job – even politely offering to move to wherever police wanted them to go – but were handcuffed and taken into custody anyway , ” Newberry said in the CNN arrest incident . “ This is clearly a violation of the First Amendment and the Minnesota State Patrol owes them and the American people an explanation of why this occurred . This happened on live TV where we could all see . Sadly , it happens much more often than we know in this country and is not documented on live TV . ” Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press ( RCFP ) condemned all attacks against reporters in a response to ███ . “ No reporter should be harassed for doing their job and bringing us the news , ” RCFP Executive Director Bruce Brown said . “ Our attorneys are ready to assist any reporter who needs legal support . ” RCFP confirmed that it did specifically condemn the attack against Vittert when pressed further by ███ . “ Yes , Reporters Committee condemns the harassment and attacks on the Fox News reporter Leland Vittert , ” RCFP wrote . The group “ strongly ” condemned the CNN arrest in a lengthy public statement on its website Friday . “ We strongly condemn the Minnesota State Patrol ’ s arrest of a CNN news crew covering the protests in Minneapolis , who responded professionally and appropriately to the situation , ” RCFP wrote . “ The First Amendment protects newsgathering , and prohibits the government from using police power as a pretext for interfering with press freedoms . Arresting journalists to prevent reporting on a public demonstration is not acceptable . ” “ News coverage of protests like the one in Minneapolis is essential to informing the public and understanding the concerns of our communities . While we are relieved that the news crew was ultimately released , we expect the Minnesota State Patrol to provide a full explanation as to why these reporters , who identified themselves as journalists , were taken into custody . ”

Some press groups condemned the attack by protesters against Fox News reporter Leland Vittert in Washington, D.C. but others remained silent – despite speaking out against the arrest of a CNN reporter one day earlier. Vittert was reporting in Lafayette Park, D.C. and covering protests sparked by the death of George Floyd. Vittert and his crew were accosted and chased out of the area by protesters early Saturday morning, footage captured by the Daily Caller News Foundation shows. (RELATED: CNN Correspondent Arrested Live On-Air During Minneapolis Riots) Many of the groups contacted by the Daily Caller previously publicly issued statements condemning Friday’s arrest of CNN correspondent Omar Jimenez and his crew. The two events, while both suppression of press, do have a noteworthy difference. The CNN crew was arrested by police, and the Fox News crew was attacked by protesters. First Amendment Coalition and Freedom of the Press Foundation did not respond to requests for comment from the Daily Caller. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) told the Daily Caller that it did not have “have a specific statement in that specific incident” when asked for its thoughts regarding the attack against Vittert. CPJ wrote that it is “investigating several reported attacks on journalists covering protests around the country and urges police and protesters alike to refrain from targeting journalists so that they can safely cover these newsworthy event.” When asked for clarification regarding whether CPJ specifically condemns the attack on Vittert, the group wrote that it is “investigating,” adding they “do not make statements without doing our own reporting first.” CPJ condemned the CNN reporter’s arrest shortly after the incident occurred Friday morning. It also issued a general statement condemning all attacks against journalists. “It’s difficult to imagine what police needed as ‘confirmation that these individuals were members of the media’ beyond Omar Jimenez showing his press badge while he spoke into a CNN camera surrounded by his producer and crew,” CPJ Program Director Carlos Martinez de la Serna said, according to its website. “Journalists have a responsibility to report on matters of public interest, such as protests, and should be able to freely cover these events without fear of retaliation from authorities. These arrests ring of intimidation and are simply outrageous.” CPJ also issued a tweet condemning the arrest, had its advocacy director partake in a Newsy interview and retweeted numerous comments on the incident. WATCH: The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) president explained that it had not yet issued a public statement regarding the Vittert attack because they “missed this one.” “I would just say we missed this one,” Patricia Gallagher Newberry, president of SPJ, told the Daily Caller when asked for comment on the protesters’ attack. The group added that it was working on a statement “that essentially calls on police and protesters to remember that journalists play a particular role in these news happenings and that we are there to tell the story.” “We are going to double down on our position which is journalists should be free to do their jobs, they should not be impeded from doing their jobs they most certainly should not be attacked by protesters or police as they seek to do their jobs,” Newberry said, adding that SPJ stands “with journalists at this time when they’re being, yet again, vilified in America for simply doing their jobs.” Newberry then specifically condemned the protesters’ actions against Vittert, calling the attack “inexcusable.” (RELATED: Minneapolis 3rd Police Precinct On Fire After Officers Evacuate Building Amid George Floyd Riots) “He’s being taunted, he’s being called the f-word, he’s a journalist on the street trying to cover the story … he’s trying to do his job like every other journalist in America,” Newberry told the Daily Caller. “He, from what I could see of the video that I watched, he reacted exactly as he should have. He did not engage, he did not spit back any vitriol to his taunters, he walked away, he sought protection.” “He behaved in an extremely responsible and ethical manner in the face of a great challenge to his safety … It’s not right for police to attack journalists, it’s not right for protesters to attack journalists. Not cool, what the protesters there in D.C. did to Mr. Vittert.” SPJ issued a general open letter to protesters and police Saturday evening urging them to allow journalists to do their jobs in covering the protests. SPJ asks police officers to let journalists do their jobs in covering the #GeorgeFloyd protests. Take a moment and think before you take action against a journalist there to do their job. Treat us with the same respect and dignity that you would want. https://t.co/OgzaluO7X3 pic.twitter.com/m8rXB5N223 — Society of Professional Journalists (@spj_tweets) May 30, 2020 SPJ previously specifically condemned Jimenez’s arrest and wrote that it “demands answers from the Minnesota State Patrol.” “Mr. Jimenez and his team were clearly doing nothing but their job – even politely offering to move to wherever police wanted them to go – but were handcuffed and taken into custody anyway,” Newberry said in the CNN arrest incident. “This is clearly a violation of the First Amendment and the Minnesota State Patrol owes them and the American people an explanation of why this occurred. This happened on live TV where we could all see. Sadly, it happens much more often than we know in this country and is not documented on live TV.” Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) condemned all attacks against reporters in a response to the Daily Caller. “No reporter should be harassed for doing their job and bringing us the news,” RCFP Executive Director Bruce Brown said. “Our attorneys are ready to assist any reporter who needs legal support.” RCFP confirmed that it did specifically condemn the attack against Vittert when pressed further by the Daily Caller. “Yes, Reporters Committee condemns the harassment and attacks on the Fox News reporter Leland Vittert,” RCFP wrote. The group “strongly” condemned the CNN arrest in a lengthy public statement on its website Friday. “We strongly condemn the Minnesota State Patrol’s arrest of a CNN news crew covering the protests in Minneapolis, who responded professionally and appropriately to the situation,” RCFP wrote. “The First Amendment protects newsgathering, and prohibits the government from using police power as a pretext for interfering with press freedoms. Arresting journalists to prevent reporting on a public demonstration is not acceptable.” “News coverage of protests like the one in Minneapolis is essential to informing the public and understanding the concerns of our communities. While we are relieved that the news crew was ultimately released, we expect the Minnesota State Patrol to provide a full explanation as to why these reporters, who identified themselves as journalists, were taken into custody.”

www.dailycaller.com

right

XOa8V3f0RuQBFFnV

test

v2G2TYzE6ozysjtF

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/08/votes-are-there-to-break-shutdown-but-not-the-will/?hpt=hp_t1

Votes are there to break shutdown, but not the will

2013-10-08

Washington ( CNN ) – There appeared to be enough votes in the House on Wednesday to approve legislation to reopen the federal government , according to an ongoing CNN survey of House members . All 200 Democrats and 19 Republicans support passing a continuing resolution with no additional legislative strings attached that would reopen the federal government , which has been partially closed for a week over a bitter policy dispute between Republicans and Democrats on health care . With three vacancies in 435 member House , 217 votes are currently the minimum needed for the measure to win approval in the House . CNN 's vote count appears to bear out what President Barack Obama said on Monday . `` The truth of the matter is , there are enough Republican and Democratic votes in the House of Representatives right now to end this shutdown immediately with no partisan strings attached , '' Obama said . But this does not mean a vote will happen any time soon , given that these Republicans have not indicated a willingness to try to force Speaker John Boehner , R-Ohio , to bring a continuing resolution with no strings attached to the floor for a vote . After a meeting with Republicans on Tuesday , Republican Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma told CNN that the speaker told members there would not be a House vote on a `` clean '' government funding bill . The clean CR is at the center of the dispute between Obama and Republicans , the latter trying to use the government shutdown as a legislative avenue to help defund the president 's health care law . Many House Republicans are demanding that passage of a continuing resolution is contingent on the health care law being delayed – the first step in an effort they hope to use to dismantle it . The president and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nevada , have said that the GOP 's efforts are a non-starter . As is the case with all vote counts , the numbers continually evolve and change by the hour and day . Still , Boehner has maintained that there are not enough votes in the House to pass a `` clean '' CR . `` There are not the votes in the House to pass a clean CR , '' the speaker said Sunday on ABC 's `` This Week . '' `` The American people expect in Washington , when we have a crisis like this , that the leaders will sit down and have a conversation . I told my members the other day , there may be a back room somewhere , but there 's nobody in it . '' Republican Rep. Charles Dent of Pennsylvania disagreed with the speaker 's assessment . He told CNN on Monday that if the vote were to come to the floor , he believes it would pass . `` I believe a clean CR would pass comfortably , '' said Dent . `` I 'm not here to predict the number , I think it would clear the 217 vote barrier . '' In response , Obama dared Boehner on Monday to prove that he does n't have the votes for a clean continuing resolution . `` If Republicans and Speaker Boehner are saying there are not enough votes then they should prove it , '' Obama said . `` Let the bill go to the floor , and let 's see what happens . Just vote . '' On Monday , as Democrats trumpeted other vote counts that appeared to show there are enough votes in the House to pass a clean government funding bill , a number of lawmakers began to walk back previous statements . Republican Rep. Devin Nunes of California was one of those lawmakers . After telling Huffington Post and others that he supported a government funding bill with no strings attached , his spokesman said Monday that `` that was never the case . '' `` He does not support a clean CR , does not support it , does not advocate it , '' said Jack Langer , a spokesman for Nunes . Republicans Leonard Lance of New Jersey and Randy Forbes of Virginia , who other news outlets report have supported a clean government funding bill , told CNN on Monday that they did not back the measure . `` Reports that Randy Forbes supports a 'clean ' CR are not true , '' a Forbes said . `` This was misrepresented in a story by the Virginian Pilot ( newspaper ) , which subsequently was picked up by HuffPo and other national outlets – none of which bothered to contact our office to verify . '' Instead , Forbes has introduced legislation that would fund all of the government except Obamcare , the aide said . Not all Republicans moved away from voting for a government funding bill with no strings attached . Late on Monday , Republican Rep. David Reichert of Washington said he would `` continue to vote for any legislation that keeps the federal government open . '' Likewise on Tuesday , Republican Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado announced he supported a government funding bill with no strings attached in a Denver Post opinion-editorial and Republican Rep. Walter B. Jones of North Carolina said he wished the House `` would pass a clean CR '' during an interview with MSNBC . Other Republican members , like Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida , would not confirm a report from the Miami Herald that said the lawmaker would support a clean resolution . `` The president needs to sit down and negotiate with the speaker , '' Cesar Gonzalez , a spokesman for Diaz-Balart , said . `` In the meantime , the congressman does not think it is wise to negotiate through the press . '' The 19 Republicans who support a government funding bill with no strings attached are : Walter B. Jones , R-North Carolina : Said during an interview with MSNBC that he wished the House `` would pass a clean CR . '' Mike Coffman , R-Colorado : Announced he supported a government funding bill with no strings attached in a Denver Post opinion-editorial . Tim Griffin , R-Arkansas : `` Tweeted the he would support a clean government funding bill . '' Bill Young , R-Florida : A spokesman tells CNN that Young would support a clean government funding bill . Dennis Ross , R-Florida : A spokeswoman told CNN Ross would support a one-year government funding bill at sequestration levels with no strings attached . Mike Simpson , R-Idaho : Statement : `` Similar to Sen. Rand Paul , I could support a very short-term clean CR , perhaps one or two weeks , while we continue to negotiate on a longer-term bill . '' Frank LoBiondo , R-New Jersey : LoBiondo penned an editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer that said he supported a clean government funding bill . Jon Runyan , R- New Jersey : Runyan penned an editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer that said he supported a clean government funding bill . Pete King , R-New York : Told CNN he supports passing a clean government funding bill . Michael Grimm , R-New York : Grimm told CNN he would support a clean government funding bill . Jim Gerlach , R-Penn . : A spokesman told CNN that Gerlach would support a clean government funding bill if it came to the floor . Pat Meehan , R-Penn . : Statement on October 1 : `` I believe it ’ s time for the House to vote for a clean , short-term funding bill . '' Michael Fitzpatrick , R-Penn . : Fitzpatrick penned an editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer that said he supported a clean government funding bill . Lou Barletta , R-Penn . : A spokesman told CNN that Barletta would vote yes if a clean government funding bill came to the floor . On Tuesday morning , the spokesman said while Barletta is now focused on passing a compromise that includes repealing of the medical device tax , it is fair to include him as a yes vote for a funding bill with no strings attached . Charles Dent , R-Penn . : Told CNN he supports a clean government funding bill . `` I think now it 's imperative that we just fund the government , '' he said . Robert Wittman , R-Virgina : A spokeswoman tell CNN Wittman would vote yes on a clean government funding bill . Scott Rigell , R-Virginia : Told CNN on October 1 that he supported passing a clean government funding bill . Frank Wolf , R-Virginia : A spokesman tells CNN that Wolf will support a clean government funding bill . David Reichert , R-Washington : October 7 statement : `` I will continue to vote for any legislation that keeps the federal government open . '' - CNN 's Laura Koran and Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report

6 years ago Updated 10/9/2013 at 8:00 a.m. Washington (CNN) – There appeared to be enough votes in the House on Wednesday to approve legislation to reopen the federal government, according to an ongoing CNN survey of House members. CNN's vote count All 200 Democrats and 19 Republicans support passing a continuing resolution with no additional legislative strings attached that would reopen the federal government, which has been partially closed for a week over a bitter policy dispute between Republicans and Democrats on health care. With three vacancies in 435 member House, 217 votes are currently the minimum needed for the measure to win approval in the House. CNN's vote count appears to bear out what President Barack Obama said on Monday. "The truth of the matter is, there are enough Republican and Democratic votes in the House of Representatives right now to end this shutdown immediately with no partisan strings attached," Obama said. But this does not mean a vote will happen any time soon, given that these Republicans have not indicated a willingness to try to force Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to bring a continuing resolution with no strings attached to the floor for a vote. After a meeting with Republicans on Tuesday, Republican Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma told CNN that the speaker told members there would not be a House vote on a "clean" government funding bill. The clean CR is at the center of the dispute between Obama and Republicans, the latter trying to use the government shutdown as a legislative avenue to help defund the president's health care law. Many House Republicans are demanding that passage of a continuing resolution is contingent on the health care law being delayed – the first step in an effort they hope to use to dismantle it. The president and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, have said that the GOP's efforts are a non-starter. As is the case with all vote counts, the numbers continually evolve and change by the hour and day. Still, Boehner has maintained that there are not enough votes in the House to pass a "clean" CR. "There are not the votes in the House to pass a clean CR," the speaker said Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "The American people expect in Washington, when we have a crisis like this, that the leaders will sit down and have a conversation. I told my members the other day, there may be a back room somewhere, but there's nobody in it." Republican Rep. Charles Dent of Pennsylvania disagreed with the speaker's assessment. He told CNN on Monday that if the vote were to come to the floor, he believes it would pass. "I believe a clean CR would pass comfortably," said Dent. "I'm not here to predict the number, I think it would clear the 217 vote barrier." In response, Obama dared Boehner on Monday to prove that he doesn't have the votes for a clean continuing resolution. "If Republicans and Speaker Boehner are saying there are not enough votes then they should prove it," Obama said. "Let the bill go to the floor, and let's see what happens. Just vote." On Monday, as Democrats trumpeted other vote counts that appeared to show there are enough votes in the House to pass a clean government funding bill, a number of lawmakers began to walk back previous statements. Republican Rep. Devin Nunes of California was one of those lawmakers. After telling Huffington Post and others that he supported a government funding bill with no strings attached, his spokesman said Monday that "that was never the case." "He does not support a clean CR, does not support it, does not advocate it," said Jack Langer, a spokesman for Nunes. Republicans Leonard Lance of New Jersey and Randy Forbes of Virginia, who other news outlets report have supported a clean government funding bill, told CNN on Monday that they did not back the measure. "Reports that Randy Forbes supports a 'clean' CR are not true," a Forbes said. "This was misrepresented in a story by the Virginian Pilot (newspaper), which subsequently was picked up by HuffPo and other national outlets – none of which bothered to contact our office to verify." Instead, Forbes has introduced legislation that would fund all of the government except Obamcare, the aide said. Not all Republicans moved away from voting for a government funding bill with no strings attached. Late on Monday, Republican Rep. David Reichert of Washington said he would "continue to vote for any legislation that keeps the federal government open." Likewise on Tuesday, Republican Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado announced he supported a government funding bill with no strings attached in a Denver Post opinion-editorial and Republican Rep. Walter B. Jones of North Carolina said he wished the House "would pass a clean CR" during an interview with MSNBC. Other Republican members, like Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, would not confirm a report from the Miami Herald that said the lawmaker would support a clean resolution. "The president needs to sit down and negotiate with the speaker," Cesar Gonzalez, a spokesman for Diaz-Balart, said. "In the meantime, the congressman does not think it is wise to negotiate through the press." The 19 Republicans who support a government funding bill with no strings attached are: Walter B. Jones, R-North Carolina: Said during an interview with MSNBC that he wished the House "would pass a clean CR." Mike Coffman, R-Colorado: Announced he supported a government funding bill with no strings attached in a Denver Post opinion-editorial. Tim Griffin, R-Arkansas: "Tweeted the he would support a clean government funding bill." Bill Young, R-Florida: A spokesman tells CNN that Young would support a clean government funding bill. Dennis Ross, R-Florida: A spokeswoman told CNN Ross would support a one-year government funding bill at sequestration levels with no strings attached. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho: Statement: "Similar to Sen. Rand Paul, I could support a very short-term clean CR, perhaps one or two weeks, while we continue to negotiate on a longer-term bill." Frank LoBiondo, R-New Jersey: LoBiondo penned an editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer that said he supported a clean government funding bill. Jon Runyan, R- New Jersey: Runyan penned an editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer that said he supported a clean government funding bill. Pete King, R-New York: Told CNN he supports passing a clean government funding bill. Michael Grimm, R-New York: Grimm told CNN he would support a clean government funding bill. Jim Gerlach, R-Penn.: A spokesman told CNN that Gerlach would support a clean government funding bill if it came to the floor. Pat Meehan, R-Penn.: Statement on October 1: "I believe it’s time for the House to vote for a clean, short-term funding bill." Michael Fitzpatrick, R-Penn.: Fitzpatrick penned an editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer that said he supported a clean government funding bill. Lou Barletta, R-Penn.: A spokesman told CNN that Barletta would vote yes if a clean government funding bill came to the floor. On Tuesday morning, the spokesman said while Barletta is now focused on passing a compromise that includes repealing of the medical device tax, it is fair to include him as a yes vote for a funding bill with no strings attached. Charles Dent, R-Penn.: Told CNN he supports a clean government funding bill. "I think now it's imperative that we just fund the government," he said. Robert Wittman, R-Virgina: A spokeswoman tell CNN Wittman would vote yes on a clean government funding bill. Scott Rigell, R-Virginia: Told CNN on October 1 that he supported passing a clean government funding bill. Frank Wolf, R-Virginia: A spokesman tells CNN that Wolf will support a clean government funding bill. David Reichert, R-Washington: October 7 statement: "I will continue to vote for any legislation that keeps the federal government open." - CNN's Laura Koran and Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

v2G2TYzE6ozysjtF

test

tlIVEPzNHydlNvZ8

republican_party

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/devastating-tornado-oklahoma-senators-grapple-sandy-aid-votes/story?id=19226182#.UZvOTcrC2W8

After Tornado, Oklahoma Senators Grapple With Past Disaster Aid Opposition

Abd. Phillip

Lawmakers have pledged to send aid to tornado-devastated Oklahoma quickly , but the state 's Republican lawmakers -- six of whom voted against disaster aid after Superstorm Sandy -- may be forced to reckon with their past votes against emergency disaster funding . Oklahoma 's two Republican senators , Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn , opposed a bill that provided more than $ 60 billion in emergency aid after Superstorm Sandy devastated the East Coast . In addition , three members of Oklahoma 's House delegation joined with most Republicans in opposing the legislation . Nearly all of the lawmakers have pledged that whatever assistance Oklahomans need will be provided , but the devil will be in the details . Coburn , who opposed the Sandy bill because it did not identify spending cuts to offset the cost of the legislation , said in the immediate aftermath of the tornado that he would `` absolutely '' demand spending cuts in exchange for aid . A spokesman for Coburn confirmed this morning that he would not change his position on demanding spending cuts in order to fund disaster aid . Other Republicans opposed what they considered to be unrelated spending in the Sandy bill . `` When a disaster occurs in America and emotions are high , everybody all of a sudden wants to pour money on it , '' Inhofe said on the Senate floor in 2012 . Asked about his past vote against Sandy funding , Inhofe said that funding for tornado relief would be `` totally different . '' `` That was totally different , '' Inhofe said on MSNBC this morning . `` They were getting things -- for instance , that was supposed to be for New Jersey . They had things in the Virgin Islands . They were fixing roads there . They were putting roofs on houses in Washington , D.C . '' `` Everybody was getting in and exploiting the tragedy that took place . That wo n't happen in Oklahoma , '' he added . But the $ 60.4 Sandy relief bill , which languished in Congress because of opposition from Republican lawmakers , may be a cautionary tale . The public fight over funding pitted congressional Republicans against one of their party 's rising stars , New Jersey Gov . Chris Christie , and even some members of their own caucus from the Northeast whose states were affected by the massive storm . In the heated rhetoric over the bill , Rep. Peter King , R-N.Y. , said Republicans were betraying New Yorkers and New Jerseyans . `` I 'm saying right now ... anyone from New York and New Jersey [ who ] contributes one penny to congressional Republicans is out of their minds , '' King said on Fox News in January . `` Because what [ they ] did last night was put a knife in the back of New Yorkers and New Jerseyans . It 's an absolute disgrace . '' It is perhaps in light of that public intraparty meltdown that House Speaker John Boehner , R-Ohio , this morning would not answer questions about whether Republicans would demand that Oklahoma relief funds also be paid for . `` We 'll work with the administration on making sure that they have the resources they need to help the people of Oklahoma , '' Boehner said repeatedly in answer to questions from reporters . So far , the Federal Emergency Management Agency has about $ 11 billion in its disaster relief fund and a final tallying of the cost of rebuilding parts of Oklahoma likely wo n't be finished for weeks . After Inhofe 's comments this morning , he has been the subject of a storm of ridicule . `` Inhofe and Coburn : Red state hypocrites . Apparently we have deserving and undeserving disasters , '' wrote Joan Walsh , editor-at-large at Salon.com .

Lawmakers have pledged to send aid to tornado-devastated Oklahoma quickly, but the state's Republican lawmakers -- six of whom voted against disaster aid after Superstorm Sandy -- may be forced to reckon with their past votes against emergency disaster funding. Oklahoma's two Republican senators, Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn, opposed a bill that provided more than $60 billion in emergency aid after Superstorm Sandy devastated the East Coast. In addition, three members of Oklahoma's House delegation joined with most Republicans in opposing the legislation. Nearly all of the lawmakers have pledged that whatever assistance Oklahomans need will be provided, but the devil will be in the details. Coburn, who opposed the Sandy bill because it did not identify spending cuts to offset the cost of the legislation, said in the immediate aftermath of the tornado that he would "absolutely" demand spending cuts in exchange for aid. A spokesman for Coburn confirmed this morning that he would not change his position on demanding spending cuts in order to fund disaster aid. Other Republicans opposed what they considered to be unrelated spending in the Sandy bill. "When a disaster occurs in America and emotions are high, everybody all of a sudden wants to pour money on it," Inhofe said on the Senate floor in 2012. Asked about his past vote against Sandy funding, Inhofe said that funding for tornado relief would be "totally different." "That was totally different," Inhofe said on MSNBC this morning. "They were getting things -- for instance, that was supposed to be for New Jersey. They had things in the Virgin Islands. They were fixing roads there. They were putting roofs on houses in Washington, D.C." "Everybody was getting in and exploiting the tragedy that took place. That won't happen in Oklahoma," he added. But the $60.4 Sandy relief bill, which languished in Congress because of opposition from Republican lawmakers, may be a cautionary tale. The public fight over funding pitted congressional Republicans against one of their party's rising stars, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and even some members of their own caucus from the Northeast whose states were affected by the massive storm. In the heated rhetoric over the bill, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said Republicans were betraying New Yorkers and New Jerseyans. "I'm saying right now ... anyone from New York and New Jersey [who] contributes one penny to congressional Republicans is out of their minds," King said on Fox News in January. "Because what [they] did last night was put a knife in the back of New Yorkers and New Jerseyans. It's an absolute disgrace." It is perhaps in light of that public intraparty meltdown that House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, this morning would not answer questions about whether Republicans would demand that Oklahoma relief funds also be paid for. "We'll work with the administration on making sure that they have the resources they need to help the people of Oklahoma," Boehner said repeatedly in answer to questions from reporters. So far, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has about $11 billion in its disaster relief fund and a final tallying of the cost of rebuilding parts of Oklahoma likely won't be finished for weeks. But already, Republicans are taking some heat. After Inhofe's comments this morning, he has been the subject of a storm of ridicule. "Inhofe and Coburn: Red state hypocrites. Apparently we have deserving and undeserving disasters," wrote Joan Walsh, editor-at-large at Salon.com.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

tlIVEPzNHydlNvZ8

test

TvS7gZxFTWiRsNSs

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/baltimore-riots-police-dept/2015/05/06/id/642898/

Baltimore Mayor Calls for Federal Investigation into Police

2015-05-06

The mayor called on federal investigators Wednesday to look into whether this city 's beleaguered police department uses a pattern of excessive force or discriminatory policing . Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said even though complaints of excessive force and lawsuits alleging misconduct our down over the last few years , `` we all know that Baltimore has a fractured relationship with community . '' The mayor 's request came a day after new Attorney General Loretta Lynch visited the city . The mayor said Lynch understands the urgency of her request . Baltimore saw days of unrest after Freddie Gray , a black man , was taken into custody and suffered critical injuries . He died a week later . People threw bottles and bricks at police during a riot on April 27 , injuring nearly 100 officers . More than 200 people were arrested as cars and businesses burned . The Justice Department is already investigating whether Gray 's civil rights were violated , and six officers face charges in the arrest and death , ranging from assault to second-degree murder . The new investigation the mayor called for is similar to one was done in Ferguson , Missouri , following the shooting of an unarmed , black 18-year-old man by a white police officer . Such wide-ranging investigations look for patterns of discrimination within a police department . They can examine how officers use force and search and arrest suspects . At the time the Ferguson inquiry was announced in September , it was described as part of a broader Justice Department effort to investigate troubled police departments and , when pervasive problems are found , direct changes to be made . The department said then it has investigated 20 police departments for a variety of systemic misconduct in the past five years , more than twice the number of cases opened in the previous five years . The investigations can sometimes result in a settlement known as a consent decree , in which the department agrees to make specific changes , and an outside monitor is appointed to make sure the police force complies with the agreement . The Justice Department reached a court-supervised agreement in 2012 with the New Orleans Police Department that required the agency to overhaul its policies and procedures for use of force , training , interrogations , searches and arrests , recruitment and supervision . In April , it issued a harshly critical report of the police department in Albuquerque , New Mexico , that faulted the agency for a pattern of excessive force and called for an overhaul of its internal affairs unit . © Copyright 2019 The Associated Press . All rights reserved . This material may not be published , broadcast , rewritten or redistributed .

The mayor called on federal investigators Wednesday to look into whether this city's beleaguered police department uses a pattern of excessive force or discriminatory policing. Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said even though complaints of excessive force and lawsuits alleging misconduct our down over the last few years, "we all know that Baltimore has a fractured relationship with community." The mayor's request came a day after new Attorney General Loretta Lynch visited the city. The mayor said Lynch understands the urgency of her request. Baltimore saw days of unrest after Freddie Gray, a black man, was taken into custody and suffered critical injuries. He died a week later. People threw bottles and bricks at police during a riot on April 27, injuring nearly 100 officers. More than 200 people were arrested as cars and businesses burned. The Justice Department is already investigating whether Gray's civil rights were violated, and six officers face charges in the arrest and death, ranging from assault to second-degree murder. The new investigation the mayor called for is similar to one was done in Ferguson, Missouri, following the shooting of an unarmed, black 18-year-old man by a white police officer. Such wide-ranging investigations look for patterns of discrimination within a police department. They can examine how officers use force and search and arrest suspects. At the time the Ferguson inquiry was announced in September, it was described as part of a broader Justice Department effort to investigate troubled police departments and, when pervasive problems are found, direct changes to be made. The department said then it has investigated 20 police departments for a variety of systemic misconduct in the past five years, more than twice the number of cases opened in the previous five years. The investigations can sometimes result in a settlement known as a consent decree, in which the department agrees to make specific changes, and an outside monitor is appointed to make sure the police force complies with the agreement. The Justice Department reached a court-supervised agreement in 2012 with the New Orleans Police Department that required the agency to overhaul its policies and procedures for use of force, training, interrogations, searches and arrests, recruitment and supervision. In April, it issued a harshly critical report of the police department in Albuquerque, New Mexico, that faulted the agency for a pattern of excessive force and called for an overhaul of its internal affairs unit. © Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

www.newsmax.com

right

TvS7gZxFTWiRsNSs

test

jYcdCu1qotQV2hss

nuclear_weapons

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41140491

The most powerful nuclear blasts ever

The apparent hydrogen bomb that North Korea is believed to have detonated underground on Sunday was a massive explosion . Some estimates put it at 100 kilotons , which would be five times more powerful than Fat Man , the bomb dropped on Nagasaki by the US in 1945 and which killed 70,000 people instantly . But it still pales in comparison to the largest man-made explosion ever on Earth - the Soviet Union 's Tsar Bomba - King of Bombs - detonated in 1961 in the height of the nuclear arms race . That hydrogen bomb unleashed a staggering power of 50,000 kilotons , or 50 megatons . Reports at the time said the Tsar Bomba destroyed all buildings within 55km ( 35 miles ) of the test site at Sukhoy Nos in the Arctic Novaya Zemlya archipelago . Buildings were destroyed and windows broken for hundreds of kilometres all around . There were reports of broken windows in Finland and Norway , and the shockwave generated by the blast travelled around the planet three times . It was a physically an enormous bomb , weighing 27 tonnes and about 8m in length , meaning it was entirely impractical as a genuine weapon . It was dropped by parachute , from a manned plane . The crew survived , though that had been far from a certainty . It later emerged that the bomb could have been even more powerful - it was originally designed to generate a 100-megaton blast , but was scaled back to prevent the nuclear fallout affecting the wider population . The Soviet Union carried out several other tests of immensely powerful nuclear weapons in the 1960s in Novaya Zemlya , which had a yield of 20-24 megatons . But more than half of the more than 2,000 deliberate nuclear explosions since the dawn of the nuclear weapons age in July 1945 have been by the US , still the only country to use nuclear weapons in war . In November 1952 , the US blew up the world 's first hydrogen bomb - a far more powerful nuclear device than atomic bombs . Codenamed Ivy Mike , the 82 tonne-weapon was detonated in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean . Archive news footage of the blast shows observers watching from military boats about 50km away . Harold Agnew , a physicist and leading figure in US nuclear programme , was on board one of the boats , and later said : `` Something I will never forget was the heat . Not the blast ... the heat just kept coming , just kept coming on and on . It 's really quite a terrifying experience . '' The blast cloud was about 50km high and 100km wide , and completely destroyed the island of Elugelab . But the biggest ever nuclear device detonated by the US was Castle Bravo , in 1954 at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands . Castle Bravo is mostly remembered for its unintended after effects . It was expected to have a yield of about 5,000 kilotons , but the scientists had miscalculated and the eventual yield was three times that . The resulting mushroom cloud was more than four miles wide and radiation spread over 11,000 sq km . People nearby had been evacuated - many never to return - but the effects were wider than expected . In the days afterwards , hundreds more people across neighbouring atolls were exposed to nuclear fallout , as well as the crew of a Japanese fishing boat in the area , leading to radiation sickness . In 1997 , the International Atomic Energy Agency said the Bikini Atoll should `` should not be permanently resettled under the present radiological conditions '' .

Image copyright AFP Image caption The first nuclear test was carried out by the US in the New Mexico desert in 1945 The apparent hydrogen bomb that North Korea is believed to have detonated underground on Sunday was a massive explosion. Some estimates put it at 100 kilotons, which would be five times more powerful than Fat Man, the bomb dropped on Nagasaki by the US in 1945 and which killed 70,000 people instantly. But it still pales in comparison to the largest man-made explosion ever on Earth - the Soviet Union's Tsar Bomba - King of Bombs - detonated in 1961 in the height of the nuclear arms race. That hydrogen bomb unleashed a staggering power of 50,000 kilotons, or 50 megatons. Reports at the time said the Tsar Bomba destroyed all buildings within 55km (35 miles) of the test site at Sukhoy Nos in the Arctic Novaya Zemlya archipelago. Buildings were destroyed and windows broken for hundreds of kilometres all around. There were reports of broken windows in Finland and Norway, and the shockwave generated by the blast travelled around the planet three times. It was a physically an enormous bomb, weighing 27 tonnes and about 8m in length, meaning it was entirely impractical as a genuine weapon. It was dropped by parachute, from a manned plane. The crew survived, though that had been far from a certainty. It later emerged that the bomb could have been even more powerful - it was originally designed to generate a 100-megaton blast, but was scaled back to prevent the nuclear fallout affecting the wider population. The Soviet Union carried out several other tests of immensely powerful nuclear weapons in the 1960s in Novaya Zemlya, which had a yield of 20-24 megatons. But more than half of the more than 2,000 deliberate nuclear explosions since the dawn of the nuclear weapons age in July 1945 have been by the US, still the only country to use nuclear weapons in war. In November 1952, the US blew up the world's first hydrogen bomb - a far more powerful nuclear device than atomic bombs. Codenamed Ivy Mike, the 82 tonne-weapon was detonated in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean. It had an explosive power of 10 megatons. Image copyright AFP Image caption The US hydrogen bomb explosion in 1952 Archive news footage of the blast shows observers watching from military boats about 50km away. Harold Agnew, a physicist and leading figure in US nuclear programme, was on board one of the boats, and later said: "Something I will never forget was the heat. Not the blast... the heat just kept coming, just kept coming on and on. It's really quite a terrifying experience." The blast cloud was about 50km high and 100km wide, and completely destroyed the island of Elugelab. Image copyright AFP Image caption A huge concrete dome covers the site on Runit Island in the Marshall Islands where repeated nuclear tests were carried out But the biggest ever nuclear device detonated by the US was Castle Bravo, in 1954 at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands. Castle Bravo is mostly remembered for its unintended after effects. It was expected to have a yield of about 5,000 kilotons, but the scientists had miscalculated and the eventual yield was three times that. The resulting mushroom cloud was more than four miles wide and radiation spread over 11,000 sq km. Image copyright Science Photo Library Image caption This 1956 test was one of several carried out in Bikini Atoll in the 1950s People nearby had been evacuated - many never to return - but the effects were wider than expected. In the days afterwards, hundreds more people across neighbouring atolls were exposed to nuclear fallout, as well as the crew of a Japanese fishing boat in the area, leading to radiation sickness. In 1997, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the Bikini Atoll should "should not be permanently resettled under the present radiological conditions".

www.bbc.com

center

jYcdCu1qotQV2hss

test

0KM0Gl4lyE3nfvEe

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/02/trump-mocks-christine-blasey-ford-at-mississippi-rally

Trump mocks Christine Blasey Ford at Mississippi rally as supporters cheer

2018-10-02

Tom Mccarthy

In a raucous campaign-style rally in Mississippi on Tuesday night , Donald Trump mocked Christine Blasey Ford , who in wrenching testimony at a hearing before the Senate judiciary committee last week said the supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when she was a teenager . As hundreds of supporters cheered , Trump delivered a crude imitation of Ford from her testimony , in which she vividly described a violent sexual assault she alleges Kavanaugh committed against her in the early 1980s , while admitting that certain details of the time and place were lost to memory . Early on Wednesday , the Republican senator Jeff Flake , a key member of the Senate judiciary committee that held the hearing , called Trump ’ s remarks “ kind of appalling ” . Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by at least 20 women , whose allegations he has denied and dismissed . But last week he called Ford a “ very credible witness ” and said : “ I thought her testimony was very compelling and she looks like a very fine woman to me , very fine woman . ” At his rally , the president mocked Ford ’ s testimony with a question-and-answer patter that brought cheers from the crowd in Southaven , Mississippi . “ How did you get home ? ” Trump said , echoing a question Ford was asked by the committee . “ I don ’ t remember , ” the president said . “ How did you get there ? ‘ I don ’ t remember. ’ Where is the place ? ‘ I don ’ t remember. ’ How many years ago was it ? ‘ I don ’ t know. ’ What neighborhood was it ? ‘ I don ’ t know. ’ Where ’ s the house ? ‘ I don ’ t know . ’ ” Trump defends Kavanaugh but says ' a lot will depend ' on FBI investigation Read more Trump concluded the riff by lamenting the personal cost to Kavanaugh of Ford ’ s allegations and by insinuating that Ford was part of a partisan conspiracy . “ They destroy people , these are really evil people , ” Trump said . “ To discuss something this sensitive at a political rally is just not right . It ’ s just not right , and I wish he had not done it , ” Flake said on NBC . He was standing next to the Democratic senator and fellow committee member Chris Coons of Delaware . Flake triggered an FBI investigation of Kavanaugh last Friday when , at the last minute and after being confronted by two protesters in an elevator on Capitol Hill , he agreed to advance Kavanaugh ’ s nomination – but only if there was a week delay for law enforcement to investigate allegations of serious sexual misconduct against the judge . The White House then ordered the investigation . Flake made his about-face having signaled moments earlier that he would vote to approve Kavanaugh outright , then huddling in frantic negotiations with Democratics on the committee . He has since continued his strong stance of questioning Kavanaugh ’ s nomination . On Tuesday night after the remarks , Michael Bromwich , a member of Ford ’ s legal team , condemned “ a vicious , vile and soulless attack ” . Writing on Twitter , he said of Ford , and Trump : “ Is it any wonder that she was terrified to come forward , and that other sexual assault survivors are as well ? She is a remarkable profile in courage . He is a profile in cowardice . ” Michael R. Bromwich ( @ mrbromwich ) A vicious , vile and soulless attack on Dr. Christine Blasey Ford . Is it any wonder that she was terrified to come forward , and that other sexual assault survivors are as well ? She is a remarkable profile in courage . He is a profile in cowardice . https : //t.co/UJ0bGxV1EZ Last week ’ s day of drama had followed an extraordinary hearing by the committee the day before when Kavanaugh and Ford gave dueling testimony about a party in their high school years at which Ford says the then 17-year-old Kavanaugh attempted to rape her , when she was 15 . He furiously disputed the account in an emotional and partisan display . In contrast to Trump ’ s portrayal on Tuesday evening , Ford accurately placed multiple people in Kavanaugh ’ s contemporaneous social circle – as established by his archived calendars from the era – at the scene , and gave a clear account of the alleged attack itself . In her testimony , she said : “ I am here today not because I want to be . I am terrified . I am here because I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school . ” Kavanaugh is Trump ’ s second pick to fill a supreme court vacancy . The confirmation process for Trump ’ s first pick , Neil Gorsuch , proceeded to a vote without significant controversy . Hundreds of law professors sign letters rejecting Kavanaugh nomination Read more But Kavanaugh has been waylaid by accusations of sexual assault by Ford and two other women who have spoken out publicly , and by doubts about his testimony before the Senate , which included conspiracy-mongering and dubious descriptions of his high school and college years . Speaking under oath before the Senate committee , Kavanaugh denied any drinking problem and denied bragging about sexual conquests in a high school yearbook entry . Former classmates have since stepped forward to say that Kavanaugh was a frequent drunk . The New York Times on Tuesday published a handwritten letter by Kavanaugh instructing friends participating in an upcoming holiday rental to “ warn the neighbors that we ’ re loud , obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us ” . In testimony last Thursday , Ford described attending a house party in the Washington DC suburbs in the early 1980s at which she was pushed into a bedroom where a drunk Kavanaugh held her down , groped her , tried to strip her and left her fearing for her life . Ford told the Senate she was “ 100 % ” certain that he was her attacker , Kavanaugh said he was “ 100 % ” certain he was not .

In a raucous campaign-style rally in Mississippi on Tuesday night, Donald Trump mocked Christine Blasey Ford, who in wrenching testimony at a hearing before the Senate judiciary committee last week said the supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when she was a teenager. As hundreds of supporters cheered, Trump delivered a crude imitation of Ford from her testimony, in which she vividly described a violent sexual assault she alleges Kavanaugh committed against her in the early 1980s, while admitting that certain details of the time and place were lost to memory. Early on Wednesday, the Republican senator Jeff Flake, a key member of the Senate judiciary committee that held the hearing, called Trump’s remarks “kind of appalling”. Sign up for the US morning briefing Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by at least 20 women, whose allegations he has denied and dismissed. But last week he called Ford a “very credible witness” and said: “I thought her testimony was very compelling and she looks like a very fine woman to me, very fine woman.” At his rally, the president mocked Ford’s testimony with a question-and-answer patter that brought cheers from the crowd in Southaven, Mississippi. “How did you get home?” Trump said, echoing a question Ford was asked by the committee. “I don’t remember,” the president said. “How did you get there? ‘I don’t remember.’ Where is the place? ‘I don’t remember.’ How many years ago was it? ‘I don’t know.’ What neighborhood was it? ‘I don’t know.’ Where’s the house? ‘I don’t know.’” Trump defends Kavanaugh but says 'a lot will depend' on FBI investigation Read more Trump concluded the riff by lamenting the personal cost to Kavanaugh of Ford’s allegations and by insinuating that Ford was part of a partisan conspiracy. “They destroy people, these are really evil people,” Trump said. But Flake countered on Wednesday morning. “To discuss something this sensitive at a political rally is just not right. It’s just not right, and I wish he had not done it,” Flake said on NBC. He was standing next to the Democratic senator and fellow committee member Chris Coons of Delaware. Flake triggered an FBI investigation of Kavanaugh last Friday when, at the last minute and after being confronted by two protesters in an elevator on Capitol Hill, he agreed to advance Kavanaugh’s nomination – but only if there was a week delay for law enforcement to investigate allegations of serious sexual misconduct against the judge. The White House then ordered the investigation. Flake made his about-face having signaled moments earlier that he would vote to approve Kavanaugh outright, then huddling in frantic negotiations with Democratics on the committee. He has since continued his strong stance of questioning Kavanaugh’s nomination. On Tuesday night after the remarks, Michael Bromwich, a member of Ford’s legal team, condemned “a vicious, vile and soulless attack”. Writing on Twitter, he said of Ford, and Trump: “Is it any wonder that she was terrified to come forward, and that other sexual assault survivors are as well? She is a remarkable profile in courage. He is a profile in cowardice.” Michael R. Bromwich (@mrbromwich) A vicious, vile and soulless attack on Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Is it any wonder that she was terrified to come forward, and that other sexual assault survivors are as well? She is a remarkable profile in courage. He is a profile in cowardice. https://t.co/UJ0bGxV1EZ Last week’s day of drama had followed an extraordinary hearing by the committee the day before when Kavanaugh and Ford gave dueling testimony about a party in their high school years at which Ford says the then 17-year-old Kavanaugh attempted to rape her, when she was 15. He furiously disputed the account in an emotional and partisan display. In contrast to Trump’s portrayal on Tuesday evening, Ford accurately placed multiple people in Kavanaugh’s contemporaneous social circle – as established by his archived calendars from the era – at the scene, and gave a clear account of the alleged attack itself. In her testimony, she said: “I am here today not because I want to be. I am terrified. I am here because I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school.” Kavanaugh is Trump’s second pick to fill a supreme court vacancy. The confirmation process for Trump’s first pick, Neil Gorsuch, proceeded to a vote without significant controversy. Hundreds of law professors sign letters rejecting Kavanaugh nomination Read more But Kavanaugh has been waylaid by accusations of sexual assault by Ford and two other women who have spoken out publicly, and by doubts about his testimony before the Senate, which included conspiracy-mongering and dubious descriptions of his high school and college years. Speaking under oath before the Senate committee, Kavanaugh denied any drinking problem and denied bragging about sexual conquests in a high school yearbook entry. Former classmates have since stepped forward to say that Kavanaugh was a frequent drunk. The New York Times on Tuesday published a handwritten letter by Kavanaugh instructing friends participating in an upcoming holiday rental to “warn the neighbors that we’re loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us”. In testimony last Thursday, Ford described attending a house party in the Washington DC suburbs in the early 1980s at which she was pushed into a bedroom where a drunk Kavanaugh held her down, groped her, tried to strip her and left her fearing for her life. Republicans have insinuated that Ford mistook Kavanaugh’s identity. Ford told the Senate she was “100%” certain that he was her attacker, Kavanaugh said he was “100%” certain he was not.

www.theguardian.com

left

0KM0Gl4lyE3nfvEe

test

S9AHcWeNWFCtcDF0

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2018/05/10/the-tyranny-of-the-administrative-state

The Tyranny of the Administrative State

2018-05-10

Veronique De Rugy, Zuri Davis, Christian Britschgi, Josh Blackman, Cosmo Wenman, Joe Setyon

The tyranny of the administrative state is real and hard to tame . Americans would be horrified if they knew how much power thousands of unelected bureaucrats employed by federal agencies wield . These members of the `` government within the government , '' as The New York Times ' John Tierney describes them , produce one freedom-restricting , economy-hindering rule after another without much oversight . These rules take many forms , and few even realize they 're in the making—until , that is , they hit you square in the face . Take the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 's rule that effectively banned car dealers from giving auto loan discounts to customers on the claim that they might lead to racial discrimination ( a dubious conclusion reached using flawed statistical models ) . Dodd-Frank , the legislation that created the CFPB , prohibited it from regulating auto dealers—so the CFPB quietly put out a `` guidance '' document to circumvent due process and congressional oversight . Thankfully , this time around , someone noticed . In recent weeks , the Senate passed a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act—a streamlined procedure for Congress to repeal regulations issued by various federal government agencies . The House is expected to follow suit soon and send the bill to the president 's desk , if it has n't already by the time you read this . In a major blow against regulatory overreach , the Government Accountability Office correctly determined that this `` guidance '' is , in reality , a rule and subject to congressional review . Even though the CFPB never submitted a report to Congress ( as required by law for new rules ) , pretended that this was n't a new rule , and tried to regulate without any supervision , the rule still fell within the window for congressional review . Informal regulations are all too common , but they 're not the only form of regulatory abuse . Midnight regulations , or the spike of regulatory activity that occurs right before lame-duck administrations leave office , are another scourge . My former colleague Jerry Brito and I documented the sad phenomenon several years ago . We found large regulatory surges with outgoing administrations and smaller—but worth noticing—surges when incumbent presidents were re-elected . We also found that the quality of regulatory analysis for midnight regulations is poorer than average . The review is rushed , and the oversight is light to nonexistent—meaning a lot of rules that should n't go through do . One such rule was issued by the Obama administration a mere week before Donald Trump was sworn in to office . Once fully implemented , it will damage a program that brings foreign investment into the U.S. economy , by arbitrarily raising the cost to participate in the program . The EB-5 visa program , which currently allocates 10,000 employment-based green cards annually for foreigners who invest and create jobs in the United States , ought to transcend the political controversy surrounding most immigration questions . In brief , it has brought in over $ 20 billion in foreign investment over the past decade and led to an estimated 174,000 American jobs . Many other nations recognize the value in attracting job creators through these `` economic citizenship '' programs . The same logic that drove corporate tax reform—recognizing the need to compete with other powerful economies—ought to also drive support for shoring up the EB-5 program . Contributing to the problem is the fact that Congress usually provides only short-term extensions of the program , leaving its future in doubt , rather than tackle long-term reform . Though that 's frustrating , it 's not a good ███ to let regulators assume responsibility for reshaping the program themselves , which they do by pushing new investment requirements when nobody is watching . This dramatically curtails a valuable initiative . By withdrawing this Obama-era rule , the Trump administration could shift the responsibility back to Congress to properly settle the issue . These are only two examples , though there are hundreds of thousands just like them . In the name of an expedited process , Congress delegated some powers to these unelected bureaucrats to write laws , interpret them , and enforce them in their own courts , with their own judges . But the whole thing has snowballed out of control . As Tierney notes , `` in volume and complexity , the edicts from federal agencies exceed the laws passed by Congress by orders of magnitude . '' So much for the Constitution . It 's time for the legislators we actually elected to reclaim these unchecked powers and do their jobs before the next round of midnight regulations takes more of our freedoms away .

The tyranny of the administrative state is real and hard to tame. Americans would be horrified if they knew how much power thousands of unelected bureaucrats employed by federal agencies wield. These members of the "government within the government," as The New York Times' John Tierney describes them, produce one freedom-restricting, economy-hindering rule after another without much oversight. These rules take many forms, and few even realize they're in the making—until, that is, they hit you square in the face. Take the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule that effectively banned car dealers from giving auto loan discounts to customers on the claim that they might lead to racial discrimination (a dubious conclusion reached using flawed statistical models). Dodd-Frank, the legislation that created the CFPB, prohibited it from regulating auto dealers—so the CFPB quietly put out a "guidance" document to circumvent due process and congressional oversight. Thankfully, this time around, someone noticed. In recent weeks, the Senate passed a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act—a streamlined procedure for Congress to repeal regulations issued by various federal government agencies. The House is expected to follow suit soon and send the bill to the president's desk, if it hasn't already by the time you read this. In a major blow against regulatory overreach, the Government Accountability Office correctly determined that this "guidance" is, in reality, a rule and subject to congressional review. Even though the CFPB never submitted a report to Congress (as required by law for new rules), pretended that this wasn't a new rule, and tried to regulate without any supervision, the rule still fell within the window for congressional review. Informal regulations are all too common, but they're not the only form of regulatory abuse. Midnight regulations, or the spike of regulatory activity that occurs right before lame-duck administrations leave office, are another scourge. My former colleague Jerry Brito and I documented the sad phenomenon several years ago. We found large regulatory surges with outgoing administrations and smaller—but worth noticing—surges when incumbent presidents were re-elected. We also found that the quality of regulatory analysis for midnight regulations is poorer than average. The review is rushed, and the oversight is light to nonexistent—meaning a lot of rules that shouldn't go through do. One such rule was issued by the Obama administration a mere week before Donald Trump was sworn in to office. Once fully implemented, it will damage a program that brings foreign investment into the U.S. economy, by arbitrarily raising the cost to participate in the program. The EB-5 visa program, which currently allocates 10,000 employment-based green cards annually for foreigners who invest and create jobs in the United States, ought to transcend the political controversy surrounding most immigration questions. In brief, it has brought in over $20 billion in foreign investment over the past decade and led to an estimated 174,000 American jobs. Many other nations recognize the value in attracting job creators through these "economic citizenship" programs. The same logic that drove corporate tax reform—recognizing the need to compete with other powerful economies—ought to also drive support for shoring up the EB-5 program. Contributing to the problem is the fact that Congress usually provides only short-term extensions of the program, leaving its future in doubt, rather than tackle long-term reform. Though that's frustrating, it's not a good reason to let regulators assume responsibility for reshaping the program themselves, which they do by pushing new investment requirements when nobody is watching. This dramatically curtails a valuable initiative. By withdrawing this Obama-era rule, the Trump administration could shift the responsibility back to Congress to properly settle the issue. These are only two examples, though there are hundreds of thousands just like them. In the name of an expedited process, Congress delegated some powers to these unelected bureaucrats to write laws, interpret them, and enforce them in their own courts, with their own judges. But the whole thing has snowballed out of control. As Tierney notes, "in volume and complexity, the edicts from federal agencies exceed the laws passed by Congress by orders of magnitude." So much for the Constitution. It's time for the legislators we actually elected to reclaim these unchecked powers and do their jobs before the next round of midnight regulations takes more of our freedoms away.

www.reason.com

right

S9AHcWeNWFCtcDF0

test

LNPbHnD7BAcUxB5v

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/4e818872210464f07d23fc1259a49ebf

Parent resistance thwarts local school desegregation efforts

2020-01-29

Regina Garcia Cano, Sarah Rankin

In this Dec. 16 , 2019 , photo , attendees hold signs during the Richmond School Board 's last public hearing on redistricting at Ginter Park Elementary School in Richmond , Va. From New York City to Richmond , sweeping proposals to ease inequities have been scaled back or canceled after encountering a backlash . In Virginia ’ s capital city , the school board approved a plan that reassigned some students but rejected more sweeping proposals that would have diversified Richmond ’ s whitest elementary schools . ( AP Photo/Steve Helber ) In this Dec. 16 , 2019 , photo , attendees hold signs during the Richmond School Board 's last public hearing on redistricting at Ginter Park Elementary School in Richmond , Va. From New York City to Richmond , sweeping proposals to ease inequities have been scaled back or canceled after encountering a backlash . In Virginia ’ s capital city , the school board approved a plan that reassigned some students but rejected more sweeping proposals that would have diversified Richmond ’ s whitest elementary schools . ( AP Photo/Steve Helber ) ELLICOTT CITY , Md . ( AP ) — As they try to address stubborn school segregation , many of the nation ’ s school districts confront a familiar obstacle : resistance from affluent , well-organized and mostly white parents to changes affecting their children ’ s classrooms . From New York City to Richmond , Virginia , sweeping proposals to ease inequities have been scaled back or canceled after encountering a backlash . The debates have been charged with emotion and racist rhetoric reminiscent of the aftermath of Brown vs. Board of Education , the U.S. Supreme Court decision that threw out state laws establishing segregated schools . While the federal government has largely stepped back from the aggressive role it played decades ago in school desegregation , some local districts have acted in recognition of increasingly apparent racial divides and the long-established educational benefits of integration . In Howard County , Maryland , a suburban community between Washington and Baltimore , one parent who supports reforms lamented the presence of “ concentrated poverty in certain schools and concentrated wealth in other schools . ” “ When we have concentrated poverty , those students are not getting that same quality of education , ” said Dawn Popp , a white mother of two students in local schools . The Supreme Court has ruled that race can not be used as the driving factor in assigning students to public schools . But more than 100 school districts have implemented voluntary desegregation plans that work around that ruling by mixing students from families with different incomes or educational levels , factors often associated with race , according to Richard Kahlenberg , a senior fellow at the Century Foundation in Washington . The success of such efforts can depend on the size of the coalition seeking change and how well the goals are communicated . The most important task for school officials is “ to explain to the public why integrated schools are good for everyone , ” Kahlenberg said . Race and class divisions were on display for months last year after the Howard County school board directed the superintendent to start a comprehensive redistricting process . The Howard County Council in August requested that the blueprint address socioeconomic and racial segregation across the school system , which serves about 59,000 children , the majority of whom are minorities . Most low-income students are black and Hispanic . The superintendent originally proposed moving some 7,400 students to different schools . The overwhelming opposition was led by white and Asian families , who protested near an area mall and flooded public meetings . They carried signs that read “ Kids before politics , ” “ Swapping kids creates new inequities ” and “ No forced busing. ” Speakers at public meetings said the changes would cause stress and anxiety for their children . One suggested the transfers could lead students to consider suicide . Opponents insisted the issue was not about race and sought to distance themselves from racist feedback submitted in writing . George Henry , a retiree living in Ellicott City , wrote in a newspaper op-ed that his children , now in their 30s , received good educations in the local schools , with highly diverse classmates . He said the “ artificial and forced mixing ” is unnecessary . He told The ███ the “ fundamental factor ” to closing the achievement gap is the support students have at home , which is not up to the county . In November , the Howard County Board of Education approved reassigning some 5,400 students , not including two particular high schools — River Hill High and Wilde Lake High , where less than 5 % and more than 45 % of students , respectively , are from low-income families . Parents of students at River Hill High had been among the most outspoken protesters . Some parents are now challenging the plan in court . Others would have preferred to see more ambitious changes . Popp said the scaled-back redistricting sends a message that “ people who can afford the matching T-shirts and the fancy signs ” and have time to organize can get their way . Cynthia Fikes , whose son attends Wilde Lake High , said the redistricting debate revealed the “ level of fear and disdain ” that much of the community had for people unlike themselves . She said racist and classist statements were “ allowed to pass as conversations ” at meetings and on social media . “ When you look at what was said , it ’ s so hurtful , ” said Fikes , who is black . In Virginia ’ s capital city , the school board approved a plan that reassigned some students but rejected more sweeping proposals that would have diversified Richmond ’ s whitest elementary schools . The former capital of the Confederacy is about 47 percent white , but only about 14 percent of its public school students are . And of those white students , many are concentrated in just a handful of schools . The push to integrate some of those most segregated schools was included in last year ’ s rezoning process , which also aimed to ease overcrowding and fill new school buildings . The most controversial proposals involved pairing , a process in which students from the whitest elementary schools would have been pooled together with students from majority-black schools and then split up by grade level . In an emotional public debate that stretched for months , supporters called pairing a bold way to help disadvantaged students and create more unified and diverse communities . But those supporters were often outnumbered by opponents , with parents and property owners raising concerns about home values . Some said it would strain families with children split between multiple schools , limiting what time parents could spend volunteering with a PTA or complicating pickups and drop-offs . Others threatened that it would trigger another exodus to the suburbs or to private schools . At one forum , Taikein Cooper said the coded racist language was “ so loud I had to pinch myself . ” “ We can all agree that the schools are not equal right now , ” said Cooper , the executive director of an education advocacy organization . “ They ’ re not the same . That ’ s why some people behind me are fighting so adamantly to protect their own privilege . ” Superintendent Jason Kamras , who was hired in 2017 and pledged to reform the district with the state ’ s lowest graduation rate , supported pairing . In a tweet , he likened the criticism of one option to “ Massive Resistance 2.0 , ” a reference to the anti-segregation movement that followed the Supreme Court ’ s landmark Brown decision . “ I heard a lot of things said during these meetings which sounded almost verbatim like the things that were said in the ’ 50s and ’ 60s and ’ 70s to prevent the integration of schools in Richmond and around the country , ” he said in an interview . But pairing was also unpopular among many black families . School board member Kenya Gibson addressed the crowd at a community forum where a diverse group of parents overwhelmingly opposed the plan , saying she recognized that “ many of the people of color in this room have a lot of the same unease as the white people have in this room . ” In December , the board enacted a plan that did not include pairing , although it redrew lines in parts of the city in ways that will make some schools more diverse . Theresa Kennedy , a white mother of two elementary school students who served on the advisory committee that created the rezoning options , was a vocal advocate of pairing . She was disappointed . “ These votes don ’ t come along often , ” Kennedy said . “ And every vote like this has the opportunity to shift a generation . ”

In this Dec. 16, 2019, photo, attendees hold signs during the Richmond School Board's last public hearing on redistricting at Ginter Park Elementary School in Richmond, Va. From New York City to Richmond, sweeping proposals to ease inequities have been scaled back or canceled after encountering a backlash. In Virginia’s capital city, the school board approved a plan that reassigned some students but rejected more sweeping proposals that would have diversified Richmond’s whitest elementary schools. (AP Photo/Steve Helber) In this Dec. 16, 2019, photo, attendees hold signs during the Richmond School Board's last public hearing on redistricting at Ginter Park Elementary School in Richmond, Va. From New York City to Richmond, sweeping proposals to ease inequities have been scaled back or canceled after encountering a backlash. In Virginia’s capital city, the school board approved a plan that reassigned some students but rejected more sweeping proposals that would have diversified Richmond’s whitest elementary schools. (AP Photo/Steve Helber) ELLICOTT CITY, Md. (AP) — As they try to address stubborn school segregation, many of the nation’s school districts confront a familiar obstacle: resistance from affluent, well-organized and mostly white parents to changes affecting their children’s classrooms. From New York City to Richmond, Virginia, sweeping proposals to ease inequities have been scaled back or canceled after encountering a backlash. The debates have been charged with emotion and racist rhetoric reminiscent of the aftermath of Brown vs. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that threw out state laws establishing segregated schools. While the federal government has largely stepped back from the aggressive role it played decades ago in school desegregation, some local districts have acted in recognition of increasingly apparent racial divides and the long-established educational benefits of integration. In Howard County, Maryland, a suburban community between Washington and Baltimore, one parent who supports reforms lamented the presence of “concentrated poverty in certain schools and concentrated wealth in other schools.” “When we have concentrated poverty, those students are not getting that same quality of education,” said Dawn Popp, a white mother of two students in local schools. The Supreme Court has ruled that race cannot be used as the driving factor in assigning students to public schools. But more than 100 school districts have implemented voluntary desegregation plans that work around that ruling by mixing students from families with different incomes or educational levels, factors often associated with race, according to Richard Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation in Washington. The success of such efforts can depend on the size of the coalition seeking change and how well the goals are communicated. The most important task for school officials is “to explain to the public why integrated schools are good for everyone,” Kahlenberg said. Race and class divisions were on display for months last year after the Howard County school board directed the superintendent to start a comprehensive redistricting process. The Howard County Council in August requested that the blueprint address socioeconomic and racial segregation across the school system, which serves about 59,000 children, the majority of whom are minorities. Most low-income students are black and Hispanic. The superintendent originally proposed moving some 7,400 students to different schools. The overwhelming opposition was led by white and Asian families, who protested near an area mall and flooded public meetings. They carried signs that read “Kids before politics,” “Swapping kids creates new inequities” and “No forced busing.” Speakers at public meetings said the changes would cause stress and anxiety for their children. One suggested the transfers could lead students to consider suicide. Opponents insisted the issue was not about race and sought to distance themselves from racist feedback submitted in writing. George Henry, a retiree living in Ellicott City, wrote in a newspaper op-ed that his children, now in their 30s, received good educations in the local schools, with highly diverse classmates. He said the “artificial and forced mixing” is unnecessary. He told The Associated Press the “fundamental factor” to closing the achievement gap is the support students have at home, which is not up to the county. In November, the Howard County Board of Education approved reassigning some 5,400 students, not including two particular high schools — River Hill High and Wilde Lake High, where less than 5% and more than 45% of students, respectively, are from low-income families. Parents of students at River Hill High had been among the most outspoken protesters. Some parents are now challenging the plan in court. Others would have preferred to see more ambitious changes. Popp said the scaled-back redistricting sends a message that “people who can afford the matching T-shirts and the fancy signs” and have time to organize can get their way. Cynthia Fikes, whose son attends Wilde Lake High, said the redistricting debate revealed the “level of fear and disdain” that much of the community had for people unlike themselves. She said racist and classist statements were “allowed to pass as conversations” at meetings and on social media. “When you look at what was said, it’s so hurtful,” said Fikes, who is black. In Virginia’s capital city, the school board approved a plan that reassigned some students but rejected more sweeping proposals that would have diversified Richmond’s whitest elementary schools. The former capital of the Confederacy is about 47 percent white, but only about 14 percent of its public school students are. And of those white students, many are concentrated in just a handful of schools. The push to integrate some of those most segregated schools was included in last year’s rezoning process, which also aimed to ease overcrowding and fill new school buildings. The most controversial proposals involved pairing, a process in which students from the whitest elementary schools would have been pooled together with students from majority-black schools and then split up by grade level. In an emotional public debate that stretched for months, supporters called pairing a bold way to help disadvantaged students and create more unified and diverse communities. But those supporters were often outnumbered by opponents, with parents and property owners raising concerns about home values. Some said it would strain families with children split between multiple schools, limiting what time parents could spend volunteering with a PTA or complicating pickups and drop-offs. Others threatened that it would trigger another exodus to the suburbs or to private schools. At one forum, Taikein Cooper said the coded racist language was “so loud I had to pinch myself.” “We can all agree that the schools are not equal right now,” said Cooper, the executive director of an education advocacy organization. “They’re not the same. That’s why some people behind me are fighting so adamantly to protect their own privilege.” Superintendent Jason Kamras, who was hired in 2017 and pledged to reform the district with the state’s lowest graduation rate, supported pairing. In a tweet, he likened the criticism of one option to “Massive Resistance 2.0,” a reference to the anti-segregation movement that followed the Supreme Court’s landmark Brown decision. “I heard a lot of things said during these meetings which sounded almost verbatim like the things that were said in the ’50s and ’60s and ’70s to prevent the integration of schools in Richmond and around the country,” he said in an interview. But pairing was also unpopular among many black families. School board member Kenya Gibson addressed the crowd at a community forum where a diverse group of parents overwhelmingly opposed the plan, saying she recognized that “many of the people of color in this room have a lot of the same unease as the white people have in this room.” In December, the board enacted a plan that did not include pairing, although it redrew lines in parts of the city in ways that will make some schools more diverse. Theresa Kennedy, a white mother of two elementary school students who served on the advisory committee that created the rezoning options, was a vocal advocate of pairing. She was disappointed. “These votes don’t come along often,” Kennedy said. “And every vote like this has the opportunity to shift a generation.” ___ Rankin reported from Richmond. Associated Press Writer Michael Melia in Hartford, Connecticut, also contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

LNPbHnD7BAcUxB5v

test

ItTyck4P8gMAGI9k

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/19/media-evidence-trump-russia-collusion/

Media Start To Second-Guess Trump-Russia ‘Collusion’ Conspiracy

2018-02-19

Investigators have still found no evidence Trump colluded with Russia Thirteen months into President Trump ’ s administration , there is still no evidence whatsoever that Trump or any of his associates colluded with Russian operatives meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign . That total lack of evidence has some establishment journalists finally wondering if there wasn ’ t any Trump-Russia collusion after all , despite Democratic conspiracy theories to the contrary . Politico Magazine editor-in-chief Blake Hounshell over the weekend penned a piece “ confessing ” his skepticism of the collusion conspiracy theory . Hounshell ’ s primary argument was that the Trump campaign was too inept to have successfully colluded with Russia without the public finding out . Political journalists on Twitter passed around Hounshell ’ s thesis — that maybe the president didn ’ t collude with Russian hackers and online trolls — as a novel idea . But the truth is reasons for skepticism have existed in plain sight for months . The New York Times reported in May 2017 that Russian officials discussed finding backdoor ways to influence Trump without his knowledge through retired Trump adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort . The NYT ’ s report was inconsistent with the narrative that Trump was engaged in a quid-pro-quo with Russia , as many liberals have claimed without evidence . Similar reports in May that Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner suggested opening up covert channels with Russian officials after the election also appear to work against the narrative of a Trump campaign in league with Russia . The fact that Kushner allegedly explored opening channels of communication with the Russians would imply that such channels didn ’ t already exist . The NYT conceded in a December story that emails showing Russian attempts to reach out to Trump aide Hope Hicks appeared to “ undercut ” the collusion narrative . “ In some ways , the Russian outreach to Ms. Hicks undercuts the idea that the Russian government had established deep ties to the Trump campaign before the election , ” the NYT noted . “ If it had , Russian officials might have found a better entrèe to the White House than unprompted emails to Ms. Hicks . ” FBI agent Peter Strzok , a top agent on the Trump-Russia probe , said in May 2017 that he had yet to see any evidence of collusion between the Trump-Russia campaign . In the text , which became public last month , Strzok note his “ gut sense and concern that there ’ s no big there there. ” A source close to Strzok confirmed to ███ that the agent had not seen any evidence of collusion , despite leading the Trump-Russia investigation for 10 months . One of the strongest perceived indicators of Trump-Russia collusion among mainstream journalists was a NYT article in February 2017 , alleging U.S. intelligence officials had repeatedly intercepted communications between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence officials in the year leading up to the election . But then-FBI Director James Comey knocked down that story four months later in his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee . Comey characterized the story as “ almost entirely wrong ” and suggested anonymous sources are feeding journalists bad information . The other key point cited by Trump-Russia conspiracy theorists was the July 2016 Trump Tower meeting that Kushner , Donald Trump Jr. and campaign manager Paul Manafort took with a Russian lawyer who promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton . But the meeting appears to have been a dud and nothing appears to have actually come from it . ( RELATED : Everybody Is Forgetting That Clinton Allies Did The Same Thing As Don Jr . ) NBC News published what the network hyped as a “ potential bombshell ” in September , claiming that Manafort ’ s notes from the Trump Tower meeting contained a “ cryptic ” reference to donations in relation to the Republican National Committee ( RNC ) . The story quickly fell apart .

Investigators have still found no evidence Trump colluded with Russia Politico editor-in-chief confesses “skepticism” of the narrative Media slow to admit there’s no evidence of collusion Thirteen months into President Trump’s administration, there is still no evidence whatsoever that Trump or any of his associates colluded with Russian operatives meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign. That total lack of evidence has some establishment journalists finally wondering if there wasn’t any Trump-Russia collusion after all, despite Democratic conspiracy theories to the contrary. Politico Magazine editor-in-chief Blake Hounshell over the weekend penned a piece “confessing” his skepticism of the collusion conspiracy theory. Hounshell’s primary argument was that the Trump campaign was too inept to have successfully colluded with Russia without the public finding out. Political journalists on Twitter passed around Hounshell’s thesis — that maybe the president didn’t collude with Russian hackers and online trolls — as a novel idea. But the truth is reasons for skepticism have existed in plain sight for months. The New York Times reported in May 2017 that Russian officials discussed finding backdoor ways to influence Trump without his knowledge through retired Trump adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. The NYT’s report was inconsistent with the narrative that Trump was engaged in a quid-pro-quo with Russia, as many liberals have claimed without evidence. Similar reports in May that Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner suggested opening up covert channels with Russian officials after the election also appear to work against the narrative of a Trump campaign in league with Russia. The fact that Kushner allegedly explored opening channels of communication with the Russians would imply that such channels didn’t already exist. The NYT conceded in a December story that emails showing Russian attempts to reach out to Trump aide Hope Hicks appeared to “undercut” the collusion narrative. “In some ways, the Russian outreach to Ms. Hicks undercuts the idea that the Russian government had established deep ties to the Trump campaign before the election,” the NYT noted. “If it had, Russian officials might have found a better entrèe to the White House than unprompted emails to Ms. Hicks.” FBI agent Peter Strzok, a top agent on the Trump-Russia probe, said in May 2017 that he had yet to see any evidence of collusion between the Trump-Russia campaign. In the text, which became public last month, Strzok note his “gut sense and concern that there’s no big there there.” A source close to Strzok confirmed to The Daily Caller that the agent had not seen any evidence of collusion, despite leading the Trump-Russia investigation for 10 months. One of the strongest perceived indicators of Trump-Russia collusion among mainstream journalists was a NYT article in February 2017, alleging U.S. intelligence officials had repeatedly intercepted communications between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence officials in the year leading up to the election. But then-FBI Director James Comey knocked down that story four months later in his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Comey characterized the story as “almost entirely wrong” and suggested anonymous sources are feeding journalists bad information. The other key point cited by Trump-Russia conspiracy theorists was the July 2016 Trump Tower meeting that Kushner, Donald Trump Jr. and campaign manager Paul Manafort took with a Russian lawyer who promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton. But the meeting appears to have been a dud and nothing appears to have actually come from it. (RELATED: Everybody Is Forgetting That Clinton Allies Did The Same Thing As Don Jr.) NBC News published what the network hyped as a “potential bombshell” in September, claiming that Manafort’s notes from the Trump Tower meeting contained a “cryptic” reference to donations in relation to the Republican National Committee (RNC). The story quickly fell apart.

www.dailycaller.com

right

ItTyck4P8gMAGI9k

test

mIYJOWpW0GzA6GVm

politics

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/4f7f8c3861934af2b996dee7404d1735

Hunter Biden denies doing anything wrong in Ukraine, China

2019-10-15

Juana Summers

FILE - In this Jan. 30 , 2010 , file photo , Vice President Joe Biden , left , with his son Hunter , right , at the Duke Georgetown NCAA college basketball game in Washington . Since the early days of the United States , leading politicians have had to contend with awkward problems posed by their family members . Joe Biden is the latest prominent politician to navigate this tricky terrain . ( AP Photo/Nick Wass , File ) FILE - In this Jan. 30 , 2010 , file photo , Vice President Joe Biden , left , with his son Hunter , right , at the Duke Georgetown NCAA college basketball game in Washington . Since the early days of the United States , leading politicians have had to contend with awkward problems posed by their family members . Joe Biden is the latest prominent politician to navigate this tricky terrain . ( AP Photo/Nick Wass , File ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — Hunter Biden , acknowledging that his family name created business opportunities , rejected assertions by President Donald Trump that he did anything wrong by engaging in foreign work in Ukraine and China . But Biden , the son of former Vice President Joe Biden , conceded that he failed to take into account potential implications for his father ’ s political career . “ Did I make a mistake ? Maybe in the grand scheme of things , ” Hunter Biden said in an ABC News interview that aired on Tuesday . “ But did I make a mistake based on some ethical lapse ? Absolutely not . ” Joe Biden is a front-runner in the 2020 Democratic presidential contest , and the interview with his son aired hours before the fourth Democratic presidential debate . Hunter Biden said he did not discuss his foreign business dealings with his father . He served on the board of an energy company in Ukraine , a fact he said his father learned from press reports . The younger Biden was a lawyer at a top Washington law firm with expertise in corporate governance . But he acknowledged on Tuesday that he probably would not have been asked to serve on the board if not for his name . “ I don ’ t think there ’ s a lot of things that would have happened in my life if my last name wasn ’ t Biden , ” he said . Trump and his Republican allies have targeted Hunter Biden for his work in Ukraine and China , making baseless claims of corruption . Trump ’ s July 25 phone call pressuring Ukraine ’ s leader to investigate the Bidens is the focus of a whistleblower complaint that triggered the formal House impeachment inquiry into Trump . Trump has denied wrongdoing . Hours after Hunter Biden ’ s interview aired , Trump said in a tweet that the former vice president ’ s son was “ really bad ” in the ABC interview and that “ Sleepy Joe has real problems . ” Hunter Biden recently said he would step down from the board of directors of a Chinese-backed private equity firm because his service had become a “ distraction . ” “ That ’ s why I have committed that I won ’ t serve on any board or work on any foreign entities when Dad becomes president , ” he said . “ That ’ s the rule I ’ m going to adhere to . ” Joe Biden said on Sunday that if he ’ s elected : “ No one in my family will have an office in the White House , will sit in meetings as if they ’ re a Cabinet member , will in fact have any business relationships with anyone that relates to a foreign corporation or foreign country . ” On Tuesday , Biden ’ s deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield said in a statement “ Hunter was forceful and spoke with conviction , ” and after “ an unprecedented smear campaign by the president of the United States , who is engulfed in a scandal of his own making . ” In 2014 , then Vice President Joe Biden was at the forefront of American diplomatic efforts to support Ukraine ’ s fragile democratic government as it sought to fend off Russian aggression and root out corruption . President Barack Obama ’ s White House said there was no conflict with Hunter Biden ’ s work for a Ukrainian gas company because the younger Biden was a private citizen . Besides Trump ’ s July 25 phone call to Ukraine ’ s leader pressing for investigations , Rudy Giuliani , Trump ’ s personal lawyer , began reaching out to Ukraine ’ s president and his aides to press for a government investigation into the company , Burisma , and Hunter Biden ’ s role . Hunter Biden blamed his father ’ s political opponents , including Trump , for spreading a “ ridiculous conspiracy theory . ” “ I gave a hook to some very unethical people to act in illegal ways to try to do some harm to my father . That ’ s where I made the mistake , ” he said . “ So I take full responsibility for that . Did I do anything improper ? No , not in any way . Not in any way whatsoever . ” He added : “ What I regret is not taking into account that there would be a Rudy Giuliani and a president of the United States that would be listening to this ridiculous conspiracy idea . ” “ Being the subject of Donald Trump ’ s ire is a feather in my cap , ” he said . “ It ’ s not something that I go to bed nervous about at night at all . The reason I ’ m able to do that is because I am absolutely enveloped in love of my family . ” In recent weeks , Trump has relentlessly mocked Hunter Biden , to the point that his presidential campaign began selling shirts that say , “ Where ’ s Hunter ? ” highlighting that the former vice president ’ s son had been out of the public spotlight for weeks . At a recent political rally , Trump noted that Hunter Biden had been thrown out of the Navy . Hunter Biden was discharged from the Navy Reserve in 2014 after failing a drug test and has struggled with alcohol and drug abuse . He told ABC News that , “ like every single person that I ’ ve ever known , I have fallen and I ’ ve gotten up . ” “ I ’ ve done esteemable things and things that are — have been in my life that I regret . Every single one of those things has brought me exactly to where I am right now , which is probably the best place I ’ ve ever been in my life . I ’ ve gone through my own struggles . ”

FILE - In this Jan. 30, 2010, file photo, Vice President Joe Biden, left, with his son Hunter, right, at the Duke Georgetown NCAA college basketball game in Washington. Since the early days of the United States, leading politicians have had to contend with awkward problems posed by their family members. Joe Biden is the latest prominent politician to navigate this tricky terrain. (AP Photo/Nick Wass, File) FILE - In this Jan. 30, 2010, file photo, Vice President Joe Biden, left, with his son Hunter, right, at the Duke Georgetown NCAA college basketball game in Washington. Since the early days of the United States, leading politicians have had to contend with awkward problems posed by their family members. Joe Biden is the latest prominent politician to navigate this tricky terrain. (AP Photo/Nick Wass, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — Hunter Biden, acknowledging that his family name created business opportunities, rejected assertions by President Donald Trump that he did anything wrong by engaging in foreign work in Ukraine and China. But Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, conceded that he failed to take into account potential implications for his father’s political career. “Did I make a mistake? Maybe in the grand scheme of things,” Hunter Biden said in an ABC News interview that aired on Tuesday. “But did I make a mistake based on some ethical lapse? Absolutely not.” Joe Biden is a front-runner in the 2020 Democratic presidential contest, and the interview with his son aired hours before the fourth Democratic presidential debate. Hunter Biden said he did not discuss his foreign business dealings with his father. He served on the board of an energy company in Ukraine, a fact he said his father learned from press reports. The younger Biden was a lawyer at a top Washington law firm with expertise in corporate governance. But he acknowledged on Tuesday that he probably would not have been asked to serve on the board if not for his name. “I don’t think there’s a lot of things that would have happened in my life if my last name wasn’t Biden,” he said. Trump and his Republican allies have targeted Hunter Biden for his work in Ukraine and China, making baseless claims of corruption. Trump’s July 25 phone call pressuring Ukraine’s leader to investigate the Bidens is the focus of a whistleblower complaint that triggered the formal House impeachment inquiry into Trump. Trump has denied wrongdoing. Hours after Hunter Biden’s interview aired, Trump said in a tweet that the former vice president’s son was “really bad” in the ABC interview and that “Sleepy Joe has real problems.” Hunter Biden recently said he would step down from the board of directors of a Chinese-backed private equity firm because his service had become a “distraction.” “That’s why I have committed that I won’t serve on any board or work on any foreign entities when Dad becomes president,” he said. “That’s the rule I’m going to adhere to.” Joe Biden said on Sunday that if he’s elected: “No one in my family will have an office in the White House, will sit in meetings as if they’re a Cabinet member, will in fact have any business relationships with anyone that relates to a foreign corporation or foreign country.” On Tuesday, Biden’s deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield said in a statement “Hunter was forceful and spoke with conviction,” and after “an unprecedented smear campaign by the president of the United States, who is engulfed in a scandal of his own making.” In 2014, then Vice President Joe Biden was at the forefront of American diplomatic efforts to support Ukraine’s fragile democratic government as it sought to fend off Russian aggression and root out corruption. President Barack Obama’s White House said there was no conflict with Hunter Biden’s work for a Ukrainian gas company because the younger Biden was a private citizen. Besides Trump’s July 25 phone call to Ukraine’s leader pressing for investigations, Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, began reaching out to Ukraine’s president and his aides to press for a government investigation into the company, Burisma, and Hunter Biden’s role. Hunter Biden blamed his father’s political opponents, including Trump, for spreading a “ridiculous conspiracy theory.” “I gave a hook to some very unethical people to act in illegal ways to try to do some harm to my father. That’s where I made the mistake,” he said. “So I take full responsibility for that. Did I do anything improper? No, not in any way. Not in any way whatsoever.” He added: “What I regret is not taking into account that there would be a Rudy Giuliani and a president of the United States that would be listening to this ridiculous conspiracy idea.” “Being the subject of Donald Trump’s ire is a feather in my cap,” he said. “It’s not something that I go to bed nervous about at night at all. The reason I’m able to do that is because I am absolutely enveloped in love of my family.” In recent weeks, Trump has relentlessly mocked Hunter Biden, to the point that his presidential campaign began selling shirts that say, “Where’s Hunter?” highlighting that the former vice president’s son had been out of the public spotlight for weeks. At a recent political rally, Trump noted that Hunter Biden had been thrown out of the Navy. Hunter Biden was discharged from the Navy Reserve in 2014 after failing a drug test and has struggled with alcohol and drug abuse. He told ABC News that, “like every single person that I’ve ever known, I have fallen and I’ve gotten up.” “I’ve done esteemable things and things that are — have been in my life that I regret. Every single one of those things has brought me exactly to where I am right now, which is probably the best place I’ve ever been in my life. I’ve gone through my own struggles.”

www.apnews.com

center

mIYJOWpW0GzA6GVm

test

z5e1ccrkbjA25zIB

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/16/mitch-mcconnell-donald-trump-lunch-steve-bannon-war

McConnell and Trump meet for lunch after Bannon calls for Republican 'war'

2017-10-16

Lauren Gambino

Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell appeared side-by-side in the Rose Garden after lunch at the White House on Monday in a show of solidarity after the president ’ s former chief strategist called for the metaphorical assassination of the Senate majority leader . Trump insisted he and McConnell were “ closer than ever before ” , despite his having publicly criticized the Republican leader for the Senate ’ s failure to enact the president ’ s legislative agenda , including Republicans ’ failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act , which Trump called a “ disgrace ” . “ My relationship with this gentleman is outstanding , ” Trump said , gesturing to McConnell , who stood steps away . “ We are fighting for the same thing : we are fighting for lower taxes , big tax cuts , the biggest tax cuts in the history of our nation , ” Trump continued . “ We are fighting for tax reform as part of that . ” Stepping to the lectern , McConnell affirmed their friendship and said the two men were working together to move forward on tax reform and other major legislation . “ Contrary to what some of you may have reported , we are together , totally , on this agenda to move America forward , ” McConnell said . This summer , however , McConnell drew Trump ’ s ire when he said that the president held “ excessive expectations ” for the pace of congressional progress . Despite the declarations of unity , Trump had just hours before told reporters he “ totally understands ” the frustrations of his former chief strategist , Steve Bannon , who recently declared political war on the Republican establishment that McConnell leads . “ We are not getting the job done , ” Trump said , as he convened a cabinet meeting earlier on Monday . “ I ’ m not going to blame myself , I ’ ll be honest . They are not getting the job done , so I can understand where Steve Bannon is coming from . ” Speaking at the Values Voter Summit in Washington on Saturday , Bannon invoked the death of Julius Caesar and called for “ a season of war against [ the ] GOP establishment ” . But after a lunch with McConnell , Trump struck a more conciliatory note and said he would encourage Bannon to refrain from running primary challenges against certain Republican senators . “ Some of the people he may be looking at , I ’ m going to see if we can talk him out of that , because I think they ’ re great people , ” Trump said . The majority leader cautioned against pushing primary challengers , noting that in the past , they had failed to make it to the Senate . “ You have to nominate people who can actually win because winners make policy and losers go home , ” McConnell said . For nearly 50 minutes , Trump and McConnell took questions from reporters , touching on a wide range of issues . He hinted that he would declare a state of emergency on the opioid crisis next week , after having promised to do it several months ago . He also blamed the Cuban government for alleged sonic attacks on American personnel at the US embassy in Havana . The state department removed staff from the embassy as a precaution . Trump also said he was “ very happy ” with his decision to end critical healthcare payments to insurance companies that help low-income Americans afford health insurance . He said the decision was helping spur bipartisan action on healthcare . After repeated failures to pass legislation repealing the healthcare law , Trump claimed Republicans had found enough support to pass a new measure , which he expects despite wariness from GOP senators on the Hill to revisit the issue ahead of next year ’ s midterms . He also expressed a desire for Hillary Clinton to run again in 2020 . He said her defense of NFL players who take a knee during the national anthem to protest against police violence was “ very disrespectful to our country ” . “ That ’ s why she lost the election . I mean , honestly , it ’ s that thinking , that is the reason she lost the election , ” Trump said . Trump team claims US families will receive extra $ 4,000 a year from tax cuts Read more On Monday morning , before a scheduled cabinet meeting , Trump busied himself on Twitter , accusing Democrats of obstructing his tax plan and bragging about economic growth . He also accused the Senate minority leader , Chuck Schumer , of hypocrisy over the Iran nuclear deal . Schumer voted against the deal in 2015 but has since urged Congress to strengthen it . He responded to Trump ’ s tweets on taxes and the economy . “ This deliberate manipulation of # s & facts could lead to messing up the good economy inherited from @ POTUS44 & hurting the middle class , ” Schumer wrote . The White House also released details about Trump ’ s forthcoming visit to Asia and the Pacific . From 3 to 14 November , the president will travel to Japan , South Korea , China , Vietnam , the Philippines and Hawaii . Officials said the tour would “ strengthen the international resolve to confront the North Korean threat and ensure the complete , verifiable , and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean peninsula ” . Nonetheless , while the president was looking to 2020 and the international stage , an intra-party war continued to brew . Bannon indicates Trump 's Obamacare strategy : 'Blow that thing up ' Read more Susan Collins , a Maine moderate who cast pivotal votes against the Senate healthcare bills , told ABC voters “ don ’ t want this hyper-partisanship . They want us to work together . And they want us to get things done . “ Mitch McConnell is the Senate majority leader . The president needs him . I ’ m glad they ’ re working together on tax reform and a lot of other issues . And I ’ m glad they ’ re meeting this week . ” This summer , McConnell responded to Trump ’ s Twitter attacks by saying : “ A lot of people look at all that [ legislative work ] and find it frustrating , messy . Well , welcome to the democratic process . That ’ s the way it is in our country . ” Such words would not find favor with the president ’ s support base , which Bannon is addressing and which has responded eagerly to Trump ’ s talk of “ draining the swamp ” of Washington . 'We tried nice guys ' : conservative hardliners stay in a trance for Trump Read more In September , Trump angered that base by cutting a deal with Democrats on raising the debt limit and keeping the government running . He has talked about other deals , though his list of demands outraged Democrats who had sensed an opening on the status of Dreamers , young undocumented people brought to the US as children whose protection from deportation has been rescinded by Trump . Hard-right conservatives wrote in a letter last week during a Senate break that McConnell and his leadership team should step aside . The Senate recess also drew criticism from the White House . “ They ’ re on another vacation right now , ” the press secretary , Sarah Huckabee Sanders , said . “ I think that we would all be a lot better off if the Senate would stop taking vacations and start staying here until we actually get some real things accomplished . ”

This article is more than 2 years old This article is more than 2 years old Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell appeared side-by-side in the Rose Garden after lunch at the White House on Monday in a show of solidarity after the president’s former chief strategist called for the metaphorical assassination of the Senate majority leader. Trump insisted he and McConnell were “closer than ever before”, despite his having publicly criticized the Republican leader for the Senate’s failure to enact the president’s legislative agenda, including Republicans’ failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which Trump called a “disgrace”. “My relationship with this gentleman is outstanding,” Trump said, gesturing to McConnell, who stood steps away. “We are fighting for the same thing: we are fighting for lower taxes, big tax cuts, the biggest tax cuts in the history of our nation,” Trump continued. “We are fighting for tax reform as part of that.” Stepping to the lectern, McConnell affirmed their friendship and said the two men were working together to move forward on tax reform and other major legislation. “Contrary to what some of you may have reported, we are together, totally, on this agenda to move America forward,” McConnell said. This summer, however, McConnell drew Trump’s ire when he said that the president held “excessive expectations” for the pace of congressional progress. Despite the declarations of unity, Trump had just hours before told reporters he “totally understands” the frustrations of his former chief strategist, Steve Bannon, who recently declared political war on the Republican establishment that McConnell leads. “We are not getting the job done,” Trump said, as he convened a cabinet meeting earlier on Monday. “I’m not going to blame myself, I’ll be honest. They are not getting the job done, so I can understand where Steve Bannon is coming from.” Speaking at the Values Voter Summit in Washington on Saturday, Bannon invoked the death of Julius Caesar and called for “a season of war against [the] GOP establishment”. But after a lunch with McConnell, Trump struck a more conciliatory note and said he would encourage Bannon to refrain from running primary challenges against certain Republican senators. “Some of the people he may be looking at, I’m going to see if we can talk him out of that, because I think they’re great people,” Trump said . The majority leader cautioned against pushing primary challengers, noting that in the past, they had failed to make it to the Senate. “You have to nominate people who can actually win because winners make policy and losers go home,” McConnell said. For nearly 50 minutes, Trump and McConnell took questions from reporters, touching on a wide range of issues. He hinted that he would declare a state of emergency on the opioid crisis next week, after having promised to do it several months ago. He also blamed the Cuban government for alleged sonic attacks on American personnel at the US embassy in Havana. The state department removed staff from the embassy as a precaution. Trump also said he was “very happy” with his decision to end critical healthcare payments to insurance companies that help low-income Americans afford health insurance. He said the decision was helping spur bipartisan action on healthcare. After repeated failures to pass legislation repealing the healthcare law, Trump claimed Republicans had found enough support to pass a new measure, which he expects despite wariness from GOP senators on the Hill to revisit the issue ahead of next year’s midterms. He also expressed a desire for Hillary Clinton to run again in 2020. He said her defense of NFL players who take a knee during the national anthem to protest against police violence was “very disrespectful to our country”. “That’s why she lost the election. I mean, honestly, it’s that thinking, that is the reason she lost the election,” Trump said. Trump team claims US families will receive extra $4,000 a year from tax cuts Read more On Monday morning, before a scheduled cabinet meeting, Trump busied himself on Twitter, accusing Democrats of obstructing his tax plan and bragging about economic growth. He also accused the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, of hypocrisy over the Iran nuclear deal. Schumer voted against the deal in 2015 but has since urged Congress to strengthen it. He responded to Trump’s tweets on taxes and the economy. “This deliberate manipulation of #s & facts could lead to messing up the good economy inherited from @POTUS44 & hurting the middle class,” Schumer wrote. The White House also released details about Trump’s forthcoming visit to Asia and the Pacific. From 3 to 14 November, the president will travel to Japan, South Korea, China, Vietnam, the Philippines and Hawaii. Officials said the tour would “strengthen the international resolve to confront the North Korean threat and ensure the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean peninsula”. Nonetheless, while the president was looking to 2020 and the international stage, an intra-party war continued to brew. Bannon indicates Trump's Obamacare strategy: 'Blow that thing up' Read more Susan Collins, a Maine moderate who cast pivotal votes against the Senate healthcare bills, told ABC voters “don’t want this hyper-partisanship. They want us to work together. And they want us to get things done. “Mitch McConnell is the Senate majority leader. The president needs him. I’m glad they’re working together on tax reform and a lot of other issues. And I’m glad they’re meeting this week.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest Senator Susan Collins: ‘Mitch McConnell is the Senate majority leader. The president needs him.’ Photograph: Joel Page/Reuters This summer, McConnell responded to Trump’s Twitter attacks by saying: “A lot of people look at all that [legislative work] and find it frustrating, messy. Well, welcome to the democratic process. That’s the way it is in our country.” Such words would not find favor with the president’s support base, which Bannon is addressing and which has responded eagerly to Trump’s talk of “draining the swamp” of Washington. 'We tried nice guys': conservative hardliners stay in a trance for Trump Read more In September, Trump angered that base by cutting a deal with Democrats on raising the debt limit and keeping the government running. He has talked about other deals, though his list of demands outraged Democrats who had sensed an opening on the status of Dreamers, young undocumented people brought to the US as children whose protection from deportation has been rescinded by Trump. Hard-right conservatives wrote in a letter last week during a Senate break that McConnell and his leadership team should step aside. The Senate recess also drew criticism from the White House. “They’re on another vacation right now,” the press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said. “I think that we would all be a lot better off if the Senate would stop taking vacations and start staying here until we actually get some real things accomplished.”

www.theguardian.com

left

z5e1ccrkbjA25zIB

test

teELUakQYwITrNPt

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-virginia-politics/virginia-governors-future-in-limbo-amid-outcry-over-racist-photo-idUSKCN1PU13D

Virginia governor's future in limbo amid outcry over racist photo

2019-02-06

Gary Robertson

RICHMOND , Va. ( ███ ) - Embattled Virginia Governor Ralph Northam on Tuesday resisted calls to step down over a racist photo on his 1984 medical school yearbook page , with the state ’ s main Democratic Latino organization joining the chorus urging his resignation . The first-term Democrat came under fire on Friday when a conservative media website released the photo , showing one person in blackface standing beside a masked person in the white robes of the white supremacist group the Ku Klux Klan . Northam , who has avoided the public since Saturday , has faced nearly universal calls to step down from within his own party in Virginia - seen as a key swing state for the 2020 presidential election - as well as from at least five Democratic presidential candidates . Monique Alcala , the president of the Virginia Democratic Latino Caucus , became the latest to urge Northam to quit . In a telephone interview she said she believed Northam ’ s political record showed he was not racist but that he should resign because he had lost the moral authority to lead . “ On matters of equity and justice you really have to have trust with the community , and this has really violated that trust , ” she said . Northam , 59 , who is white , initially apologized on Friday and said he was one of the two people in the photo . He changed his story a day later , saying he did not appear in the picture but had dressed in blackface at a dance competition that year to portray pop star Michael Jackson . The origins of blackface date to 19th-century “ minstrel ” shows in which white performers covered their faces in black grease paint to caricature slaves . Northam , who took office a year ago , has vowed to finish his four-year term . Without public fanfare on Tuesday , he quietly signed legislation to provide $ 750 million in cash incentives to Amazon.com Inc in return for the online giant ’ s promise to create 38,000 new jobs in Virginia . Northam has otherwise huddled with advisers and cabinet officers while his political heir apparent , Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax , 39 , confronted a potential scandal of his own . Fairfax on Monday denied a sexual assault allegation that was reported against him on the same website that first disclosed the Northam yearbook photo . The Big League Politics site posted a private Facebook message on Sunday purportedly obtained from the accuser with her permission by a friend suggesting that Fairfax had assaulted her during the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston . While the Facebook post did not explicitly name Fairfax , the website ’ s story linked him to the allegation . Fairfax on Monday acknowledged having had a consensual encounter with the woman in 2004 but said the story of an assault was “ totally fabricated . ” At least two media outlets , including the Washington Post , said a woman had approached them more than a year ago with the same allegation , but that they had been unable to substantiate her account . Virginia Governor Ralph Northam , accompanied by his wife Pamela Northam announces he will not resign during a news conference in Richmond , Virginia , U.S. February 2 , 2019 . Picture taken February 2 , 2019 . ███/ Jay Paul Fairfax has been non-committal on Northam ’ s future , saying it was up to the governor to decide his next move but that he would be ready to step up if needed . Should Northam resign , Fairfax would succeed him to become the second African-American governor in the history of Virginia , where his great-great-great grandfather was a slave . The first was Douglas Wilder , a Democrat elected in 1989 . If Fairfax were also to step aside , state Attorney General Mark Herring , a Democrat , is next in line to become governor . Herring , who has declared his intention to run for the state ’ s top elected office in the next gubernatorial race in 2021 , called on Saturday for Northam to resign and pledged his “ complete support ” for Fairfax .

RICHMOND, Va. (Reuters) - Embattled Virginia Governor Ralph Northam on Tuesday resisted calls to step down over a racist photo on his 1984 medical school yearbook page, with the state’s main Democratic Latino organization joining the chorus urging his resignation. The first-term Democrat came under fire on Friday when a conservative media website released the photo, showing one person in blackface standing beside a masked person in the white robes of the white supremacist group the Ku Klux Klan. Northam, who has avoided the public since Saturday, has faced nearly universal calls to step down from within his own party in Virginia - seen as a key swing state for the 2020 presidential election - as well as from at least five Democratic presidential candidates. Monique Alcala, the president of the Virginia Democratic Latino Caucus, became the latest to urge Northam to quit. In a telephone interview she said she believed Northam’s political record showed he was not racist but that he should resign because he had lost the moral authority to lead. “On matters of equity and justice you really have to have trust with the community, and this has really violated that trust,” she said. Northam, 59, who is white, initially apologized on Friday and said he was one of the two people in the photo. He changed his story a day later, saying he did not appear in the picture but had dressed in blackface at a dance competition that year to portray pop star Michael Jackson. The origins of blackface date to 19th-century “minstrel” shows in which white performers covered their faces in black grease paint to caricature slaves. Northam, who took office a year ago, has vowed to finish his four-year term. Without public fanfare on Tuesday, he quietly signed legislation to provide $750 million in cash incentives to Amazon.com Inc in return for the online giant’s promise to create 38,000 new jobs in Virginia. Northam has otherwise huddled with advisers and cabinet officers while his political heir apparent, Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax, 39, confronted a potential scandal of his own. Fairfax on Monday denied a sexual assault allegation that was reported against him on the same website that first disclosed the Northam yearbook photo. The Big League Politics site posted a private Facebook message on Sunday purportedly obtained from the accuser with her permission by a friend suggesting that Fairfax had assaulted her during the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. While the Facebook post did not explicitly name Fairfax, the website’s story linked him to the allegation. Fairfax on Monday acknowledged having had a consensual encounter with the woman in 2004 but said the story of an assault was “totally fabricated.” At least two media outlets, including the Washington Post, said a woman had approached them more than a year ago with the same allegation, but that they had been unable to substantiate her account. Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, accompanied by his wife Pamela Northam announces he will not resign during a news conference in Richmond, Virginia, U.S. February 2, 2019. Picture taken February 2, 2019. REUTERS/ Jay Paul Fairfax has been non-committal on Northam’s future, saying it was up to the governor to decide his next move but that he would be ready to step up if needed. Should Northam resign, Fairfax would succeed him to become the second African-American governor in the history of Virginia, where his great-great-great grandfather was a slave. The first was Douglas Wilder, a Democrat elected in 1989. If Fairfax were also to step aside, state Attorney General Mark Herring, a Democrat, is next in line to become governor. Herring, who has declared his intention to run for the state’s top elected office in the next gubernatorial race in 2021, called on Saturday for Northam to resign and pledged his “complete support” for Fairfax.

www.reuters.com

center

teELUakQYwITrNPt

test

VXpQDMFccqHmZyIQ

national_defense

Guest Writer - Right

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/israel/2016/april/obamas-remarks-on-most-peaceful-world-ring-hollow-in-dangerous-middle-east

OPINION: Obama's Remarks on 'Most Peaceful' World Ring Hollow in Dangerous Middle East

2016-04-26

JERUSALEM , Israel – The Bible speaks of a time when it would be said , `` Peace , peace , when there is no peace ' ( see Jer . 6:14 ) . For some , that prophetic utterance took on new meaning Monday when the president began his lengthy speech in the northern German city of Hanover . While Israel fights for recognition and justice in an increasingly hostile world , which sometimes envisions its destruction , President Obama says we 're living in the most peaceful era in the history of humanity . Meanwhile , Israeli Middle East commentator Ehud Yaari says `` Tehran 's commitment to surrounding , besieging and eliminating the 'Zionist entity ' has not changed , and countering this goal will require pushing back against Iranian advances in Iraq , Syria , Jordan and elsewhere , '' the Washington Institute reported . And a smuggler at the Syrian-Turkish border told Buzzfeed that ISIS has deployed at least 4,000 fighters to Europe , while French and Belgian officials say the 5,000-plus Europeans who joined the Islamic State will bring terrorism with them when they return home . But according to Obama , the world is experiencing the `` most peaceful , most prosperous , most progressive era in human history . '' `` I want to begin with an observation that , given the challenges that we face in the world and the headlines we see every day , may seem improbable but it 's true . We are fortunate to be living in the most peaceful , most prosperous , most progressive era in human history , '' he said . The president went on to explain how the world is in much better shape than it 's ever been . `` More people live in democracies , where they live wealthier and healthier and better educated with a global economy that has lifted up more than a billion people from extreme poverty and created new middle classes from the Americas to Africa to Asia , '' he continued . And not only that , infant mortality is down , people live longer and tens of millions have been saved from disease . And in a more tolerant world , gays and lesbians have more opportunities , he said . According to Obama , it 's a good time to be alive . Most anyone , he said , would choose to born today than at any other time in the history of the world . It is also a time that `` we need to integrate Muslims . '' `` I want you to remember that our countries are stronger , they 're more secure and more successful when we integrate people of all backgrounds and faiths and make them feel as one . And that includes our fellow citizens who are Muslim , '' he said . The president 's eloquent words may ring hollow to the millions in the Middle East and Africa whose family members have been slain , their homes confiscated , their children kidnapped and sold as sex slaves , and to the tens of thousands of refugees flooding European shores . According to the Bible , Israel is at the core of many events unfolding in the world today . Biblical prophecies foretold thousands of years ago are coming to pass in our lifetimes . The Bible admonishes us to pray for the peace of Jerusalem ( Psalm 122:6 ) , the capital of the Jewish nation-state , and to give Him no rest until He makes Jerusalem a praise in the earth . `` I have set watchmen on your walls , O Jerusalem ; They shall never hold their peace day or night . You who make mention of the Lord , do not keep silent and give Him no rest till He establishes and till He makes Jerusalem a praise in the earth . ( Is . 1:6-7 ) That 's why it behooves us to understand today 's headlines through a biblical perspective .

JERUSALEM, Israel – The Bible speaks of a time when it would be said, "Peace, peace, when there is no peace' (see Jer. 6:14). For some, that prophetic utterance took on new meaning Monday when the president began his lengthy speech in the northern German city of Hanover. While Israel fights for recognition and justice in an increasingly hostile world, which sometimes envisions its destruction, President Obama says we're living in the most peaceful era in the history of humanity. Meanwhile, Israeli Middle East commentator Ehud Yaari says "Tehran's commitment to surrounding, besieging and eliminating the 'Zionist entity' has not changed, and countering this goal will require pushing back against Iranian advances in Iraq, Syria, Jordan and elsewhere," the Washington Institute reported. And a smuggler at the Syrian-Turkish border told Buzzfeed that ISIS has deployed at least 4,000 fighters to Europe, while French and Belgian officials say the 5,000-plus Europeans who joined the Islamic State will bring terrorism with them when they return home. But according to Obama, the world is experiencing the "most peaceful, most prosperous, most progressive era in human history." "I want to begin with an observation that, given the challenges that we face in the world and the headlines we see every day, may seem improbable but it's true. We are fortunate to be living in the most peaceful, most prosperous, most progressive era in human history," he said. The president went on to explain how the world is in much better shape than it's ever been. "More people live in democracies, where they live wealthier and healthier and better educated with a global economy that has lifted up more than a billion people from extreme poverty and created new middle classes from the Americas to Africa to Asia," he continued. And not only that, infant mortality is down, people live longer and tens of millions have been saved from disease. And in a more tolerant world, gays and lesbians have more opportunities, he said. According to Obama, it's a good time to be alive. Most anyone, he said, would choose to born today than at any other time in the history of the world. It is also a time that "we need to integrate Muslims." "I want you to remember that our countries are stronger, they're more secure and more successful when we integrate people of all backgrounds and faiths and make them feel as one. And that includes our fellow citizens who are Muslim," he said. The president's eloquent words may ring hollow to the millions in the Middle East and Africa whose family members have been slain, their homes confiscated, their children kidnapped and sold as sex slaves, and to the tens of thousands of refugees flooding European shores. According to the Bible, Israel is at the core of many events unfolding in the world today. Biblical prophecies foretold thousands of years ago are coming to pass in our lifetimes. The Bible admonishes us to pray for the peace of Jerusalem (Psalm 122:6), the capital of the Jewish nation-state, and to give Him no rest until He makes Jerusalem a praise in the earth. "I have set watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; They shall never hold their peace day or night. You who make mention of the Lord, do not keep silent and give Him no rest till He establishes and till He makes Jerusalem a praise in the earth. (Is. 1:6-7) That's why it behooves us to understand today's headlines through a biblical perspective.

www1.cbn.com

right

VXpQDMFccqHmZyIQ

test

uYytKIiLtZBcPgap

national_defense

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/d40501d9b0a712d02e2a6626f607ead2

US, Iran step back from the brink; region still on edge

2020-01-08

Zeke Miller

President Donald Trump addresses the nation from the White House on the ballistic missile strike that Iran launched against Iraqi air bases housing U.S. troops , Wednesday , Jan. 8 , 2020 , in Washington . ( AP Photo/ Evan Vucci ) President Donald Trump addresses the nation from the White House on the ballistic missile strike that Iran launched against Iraqi air bases housing U.S. troops , Wednesday , Jan. 8 , 2020 , in Washington . ( AP Photo/ Evan Vucci ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The U.S. and Iran stepped back from the brink of possible war on Wednesday as President Donald Trump signaled he would not retaliate militarily for Iran ’ s missile strikes on Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops . No one was harmed in the strikes , but U.S. forces in the region remained on high alert . Speaking from the White House , Trump seemed intent on deescalating the crisis , which spiraled after he authorized the targeted killing last week of Iran ’ s top general , Qassem Soleimani . Iran responded overnight with its most direct assault on America since the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran , firing more than a dozen missiles at two installations in Iraq . The Pentagon said Wednesday that it believed Iran fired with the intent to kill . Even so , Trump ’ s takeaway was that “ Iran appears to be standing down , which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world . ” Despite such conciliatory talk , the region remained on edge , and American troops including a quick-reaction force dispatched over the weekend , were on high alert . Last week Iranian-backed militia besieged the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad , and Tehran ’ s proxies in the region remain able to carry out attacks such as the one on Dec. 27 that killed a U.S. contractor and set off the most recent round of hostilities . Hours after Trump spoke , an ‘ incoming ’ siren went off in Baghdad ’ s Green Zone after what seemed to be small rockets “ impacted ” the diplomatic area , a Western official said . There were no reports of casualties . Gen. Mark Milley , the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , warned that it was “ perhaps too early to tell ” if Iran will be satisfied that the missile strikes were sufficient to avenge the Soleimani killing . “ We should have some expectation , ” Defense Secretary Mark Esper added in a Wednesday briefing , “ that Shiite militia groups , either directed or not directed by Iran , will continue in some way , shape or form to try and undermine our presence there , ” either politically or militarily . There is no obvious path to diplomatic engagement , as Trump pledged to add to his “ maximum pressure ” campaign of economic sanctions . He said the new , unspecified sanctions would remain in place “ until Iran changes its behavior . ” Iran ’ s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the overnight strike was not necessarily the totality of Iran ’ s response . “ Last night they received a slap , ” Khamenei said . “ These military actions are not sufficient ( for revenge ) . What is important is that the corrupt presence of America in this region comes to an end . ” Trump , facing perhaps the biggest test of his presidency , credited the minimized damage to an early warning system “ that worked very well ” and said Americans should be “ extremely grateful and happy ” with the outcome . The strikes had pushed Tehran and Washington perilously close to all-out conflict and left the world waiting to see whether the American president would respond with more military force . Trump , in his nine-minute , televised address , spoke of a robust U.S. military with missiles that are “ big , powerful , accurate , lethal and fast. ” But then he added : “ We do not want to use it . ” Iran for days had been promising to respond forcefully to Soleimani ’ s killing , but its limited strike on two bases — one in the northern Iraqi city in Irbil and the other at Ain al-Asad in western Iraq — appeared to signal that it , too , was uninterested in a wider clash with the U.S. Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted that the country had “ concluded proportionate measures in self-defense . ” Trump , who is facing reelection in November , campaigned for president on a promise to extract the United States from “ endless wars . ” On Wednesday , he said the United States was “ ready to embrace peace with all who seek it. ” That marked a sharp change in tone from his warning a day earlier that “ if Iran does anything that they shouldn ’ t be doing , they ’ re going to be suffering the consequences , and very strongly . ” Members of Congress were briefed on the Iran situation Wednesday afternoon in closed-door sessions on Capitol Hill , where Democrats and some Republicans expressed dissatisfaction with the administration ’ s justifications for the drone strike on Soleimani . Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah said it was “ probably the worst briefing I ’ ve seen , at least on a military issue , in the nine years I ’ ve served in the United States Senate. ” He said it was “ distressing ” that officials suggested it would only embolden Iran if lawmakers debated the merits of further military action . He and Sen. Rand Paul announced their support of a largely symbolic war powers resolution to limit Trump ’ s military action regarding Iran . Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced after the briefing that the House would vote Thursday on a war powers resolution of its own . Trump opened his remarks at the White House by reiterating his promise that “ Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. ” Iran had announced in the wake of Soleimani ’ s killing that it would no longer comply with any of the limits on uranium enrichment in the 2015 nuclear deal crafted to keep it from building a nuclear device . The president , who had earlier pulled the U.S. out of the deal , seized on the moment of calm to call for negotiations toward a new agreement that would do more to limit Iran ’ s ballistic missile programs and constrain regional proxy campaigns like those led by Soleimani . Trump also announced he would ask NATO to become “ much more involved in the Middle East process. ” While he has frequently criticized NATO as obsolete and has encouraged participants to increase their military spending , Trump has tried to push the military alliance to refocus its efforts on modern threats . Like the U.S. troops in the region , NATO forces have temporarily halted their training of Iraqi forces and their work to combat the Islamic State . Soleimani ’ s death last week in an American drone strike in Baghdad prompted angry calls for vengeance and drew massive crowds of Iranians to the streets to mourn him . Khamenei himself wept at the funeral in a sign of his bond with the commander . Milley and Esper told reporters that a total of 16 missiles were fired from three locations in Iran . Eleven hit the Ain al-Asad air base in Iraq ’ s western Anbar province and one targeted a base in Irbil in Iraq ’ s semi-autonomous Kurdish region . The missiles were described as likely short-range with 1,000- to 2,000-pound warheads . Four failed to detonate , they said . Milley added that the Pentagon believes that Iran fired the missiles with the intent “ to kill personnel. ” He praised early warning systems , which detected the incoming ballistic missiles well in advance , providing U.S. and coalition forces adequate time to take shelter at both bases . He described the damage to tents , parking lots and a helicopter , among other things , as “ nothing major . ” Officials also said that the U.S. was aware of preparations for the attack . It ’ s unclear if any intelligence identified specific targets or was more general . Ain al-Asad was first used by American forces after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled dictator Saddam Hussein , and it later was used by American troops in the fight against the Islamic State group . It houses about 1,500 U.S. and coalition forces . Trump visited it in December 2018 , making his first presidential visit to troops in the region . Vice President Mike Pence visited both Ain al-Asad and Irbil in November . Trump spoke of new sanctions on Iran , but it was not immediately clear what those would be . The primary agencies involved in implementing such penalties – the departments of Commerce , State and Treasury – do not preview those actions to prevent evasion . Since withdrawing from the 2015 nuclear deal , the administration had already imposed harsh sanctions on nearly every significant portion of Iran ’ s economic , energy , shipping and military sectors . Wednesday ’ s efort to deescalate the conflict came after world leaders , including Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin , appealed for restraint . The fallout for Trump ’ s order to kill Soleimani had been swift . Iraq ’ s Parliament voted to expel U.S. troops from Iraq , though Trump said they would not be leaving . Trump and top national security officials have justified the Soleimani drone strike with general statements about the threat posed by the general , who commanded proxy forces outside Iran and was responsible for the deaths of American troops in Iraq .

President Donald Trump addresses the nation from the White House on the ballistic missile strike that Iran launched against Iraqi air bases housing U.S. troops, Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci) President Donald Trump addresses the nation from the White House on the ballistic missile strike that Iran launched against Iraqi air bases housing U.S. troops, Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci) WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. and Iran stepped back from the brink of possible war on Wednesday as President Donald Trump signaled he would not retaliate militarily for Iran’s missile strikes on Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops. No one was harmed in the strikes, but U.S. forces in the region remained on high alert. Speaking from the White House, Trump seemed intent on deescalating the crisis, which spiraled after he authorized the targeted killing last week of Iran’s top general, Qassem Soleimani. Iran responded overnight with its most direct assault on America since the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, firing more than a dozen missiles at two installations in Iraq. The Pentagon said Wednesday that it believed Iran fired with the intent to kill. Even so, Trump’s takeaway was that “Iran appears to be standing down , which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world.” Despite such conciliatory talk, the region remained on edge, and American troops including a quick-reaction force dispatched over the weekend, were on high alert. Last week Iranian-backed militia besieged the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, and Tehran’s proxies in the region remain able to carry out attacks such as the one on Dec. 27 that killed a U.S. contractor and set off the most recent round of hostilities. Hours after Trump spoke, an ‘incoming’ siren went off in Baghdad’s Green Zone after what seemed to be small rockets “impacted” the diplomatic area, a Western official said. There were no reports of casualties. Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned that it was “perhaps too early to tell” if Iran will be satisfied that the missile strikes were sufficient to avenge the Soleimani killing. “We should have some expectation,” Defense Secretary Mark Esper added in a Wednesday briefing, “that Shiite militia groups, either directed or not directed by Iran, will continue in some way, shape or form to try and undermine our presence there,” either politically or militarily. There is no obvious path to diplomatic engagement, as Trump pledged to add to his “maximum pressure” campaign of economic sanctions. He said the new, unspecified sanctions would remain in place “until Iran changes its behavior.” Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the overnight strike was not necessarily the totality of Iran’s response. “Last night they received a slap,” Khamenei said. “These military actions are not sufficient (for revenge). What is important is that the corrupt presence of America in this region comes to an end.” Trump, facing perhaps the biggest test of his presidency, credited the minimized damage to an early warning system “that worked very well” and said Americans should be “extremely grateful and happy” with the outcome. The strikes had pushed Tehran and Washington perilously close to all-out conflict and left the world waiting to see whether the American president would respond with more military force. Trump, in his nine-minute, televised address, spoke of a robust U.S. military with missiles that are “big, powerful, accurate, lethal and fast.” But then he added: “We do not want to use it.” Iran for days had been promising to respond forcefully to Soleimani’s killing, but its limited strike on two bases — one in the northern Iraqi city in Irbil and the other at Ain al-Asad in western Iraq — appeared to signal that it, too, was uninterested in a wider clash with the U.S. Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted that the country had “concluded proportionate measures in self-defense.” Trump, who is facing reelection in November, campaigned for president on a promise to extract the United States from “endless wars.” On Wednesday, he said the United States was “ready to embrace peace with all who seek it.” That marked a sharp change in tone from his warning a day earlier that “if Iran does anything that they shouldn’t be doing, they’re going to be suffering the consequences, and very strongly.” Members of Congress were briefed on the Iran situation Wednesday afternoon in closed-door sessions on Capitol Hill, where Democrats and some Republicans expressed dissatisfaction with the administration’s justifications for the drone strike on Soleimani. Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah said it was “probably the worst briefing I’ve seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I’ve served in the United States Senate.” He said it was “distressing” that officials suggested it would only embolden Iran if lawmakers debated the merits of further military action. He and Sen. Rand Paul announced their support of a largely symbolic war powers resolution to limit Trump’s military action regarding Iran. Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced after the briefing that the House would vote Thursday on a war powers resolution of its own. Trump opened his remarks at the White House by reiterating his promise that “Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.” Iran had announced in the wake of Soleimani’s killing that it would no longer comply with any of the limits on uranium enrichment in the 2015 nuclear deal crafted to keep it from building a nuclear device. The president, who had earlier pulled the U.S. out of the deal, seized on the moment of calm to call for negotiations toward a new agreement that would do more to limit Iran’s ballistic missile programs and constrain regional proxy campaigns like those led by Soleimani. Trump also announced he would ask NATO to become “much more involved in the Middle East process.” While he has frequently criticized NATO as obsolete and has encouraged participants to increase their military spending, Trump has tried to push the military alliance to refocus its efforts on modern threats. Like the U.S. troops in the region, NATO forces have temporarily halted their training of Iraqi forces and their work to combat the Islamic State. Soleimani’s death last week in an American drone strike in Baghdad prompted angry calls for vengeance and drew massive crowds of Iranians to the streets to mourn him. Khamenei himself wept at the funeral in a sign of his bond with the commander. Milley and Esper told reporters that a total of 16 missiles were fired from three locations in Iran. Eleven hit the Ain al-Asad air base in Iraq’s western Anbar province and one targeted a base in Irbil in Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdish region. The missiles were described as likely short-range with 1,000- to 2,000-pound warheads. Four failed to detonate, they said. Milley added that the Pentagon believes that Iran fired the missiles with the intent “to kill personnel.” He praised early warning systems, which detected the incoming ballistic missiles well in advance, providing U.S. and coalition forces adequate time to take shelter at both bases. He described the damage to tents, parking lots and a helicopter, among other things, as “nothing major.” Officials also said that the U.S. was aware of preparations for the attack. It’s unclear if any intelligence identified specific targets or was more general. Ain al-Asad was first used by American forces after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled dictator Saddam Hussein, and it later was used by American troops in the fight against the Islamic State group. It houses about 1,500 U.S. and coalition forces. Trump visited it in December 2018, making his first presidential visit to troops in the region. Vice President Mike Pence visited both Ain al-Asad and Irbil in November. Trump spoke of new sanctions on Iran, but it was not immediately clear what those would be. The primary agencies involved in implementing such penalties – the departments of Commerce, State and Treasury – do not preview those actions to prevent evasion. Since withdrawing from the 2015 nuclear deal, the administration had already imposed harsh sanctions on nearly every significant portion of Iran’s economic, energy, shipping and military sectors. Wednesday’s efort to deescalate the conflict came after world leaders, including Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin, appealed for restraint. The fallout for Trump’s order to kill Soleimani had been swift. Iraq’s Parliament voted to expel U.S. troops from Iraq, though Trump said they would not be leaving. Trump and top national security officials have justified the Soleimani drone strike with general statements about the threat posed by the general, who commanded proxy forces outside Iran and was responsible for the deaths of American troops in Iraq. ___ Associated Press writers Deb Riechmann, Robert Burns, Kevin Freking, Lolita Baldor, Darlene Superville, Alan Fram and Padmananda Rama in Washington and Sarah El Deeb in Beirut contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

uYytKIiLtZBcPgap

test

5RLxutKAWzZC7LDK

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/25/trump-scandal-president

OPINION: The latest Trump scandal would have destroyed any other president

2018-07-25

Jonathan Freedland

Shall we cast our minds back to the more innocent era of 1992 , when the presidential campaign of a young southern governor by the name of Bill Clinton was nearly derailed by claims that he ’ d had an extramarital affair with a former lounge singer by the name of Gennifer Flowers ? As it happens , Clinton survived that episode – he and Hillary appeared jointly on 60 Minutes , as Hillary famously explained : “ You know , I ’ m not sitting here , some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette ” , but it was a close-run thing . Now imagine that a tape emerged in which Clinton and his personal lawyer were heard discussing how best to pay the hush money that would keep Flowers silent , an undeclared payment that would be in violation of campaign finance laws . There can be no doubt : it would have destroyed Clinton as a candidate , and it would have been seized on as ( further ) grounds for his impeachment as president . Sign up to receive the latest US opinion pieces every weekday Yet late on Tuesday , the lawyer for Michael Cohen – Donald Trump ’ s personal attorney , fixer and keeper of his secrets – released a tape in which he and Trump are heard discussing how exactly to fund the silencing of a former Playboy model , Karen McDougal . Cohen apparently wanted it be handled legally , while Trump seemingly had other ideas . “ We ’ ll have to pay , ” Cohen says . Trump ’ s reply : “ Pay with cash . ” Put aside the impact an equivalent revelation about Clinton would have made in 1992 . Just imagine the storm this would have caused if it had come out at the time Cohen and Trump had that conversation , just two months before the 2016 election . The entire political class would have assumed it would be devastating . And yet few would now bet on the Cohen tape story destroying Trump . Instead , they ’ ll guess it will dominate the news cycle for a few hours , and be ignored by Fox News before being replaced by something else . For this has become the established pattern . Note this month ’ s revelations by BBC ’ s Panorama programme that Trump behaved like a “ predator ” at parties packed with teenage girls in the 1980s and 1990s . It included the testimony of Barbara Pilling , then a young model , who recalled Trump asking her age . On hearing that she was 17 , Trump said : “ Oh , great . So you ’ re not too old and not too young . That ’ s just great. ” Pilling added that she “ felt I was in the presence of a shark ” . Again , imagine what similar revelations would have done to the standing of Clinton or any previous president . Yet for Trump , they made barely a dent . The simple , stubborn fact is that nothing seems to move Trump ’ s core supporters away from him . His approval rating among Republicans remains sky high ( though there are signs that the pool of Americans who identify as Republicans is shrinking , perhaps suggesting that it ’ s increasingly only Trump true believers who are proud to wear that party label ) . Trump ’ s 2016 observation that he could shoot people on Fifth Avenue and still not lose votes remains as valid as ever . It ’ s one reason why Trump ’ s opponents ought not to invest too much hope in the special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign . Even if Mueller produces jaw-dropping evidence against Trump , the president ’ s base is unlikely to be impressed . For a flavour of the likely response , note Alex Jones ’ s latest Infowars broadcast , making the wild , evidence-free allegation that Mueller was involved in a child sex ring and fantasising about shooting Mueller . ( Predictably , Facebook , which carries Infowars , said the broadcast did not breach its rules . ) We have to face the grim reality that in our post-2016 world few of the previous norms and standards apply . In Britain , too , we can see how things have changed . There was a time when a government admission that it was having to plan for the possibility that food and medicine would run out – not through natural disaster , but because of a policy it was pursuing – would have been terminal . Now it ’ s just another day in Brexit . The problem seems to be that a chunk of the electorate – whether diehard Trump supporters or hardcore Brexiters – is impervious to any countervailing evidence . By that same logic , hope surely must rest with those voters who are in the great middle : quieter than the rest , perhaps , but open to persuasion and willing to be moved by demonstrable facts . Those people surely still exist . If there were to be a second referendum on Brexit , their votes would be crucial . In the US , they will have a decisive opportunity to make their voice heard in November ’ s midterm elections . At that moment , they will have much more than a chance to punish Trump . They will also have it in their hands to restore a set of norms that currently lies battered and bleeding . It ’ s no exaggeration to say that the world is depending on them .

Shall we cast our minds back to the more innocent era of 1992, when the presidential campaign of a young southern governor by the name of Bill Clinton was nearly derailed by claims that he’d had an extramarital affair with a former lounge singer by the name of Gennifer Flowers? As it happens, Clinton survived that episode – he and Hillary appeared jointly on 60 Minutes, as Hillary famously explained: “You know, I’m not sitting here, some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette”, but it was a close-run thing. Now imagine that a tape emerged in which Clinton and his personal lawyer were heard discussing how best to pay the hush money that would keep Flowers silent, an undeclared payment that would be in violation of campaign finance laws. There can be no doubt: it would have destroyed Clinton as a candidate, and it would have been seized on as (further) grounds for his impeachment as president. Sign up to receive the latest US opinion pieces every weekday Yet late on Tuesday, the lawyer for Michael Cohen – Donald Trump’s personal attorney, fixer and keeper of his secrets – released a tape in which he and Trump are heard discussing how exactly to fund the silencing of a former Playboy model, Karen McDougal. Cohen apparently wanted it be handled legally, while Trump seemingly had other ideas. “We’ll have to pay,” Cohen says. Trump’s reply: “Pay with cash.” Put aside the impact an equivalent revelation about Clinton would have made in 1992. Just imagine the storm this would have caused if it had come out at the time Cohen and Trump had that conversation, just two months before the 2016 election. The entire political class would have assumed it would be devastating. And yet few would now bet on the Cohen tape story destroying Trump. Instead, they’ll guess it will dominate the news cycle for a few hours, and be ignored by Fox News before being replaced by something else. For this has become the established pattern. Note this month’s revelations by BBC’s Panorama programme that Trump behaved like a “predator” at parties packed with teenage girls in the 1980s and 1990s. It included the testimony of Barbara Pilling, then a young model, who recalled Trump asking her age. On hearing that she was 17, Trump said: “Oh, great. So you’re not too old and not too young. That’s just great.” Pilling added that she “felt I was in the presence of a shark”. Again, imagine what similar revelations would have done to the standing of Clinton or any previous president. Yet for Trump, they made barely a dent. The simple, stubborn fact is that nothing seems to move Trump’s core supporters away from him. His approval rating among Republicans remains sky high (though there are signs that the pool of Americans who identify as Republicans is shrinking, perhaps suggesting that it’s increasingly only Trump true believers who are proud to wear that party label). Trump’s 2016 observation that he could shoot people on Fifth Avenue and still not lose votes remains as valid as ever. It’s one reason why Trump’s opponents ought not to invest too much hope in the special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Even if Mueller produces jaw-dropping evidence against Trump, the president’s base is unlikely to be impressed. For a flavour of the likely response, note Alex Jones’s latest Infowars broadcast, making the wild, evidence-free allegation that Mueller was involved in a child sex ring and fantasising about shooting Mueller. (Predictably, Facebook, which carries Infowars, said the broadcast did not breach its rules.) We have to face the grim reality that in our post-2016 world few of the previous norms and standards apply. In Britain, too, we can see how things have changed. There was a time when a government admission that it was having to plan for the possibility that food and medicine would run out – not through natural disaster, but because of a policy it was pursuing – would have been terminal. Now it’s just another day in Brexit. The problem seems to be that a chunk of the electorate – whether diehard Trump supporters or hardcore Brexiters – is impervious to any countervailing evidence. By that same logic, hope surely must rest with those voters who are in the great middle: quieter than the rest, perhaps, but open to persuasion and willing to be moved by demonstrable facts. Those people surely still exist. If there were to be a second referendum on Brexit, their votes would be crucial. In the US, they will have a decisive opportunity to make their voice heard in November’s midterm elections. At that moment, they will have much more than a chance to punish Trump. They will also have it in their hands to restore a set of norms that currently lies battered and bleeding. It’s no exaggeration to say that the world is depending on them.

www.theguardian.com

left

5RLxutKAWzZC7LDK

test

A4Rt9NGYzIMIsuP5

politics

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/21/cuccinelli-calls-on-christie-to-step-aside-as-rga-chairman/?hpt=po_c1

Cuccinelli calls on Christie to 'step aside' as RGA chairman

2014-01-21

( CNN ) – A prominent Virginia Republican , Ken Cuccinelli , said embattled New Jersey Gov . Chris Christie should step down from his new role as chairman of the Republican Governors Association . The former Virginia attorney general and 2013 gubernatorial candidate said current investigations into suggested political misconduct by top Christie administration appointees would hinder his ability to successfully campaign for GOP candidates . `` I think just from the perspective of setting aside this as an issue in other races , it makes sense for him to step aside in that role , '' he said on CNN 's `` Crossfire '' on Tuesday . `` He does not serve the goals of that organization by staying as chairman . And that does n't mean that any of the charges , political or otherwise are substantive or not . It does n't matter . Perception is reality . '' Cuccinelli , now a former elected official , may have been sorting through some hurt feelings dating back to his loss last November in the Virginia 's governor 's race . After their campaign came up just a few points short on Election Night , Cuccinelli and his aides were furious at the RGA for not steering more money into what they thought was a winnable race . The RGA spent about $ 8 million on the Virginia race , but stopped running television ads weeks before the election . At the same time , they pumped $ 1.7 million into Christie 's cakewalk of a governor 's race in New Jersey - precious money that could have boosted Cuccinelli down the stretch . `` A number of people in the party establishment are going to need to take a hard look in the mirror and think about how they stranded their Republican nominee in Virginia , and with their help we would have had a Republican governor of Virginia , '' vented one Cuccinelli adviser . Christie has said previously the uproar in his state would not affect his work for governors nationally . He was in Florida this past weekend helping to raise money for incumbent Rick Scott . And two Republican governors said recently they still backed him for the RGA post , despite the problems in his state . Wisconsin Gov . Scott Walker , mentioned often as a potential presidential candidate as well , and Utah Gov . Gary Herbert said in Washington they had confidence in Christie 's leadership . Christie , a likely 2016 White House hopeful , has come under fire over suggestions top appointees engaged in political “ dirty tricks ” to punish a Democratic mayor for not endorsing their boss for reelection last November . Another mayor has accused Christie higher-ups of holding hostage relief money from Superstorm Sandy until she signed off on a redevelopment plan backed by the governor . Asked by Crossfire co-host Van Jones why Christie has n't stepped down from the powerful position , Cuccinelli predicted that the Garden State leader may still get advice from other governors to step down as the scandals continue to sink in . `` Frankly , I think this is still relatively new and he may well step down . I have no idea what his thinking is on that . And he may get some counsel from some other governors along those lines . '' Christie took over the chairmanship from Louisiana Gov . Bobby Jindal for the 2014 election year in November . Christie 's role as RGA chairman allows him to travel the country , gain a foothold in key states , and mingle with some of the GOP 's leading financial backers - all while controlling a nearly $ 150 million midterm political budget . Previous RGA chairmen like 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney and Texas Gov . Rick Perry have used the post as a national launch pad .

6 years ago Updated 9:02 p.m. ET, 1/21/2014 (CNN) – A prominent Virginia Republican, Ken Cuccinelli, said embattled New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie should step down from his new role as chairman of the Republican Governors Association. The former Virginia attorney general and 2013 gubernatorial candidate said current investigations into suggested political misconduct by top Christie administration appointees would hinder his ability to successfully campaign for GOP candidates. Follow @politicaltickerFollow @Crossfire "I think just from the perspective of setting aside this as an issue in other races, it makes sense for him to step aside in that role," he said on CNN's "Crossfire" on Tuesday. Watch "Crossfire" weeknights at 6:30pm ET on CNN "He does not serve the goals of that organization by staying as chairman. And that doesn't mean that any of the charges, political or otherwise are substantive or not. It doesn't matter. Perception is reality." Cuccinelli, now a former elected official, may have been sorting through some hurt feelings dating back to his loss last November in the Virginia's governor's race. After their campaign came up just a few points short on Election Night, Cuccinelli and his aides were furious at the RGA for not steering more money into what they thought was a winnable race. The RGA spent about $8 million on the Virginia race, but stopped running television ads weeks before the election. At the same time, they pumped $1.7 million into Christie's cakewalk of a governor's race in New Jersey - precious money that could have boosted Cuccinelli down the stretch. "A number of people in the party establishment are going to need to take a hard look in the mirror and think about how they stranded their Republican nominee in Virginia, and with their help we would have had a Republican governor of Virginia," vented one Cuccinelli adviser. Christie has said previously the uproar in his state would not affect his work for governors nationally. He was in Florida this past weekend helping to raise money for incumbent Rick Scott. And two Republican governors said recently they still backed him for the RGA post, despite the problems in his state. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, mentioned often as a potential presidential candidate as well, and Utah Gov. Gary Herbert said in Washington they had confidence in Christie's leadership. Christie, a likely 2016 White House hopeful, has come under fire over suggestions top appointees engaged in political “dirty tricks” to punish a Democratic mayor for not endorsing their boss for reelection last November. Another mayor has accused Christie higher-ups of holding hostage relief money from Superstorm Sandy until she signed off on a redevelopment plan backed by the governor. Christie’s camp denies any wrongdoing. Asked by Crossfire co-host Van Jones why Christie hasn't stepped down from the powerful position, Cuccinelli predicted that the Garden State leader may still get advice from other governors to step down as the scandals continue to sink in. "Frankly, I think this is still relatively new and he may well step down. I have no idea what his thinking is on that. And he may get some counsel from some other governors along those lines." Christie took over the chairmanship from Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal for the 2014 election year in November. Christie's role as RGA chairman allows him to travel the country, gain a foothold in key states, and mingle with some of the GOP's leading financial backers - all while controlling a nearly $150 million midterm political budget. Previous RGA chairmen like 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry have used the post as a national launch pad. There are 36 gubernatorial races in 2014. CNN National Political Reporter Peter Hamby contributed to this report.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

A4Rt9NGYzIMIsuP5

test

zXrYjsD94uOuhXey

lgbt_rights

Breitbart News

http://breitbart.com/politics/2020/02/09/fact-check-washington-post-reports-transgender-puberty-blockers-are-reversible

Fact Check: Washington Post Reports Transgender Puberty Blockers Are ‘Reversible’

2020-02-09

Dr. Susan Berry

CLAIM : The Washington Post reported youth puberty blockers are “ reversible ” in an article critical of a South Dakota proposed law that would criminalize treating transgender young people with medical treatments or surgery . South Dakota could become the first state in the nation to criminalize treating transgender youths under 16 years old with medical treatment or surgery . Hormone treatment , which can be used to delay puberty , is reversible and medical evidence suggests allowing transgender children to delay puberty until they are 16 can lower their risk for developing mental health conditions , according to the American Academy of Pediatrics . Children under 18 very rarely undergo sex-reassignment surgery . The Pediatric Endocrine Society also touts that “ the American Academy of Pediatrics ( AAP ) , the largest academic organization of pediatricians in the US , has released a Policy Statement supporting the approach to gender-affirming care ” that is consistent with that of the Society . “ Gender identity can be different from the gender that is presumed based on the sex assigned at birth and interventions intended to change one ’ s gender identity are not only ineffective , but harmful , ” the Society states . The group adds that “ gender-affirming care ” includes allowing a child or adolescent “ to explore their gender identity freely , and in some circumstances allow for a social transition ( change of name , pronouns , attire ) . ” Puberty suppression once puberty has started . This is a reversible treatment that decreases the distress of having the “ wrong ” puberty . This treatment alone does not cause infertility . Pediatric Endocrine Society Statement Against Public Discourse that Risks the Well-being of Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth and their Families pic.twitter.com/9XTDKZ8MCK — PES ( @ PedsEndoSociety ) November 6 , 2019 More physicians and analysts of the transgender movement , however , are publicly asserting the claim that drug treatments such as puberty blockers or suppressors are a “ reversible treatment ” is blatantly false . One of the primary reasons all agree the claim is false is that no long-term studies have been conducted on children who have had their normal puberty suppressed with drugs . Idaho-based endocrinologist Dr. William Malone told ███ in November puberty suppression is “ frequently called reversible , but it ’ s not . ” Normal bone density development is interfered with and probably brain development too . Almost all children placed on puberty blockers go on to cross-sex hormones—meaning puberty blockers solidify and sometimes intensify dysphoria . It ’ s hard to call these impacts reversible . There have been no long-term studies done on children who have had normal puberty blocked . In no other area of medicine would a medical society be so cavalier about treatments with unknown consequences . Caution is the rule in such situations , and always has been . This departure from the typical standard of care deserves more scrutiny . “ It is also not clear why the Pediatric Endocrine Society has abandoned the previous standard of care for gender dysphoria – which was supportive , exploratory counseling , ” Malone added : There are approximately ten studies in the literature showing that , on average , 85 % of children and adolescents with gender dysphoria have resolution or significant lessening of their dysphoria by early adulthood , without hormonal or surgical interventions . There is no scientific justification for departing from that established standard to the current affirmation-based approach . Dr. Michelle Cretella , executive director of the American College of Pediatricians , said emphatically the Pediatric Endocrine Society ’ s claim that puberty suppressors are a “ reversible treatment ” is “ a bald-faced lie . ” “ There are no long-term studies of puberty blocker use for gender incongruence in children , ” Cretella explained to ███ . “ Ergo , no one can say blockers are completely reversible and without harm . ” Cretella pointed to documentation , however , by the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) that links “ harm , ” i.e. , thousands of deaths , to Lupron , a drug prescribed with FDA approval for several conditions , including prostate cancer and endometriosis . Nevertheless , Lupron is also being used , without FDA approval , as a puberty blocker on children and adolescents with gender dysphoria . Puberty blockers , like Lupron , effectively “ castrate ” children of both sexes at the level of the pituitary gland in the brain , chemically turning boys into eunuchs and sending girls into a pre-teen menopause . This is why many girls treated for FDA-approved conditions with Lupron have developed osteoporosis in their twenties . Puberty blocking prevents the normal maturation of all organs – including the brain – that depend upon the child ’ s natural sex hormones to develop . Adults treated with Lupron for FDA-approved conditions experience memory deficits . What are we doing to the brains of gender incongruent but physically healthy children ? The pediatrician emphasized the “ harm ” caused by professionals urging transition affirmation . “ They are absolutely harming kids with blockers because they rob them of the very developmental period during which the vast majority come to embrace their biologic sex , ” Cretella stressed . “ Even if a child comes off blockers , we can never give back the period of normal physical/psychosocial development that was stolen from them . ” California-based endocrinologist Dr. Michael Laidlaw testified in support of the South Dakota bill , HB1057 , a measure that is seeking to protect children who are confused about their identity from harmful drugs , such as puberty blockers , surgeries and treatments . Instead of affirming the premise , as WaPo appeared to do , that gender confused children need puberty blockers to “ lower their risk for developing mental health conditions , ” Laidlaw asserted a high proportion of adolescents with gender confusion already had other psychological problems prior to the appearance of gender issues . A study from Finland , he noted , showed 75 percent of gender confused children “ had been or were currently undergoing psychiatric treatment for reasons other than gender confusion . ” Laidlaw observed another study that found “ 26 percent had autistic spectrum disorder ” and 68 percent had an initial contact with mental health services because of reasons other than gender confusion . In 2018 , Dr. Lisa Littman set out to understand why the number of young girls identifying as transgender at Britain ’ s Gender Identity Development Service had increased from 41 percent in 2009 to 69 percent in 2017 . Littman found 62.5 percent of the girls whose parents participated in the study had been diagnosed with at least one mental health disorder prior to the onset of their gender confusion . For example , nearly half of the children had already attempted to harm themselves or had experienced a trauma . Parental responses showed 87 percent of the teens announced they were transgender after increased time on social media and/or after “ cluster outbreaks ” of gender dysphoria in their groups of friends . Responses indicated most children who “ came out ” as transgender became increasingly popular as a result of their announcement . “ Peer contagion has been associated with depressive symptoms , disordered eating , aggression , bullying , and drug use , ” Littman observed . Attorney and researcher Jane Robbins recently examined at Townhall the relationship between the transgender industry and medical associations , such as the American Academy of Pediatrics ( AAP ) and the Endocrine Society . Robbins noted AAP has partnered with the radical Human Rights Campaign ( HRC ) — known for its bullying and coercive attacks in order to force acceptance of the LGBTQ lifestyle in public places , including schools . “ But do the views of HRC and AAP leadership align with those of AAP ’ s over 65,000 physician members ? ” Robbins asked . “ We don ’ t know , because the pro-experimentation policies were passed without input from those members . ” She explained that AAP ’ s positions statements are drafted by a small committee and then voted on by a board of directors consisting of about a dozen members . “ The broader membership has no direct input into the statement and would generally learn of it only after it ’ s issued , ” Robbins said . “ So , the only thing the AAP policy tells us is that less than 0.05 percent of the pediatricians who are still members of AAP believe in experimenting medically on gender-confused children . ” In September 2018 , Dr. Susan Bradley , a child psychiatrist who founded the Toronto Gender Identity Clinic , told National Review she is “ deeply concerned that AAP ’ s guidance has gotten so far ahead of the current knowledge base about gender dysphoric children . ” We know from multiple studies that around 80 percent of gender dysphoric children will desist from their cross-sex identification in childhood to identify with their natal sex . Most of these will grow up to be gay or lesbian ; a substantial minority have also been diagnosed with autism . Yet the AAP guidance incorrectly dismisses these studies as flawed and outdated . There is no professional consensus on medical treatment of gender-dysphoric children and young adolescents . Similarly , Robbins noted the Endocrine Society , which approves of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for gender-confused children , admits that 68 percent of its transgender guidelines are of “ very low ” or “ low ” quality . “ In fact , none are supported by high-quality evidence , ” she observed . “ The Society thus admits the scientific evidence for its recommendations is weak at best . Yet physicians across the country are using these guidelines to justify horrendous interventions that can not be undone . ” `` The Pediatric Endocrine Society ’ s statement that puberty suppressing agents are reversible is highly deceptive . Adolescents can never regain the years lost to the blockade of normal bone , brain , and pelvic development . '' My latest https : //t.co/NftMdxUUbp via @ PublicDiscourse — Michael K. Laidlaw , MD ( @ MLaidlawMD ) January 14 , 2020 In November , Laidlaw told ███ organizations such as the Pediatric Endocrine Society “ have created an institutionalized childhood pathway towards sterility . ” “ Why would organizations , that are ostensibly out to help children , actually harm them in a most profound way ? ” he asked , and then explained that medical societies have been infiltrated by radical transgender activists with “ one of the most insidious child sterilization programs ever devised ” : It ’ s really critical to understand that our medical organizations beginning with the Endocrine Society and moving on to the Pediatric Endocrine Society and American Academy of Pediatricians , that with respect to this topic they have been taken over by the most radical elements . These radical trans activists were involved in writing the Endocrine Society guidelines in 2009 and 2017 . These are low to no quality evidence guidelines , and anyone can read for themselves the poor evidence they have for these treatments for children and adolescents . Laidlaw cited a study in which the majority of children prescribed puberty blockers went on to cross- or wrong-sex hormones , and the majority of these went on to sex reassignment surgery . “ All of those who started on puberty blockers and went to cross-sex hormones are infertile , ” he said . “ Those who had gonads removed are sterilized . ” He said this path begins at the earliest phase of social transition , when the child is “ affirmed ” in dressing as the opposite sex and changing his or her name . “ Social transition has the psychological effect of convincing the child that they are in the wrong body , ” he explained . “ The puberty blockers are a drug-induced model of not only blocking essential aspects of development , but also solidifying the belief that they must take wrong-sex hormones to escape from their situation . ” More young adults in psychological distress who ultimately identified as transgender and then “ detransitioned ” are speaking out about the harms that came to them through experimentation with the trans lifestyle . Chiara Canaan , 22 , a founder of the Pique Resilience Project with three other young women who experienced Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria ( ROGD ) , identified as a “ trans man ” when she was 16 , but then “ detransitioned ” at 19 . Writing at the Velvet Chronicle in March 2019 , Canaan said she latched onto the trans community on social media in high school after ending a lesbian relationship : My immersion into this online space kicked off a period in which I very quickly developed intense social and body dysphoria . I became convinced that I was a boy trapped in the body of a girl , and that the only way forward was for me to begin a medical transition . I began to envision myself as a straight guy ( rather than a gay girl ) , which alleviated a large amount of the discomfort I felt with my sexuality . I begged my mother to let me take testosterone and wanted to schedule “ top surgery ” ( a double mastectomy ) right away . My mother wouldn ’ t allow it , but she voiced support for me to be as “ gender-non-conforming ” as I pleased . Our relationship remained rocky until I graduated high school at seventeen and traveled to another state for a nine-month internship on a horse farm . While working there , I had limited internet access , which shifted my focus ; I started paying attention to other things going on in my life . This shift , coupled with the emotional maturity I gained during that time , allowed me to return home and take a step back—to question the narratives I ’ d been exposed to online . Canaan wrote she would have “ greatly regretted medical transition ” and is now “ immensely grateful my mother knew better . ” Canaan has exited her trans experience with greater psychological insight because of her time away and her introspection . She also warns that detransitioners have been “ silenced ” by the media . “ Identifying as a ‘ trans man ’ set me back years in accepting my own sexuality , ” she explained . “ In the interest of young people ’ s ongoing health and self-image , we need to acknowledge that there is an epidemic affecting kids at an alarming rate . Medical transition isn ’ t a frivolous , easily-reversed experiment ; it is a significant undertaking . ”

CLAIM: The Washington Post reported youth puberty blockers are “reversible” in an article critical of a South Dakota proposed law that would criminalize treating transgender young people with medical treatments or surgery. VERDICT: FALSE. South Dakota could become the first state in the nation to criminalize treating transgender youths under 16 years old with medical treatment or surgery. A WaPo piece published on January 28 stated: Hormone treatment, which can be used to delay puberty, is reversible and medical evidence suggests allowing transgender children to delay puberty until they are 16 can lower their risk for developing mental health conditions, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. Children under 18 very rarely undergo sex-reassignment surgery. The Pediatric Endocrine Society also touts that “the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the largest academic organization of pediatricians in the US, has released a Policy Statement supporting the approach to gender-affirming care” that is consistent with that of the Society. “Gender identity can be different from the gender that is presumed based on the sex assigned at birth and interventions intended to change one’s gender identity are not only ineffective, but harmful,” the Society states. The group adds that “gender-affirming care” includes allowing a child or adolescent “to explore their gender identity freely, and in some circumstances allow for a social transition (change of name, pronouns, attire).” The Society clearly states “gender-affirming care” may include: Puberty suppression once puberty has started. This is a reversible treatment that decreases the distress of having the “wrong” puberty. This treatment alone does not cause infertility. Pediatric Endocrine Society Statement Against Public Discourse that Risks the Well-being of Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth and their Families pic.twitter.com/9XTDKZ8MCK — PES (@PedsEndoSociety) November 6, 2019 More physicians and analysts of the transgender movement, however, are publicly asserting the claim that drug treatments such as puberty blockers or suppressors are a “reversible treatment” is blatantly false. One of the primary reasons all agree the claim is false is that no long-term studies have been conducted on children who have had their normal puberty suppressed with drugs. Idaho-based endocrinologist Dr. William Malone told Breitbart News in November puberty suppression is “frequently called reversible, but it’s not.” Malone explained: Normal bone density development is interfered with and probably brain development too. Almost all children placed on puberty blockers go on to cross-sex hormones—meaning puberty blockers solidify and sometimes intensify dysphoria. It’s hard to call these impacts reversible. There have been no long-term studies done on children who have had normal puberty blocked. In no other area of medicine would a medical society be so cavalier about treatments with unknown consequences. Caution is the rule in such situations, and always has been. This departure from the typical standard of care deserves more scrutiny. “It is also not clear why the Pediatric Endocrine Society has abandoned the previous standard of care for gender dysphoria – which was supportive, exploratory counseling,” Malone added: There are approximately ten studies in the literature showing that, on average, 85% of children and adolescents with gender dysphoria have resolution or significant lessening of their dysphoria by early adulthood, without hormonal or surgical interventions. There is no scientific justification for departing from that established standard to the current affirmation-based approach. Dr. Michelle Cretella, executive director of the American College of Pediatricians, said emphatically the Pediatric Endocrine Society’s claim that puberty suppressors are a “reversible treatment” is “a bald-faced lie.” “There are no long-term studies of puberty blocker use for gender incongruence in children,” Cretella explained to Breitbart News. “Ergo, no one can say blockers are completely reversible and without harm.” Cretella pointed to documentation, however, by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that links “harm,” i.e., thousands of deaths, to Lupron, a drug prescribed with FDA approval for several conditions, including prostate cancer and endometriosis. Nevertheless, Lupron is also being used, without FDA approval, as a puberty blocker on children and adolescents with gender dysphoria. She explained: Puberty blockers, like Lupron, effectively “castrate” children of both sexes at the level of the pituitary gland in the brain, chemically turning boys into eunuchs and sending girls into a pre-teen menopause. This is why many girls treated for FDA-approved conditions with Lupron have developed osteoporosis in their twenties. Puberty blocking prevents the normal maturation of all organs – including the brain – that depend upon the child’s natural sex hormones to develop. Adults treated with Lupron for FDA-approved conditions experience memory deficits. What are we doing to the brains of gender incongruent but physically healthy children? The pediatrician emphasized the “harm” caused by professionals urging transition affirmation. “They are absolutely harming kids with blockers because they rob them of the very developmental period during which the vast majority come to embrace their biologic sex,” Cretella stressed. “Even if a child comes off blockers, we can never give back the period of normal physical/psychosocial development that was stolen from them.” California-based endocrinologist Dr. Michael Laidlaw testified in support of the South Dakota bill, HB1057, a measure that is seeking to protect children who are confused about their identity from harmful drugs, such as puberty blockers, surgeries and treatments. Instead of affirming the premise, as WaPo appeared to do, that gender confused children need puberty blockers to “lower their risk for developing mental health conditions,” Laidlaw asserted a high proportion of adolescents with gender confusion already had other psychological problems prior to the appearance of gender issues. A study from Finland, he noted, showed 75 percent of gender confused children “had been or were currently undergoing psychiatric treatment for reasons other than gender confusion.” Laidlaw observed another study that found “26 percent had autistic spectrum disorder” and 68 percent had an initial contact with mental health services because of reasons other than gender confusion. In 2018, Dr. Lisa Littman set out to understand why the number of young girls identifying as transgender at Britain’s Gender Identity Development Service had increased from 41 percent in 2009 to 69 percent in 2017. Littman found 62.5 percent of the girls whose parents participated in the study had been diagnosed with at least one mental health disorder prior to the onset of their gender confusion. For example, nearly half of the children had already attempted to harm themselves or had experienced a trauma. Parental responses showed 87 percent of the teens announced they were transgender after increased time on social media and/or after “cluster outbreaks” of gender dysphoria in their groups of friends. Responses indicated most children who “came out” as transgender became increasingly popular as a result of their announcement. “Peer contagion has been associated with depressive symptoms, disordered eating, aggression, bullying, and drug use,” Littman observed. Attorney and researcher Jane Robbins recently examined at Townhall the relationship between the transgender industry and medical associations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Endocrine Society. Robbins noted AAP has partnered with the radical Human Rights Campaign (HRC) — known for its bullying and coercive attacks in order to force acceptance of the LGBTQ lifestyle in public places, including schools. “But do the views of HRC and AAP leadership align with those of AAP’s over 65,000 physician members?” Robbins asked. “We don’t know, because the pro-experimentation policies were passed without input from those members.” She explained that AAP’s positions statements are drafted by a small committee and then voted on by a board of directors consisting of about a dozen members. “The broader membership has no direct input into the statement and would generally learn of it only after it’s issued,” Robbins said. “So, the only thing the AAP policy tells us is that less than 0.05 percent of the pediatricians who are still members of AAP believe in experimenting medically on gender-confused children.” In September 2018, Dr. Susan Bradley, a child psychiatrist who founded the Toronto Gender Identity Clinic, told National Review she is “deeply concerned that AAP’s guidance has gotten so far ahead of the current knowledge base about gender dysphoric children.” Bradley stated: We know from multiple studies that around 80 percent of gender dysphoric children will desist from their cross-sex identification in childhood to identify with their natal sex. Most of these will grow up to be gay or lesbian; a substantial minority have also been diagnosed with autism. Yet the AAP guidance incorrectly dismisses these studies as flawed and outdated. There is no professional consensus on medical treatment of gender-dysphoric children and young adolescents. Similarly, Robbins noted the Endocrine Society, which approves of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for gender-confused children, admits that 68 percent of its transgender guidelines are of “very low” or “low” quality. “In fact, none are supported by high-quality evidence,” she observed. “The Society thus admits the scientific evidence for its recommendations is weak at best. Yet physicians across the country are using these guidelines to justify horrendous interventions that cannot be undone.” "The Pediatric Endocrine Society’s statement that puberty suppressing agents are reversible is highly deceptive. Adolescents can never regain the years lost to the blockade of normal bone, brain, and pelvic development." My latest https://t.co/NftMdxUUbp via @PublicDiscourse — Michael K. Laidlaw, MD (@MLaidlawMD) January 14, 2020 In November, Laidlaw told Breitbart News organizations such as the Pediatric Endocrine Society “have created an institutionalized childhood pathway towards sterility.” “Why would organizations, that are ostensibly out to help children, actually harm them in a most profound way?” he asked, and then explained that medical societies have been infiltrated by radical transgender activists with “one of the most insidious child sterilization programs ever devised”: It’s really critical to understand that our medical organizations beginning with the Endocrine Society and moving on to the Pediatric Endocrine Society and American Academy of Pediatricians, that with respect to this topic they have been taken over by the most radical elements. These radical trans activists were involved in writing the Endocrine Society guidelines in 2009 and 2017. These are low to no quality evidence guidelines, and anyone can read for themselves the poor evidence they have for these treatments for children and adolescents. Laidlaw cited a study in which the majority of children prescribed puberty blockers went on to cross- or wrong-sex hormones, and the majority of these went on to sex reassignment surgery. “All of those who started on puberty blockers and went to cross-sex hormones are infertile,” he said. “Those who had gonads removed are sterilized.” He said this path begins at the earliest phase of social transition, when the child is “affirmed” in dressing as the opposite sex and changing his or her name. “Social transition has the psychological effect of convincing the child that they are in the wrong body,” he explained. “The puberty blockers are a drug-induced model of not only blocking essential aspects of development, but also solidifying the belief that they must take wrong-sex hormones to escape from their situation.” More young adults in psychological distress who ultimately identified as transgender and then “detransitioned” are speaking out about the harms that came to them through experimentation with the trans lifestyle. Chiara Canaan, 22, a founder of the Pique Resilience Project with three other young women who experienced Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD), identified as a “trans man” when she was 16, but then “detransitioned” at 19. Writing at the Velvet Chronicle in March 2019, Canaan said she latched onto the trans community on social media in high school after ending a lesbian relationship: My immersion into this online space kicked off a period in which I very quickly developed intense social and body dysphoria. I became convinced that I was a boy trapped in the body of a girl, and that the only way forward was for me to begin a medical transition. I began to envision myself as a straight guy (rather than a gay girl), which alleviated a large amount of the discomfort I felt with my sexuality. I begged my mother to let me take testosterone and wanted to schedule “top surgery” (a double mastectomy) right away. My mother wouldn’t allow it, but she voiced support for me to be as “gender-non-conforming” as I pleased. Our relationship remained rocky until I graduated high school at seventeen and traveled to another state for a nine-month internship on a horse farm. While working there, I had limited internet access, which shifted my focus; I started paying attention to other things going on in my life. This shift, coupled with the emotional maturity I gained during that time, allowed me to return home and take a step back—to question the narratives I’d been exposed to online. Canaan wrote she would have “greatly regretted medical transition” and is now “immensely grateful my mother knew better.” Canaan has exited her trans experience with greater psychological insight because of her time away and her introspection. She also warns that detransitioners have been “silenced” by the media. “Identifying as a ‘trans man’ set me back years in accepting my own sexuality,” she explained. “In the interest of young people’s ongoing health and self-image, we need to acknowledge that there is an epidemic affecting kids at an alarming rate. Medical transition isn’t a frivolous, easily-reversed experiment; it is a significant undertaking.”

www.breitbart.com

right

zXrYjsD94uOuhXey

test

LFfGxQyftf9FUcwT

cybersecurity

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Mueller-FBI/2013/06/13/id/509771

FBI Director: Snowden Leaks Made Nation 'Exceptionally Vulnerable'

2013-06-13

Pete Yost

FBI Director Robert Mueller on Thursday defended a pair of controversial government surveillance programs , telling Congress that leaking information on them harms national security . In his last appearance as FBI director before the House Judiciary Committee , Mueller said that terrorists track leaked information `` very , very closely '' and that because of leaks `` we lose our ability to get their communications '' and `` we are exceptionally vulnerable . '' `` As to the individual who has admitted making these disclosures , he is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation , '' Mueller said without naming Snowden . Mueller added : `` We are taking all necessary steps to hold the person responsible for these disclosures . '' Responding to questions by committee chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte , R-Va. , Mueller said the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has approved the surveillance programs and they have been conducted in compliance with U.S. law and with oversight from Congress . The revelation that the National Security Agency is collecting millions of U.S. phone records along with digital communications stored by nine major Internet companies has touched off a national debate over whether the Obama administration , in its efforts to thwart terrorism , has overstepped proper bounds by using intrusive surveillance methods . Rep. John Conyers , the committee 's ranking Democrat , expressed concern that the two programs were too far-reaching . `` It 's my fear that we are on the verge of becoming a surveillance state , '' said Conyers . Mueller is nearing the end of his 12 years as head of the law enforcement agency that is conducting high-profile investigations of the Boston Marathon bombings , the attacks in Benghazi , Libya , that killed four Americans and leaks of classified government information . Mueller 's last day on the job is Sept. 4 . On Wednesday , Goodlatte said that when it comes to national security leaks , it 's important to balance the need to protect secrecy with the need to let the news media do their job . The Justice Department revealed last month that it had secretly gathered phone records of The Associated Press and emails of Fox News journalist James Rosen in an effort to crack down on leakers of classified information . In the past week , a 29-year-old contractor leaked National Security Agency documents on the agency 's collection of millions of U.S. phone records and the NSA 's collection of emails and other information that people transmit online to and from foreign targets . That has touched off a national debate over whether the Obama administration , in its efforts to thwart terrorism , has overstepped by using intrusive surveillance methods . `` Over the past few years , we have witnessed troubling national security leaks and have learned that the Obama administration seems to be bending the rules in place that protect the freedom of the press in its investigations , '' Goodlatte said . On Benghazi , Republicans accuse the administration of misleading the public about an act of terrorism in the heat of the presidential campaign by saying the Sept. 11 , 2012 , assaults on the U.S. diplomatic post grew out of spontaneous demonstrations over an anti-Muslim video . In the immediate aftermath , U.N . Ambassador Susan Rice described it as a `` horrific incident where some mob was hijacked , ultimately , by a handful of extremists . '' The White House says Rice reflected the best information available while facts were still being gathered . Goodlatte said the committee planned to find out more about the status of what the congressman called the FBI 's `` stalled investigation '' in Libya . GOP lawmakers also have questioned why the military could n't get aircraft or troops to Benghazi in time to thwart a second attack after the first incident that killed U.S . Ambassador Chris Stevens . Four Americans , including Stevens , died in the attacks that took place several hours apart . Regarding the Boston Marathon bombings , committee members want to know whether there was a breakdown in information-sharing between federal agencies , preventing the FBI from thwarting the explosions that killed three people and injured more than 260 . Russia 's internal security service , the FSB , sent information to the FBI about now-deceased bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011 . The Russians told the FBI that Tsarnaev , an ethnic Chechen Russian immigrant living in the Boston area , was a follower of radical Islam and had changed drastically since 2010 . Because of a subsequent FBI inquiry , Tsarnaev 's name was added to a Homeland Security Department database called TECS that is used by U.S. officials at the border to help screen people coming in and out of the U.S . In January 2012 , Tsarnaev traveled to Russia and returned to the U.S. in July . Three days before he left for Russia , the TECS database generated an alert on Tsarnaev . That alert was shared with a Customs and Border Protection officer who is a member of the FBI 's Boston joint terrorism task force . By that time , the FBI 's investigation into Tsarnaev had been closed for nearly six months because the FBI uncovered no evidence that he was tied to terror groups . Tsarnaev died after a shootout with police four days after the April 15 bombings . His brother , Dzhokhar , was charged in the bombings and is recovering from gunshot wounds at a federal prison hospital in central Massachusetts .

FBI Director Robert Mueller on Thursday defended a pair of controversial government surveillance programs, telling Congress that leaking information on them harms national security. In his last appearance as FBI director before the House Judiciary Committee, Mueller said that terrorists track leaked information "very, very closely" and that because of leaks "we lose our ability to get their communications" and "we are exceptionally vulnerable." "As to the individual who has admitted making these disclosures, he is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation," Mueller said without naming Snowden. Mueller added: "We are taking all necessary steps to hold the person responsible for these disclosures." Responding to questions by committee chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., Mueller said the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has approved the surveillance programs and they have been conducted in compliance with U.S. law and with oversight from Congress. The revelation that the National Security Agency is collecting millions of U.S. phone records along with digital communications stored by nine major Internet companies has touched off a national debate over whether the Obama administration, in its efforts to thwart terrorism, has overstepped proper bounds by using intrusive surveillance methods. Rep. John Conyers, the committee's ranking Democrat, expressed concern that the two programs were too far-reaching. "It's my fear that we are on the verge of becoming a surveillance state," said Conyers. Mueller is nearing the end of his 12 years as head of the law enforcement agency that is conducting high-profile investigations of the Boston Marathon bombings, the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans and leaks of classified government information. Mueller's last day on the job is Sept. 4. On Wednesday, Goodlatte said that when it comes to national security leaks, it's important to balance the need to protect secrecy with the need to let the news media do their job. The Justice Department revealed last month that it had secretly gathered phone records of The Associated Press and emails of Fox News journalist James Rosen in an effort to crack down on leakers of classified information. In the past week, a 29-year-old contractor leaked National Security Agency documents on the agency's collection of millions of U.S. phone records and the NSA's collection of emails and other information that people transmit online to and from foreign targets. That has touched off a national debate over whether the Obama administration, in its efforts to thwart terrorism, has overstepped by using intrusive surveillance methods. "Over the past few years, we have witnessed troubling national security leaks and have learned that the Obama administration seems to be bending the rules in place that protect the freedom of the press in its investigations," Goodlatte said. On Benghazi, Republicans accuse the administration of misleading the public about an act of terrorism in the heat of the presidential campaign by saying the Sept. 11, 2012, assaults on the U.S. diplomatic post grew out of spontaneous demonstrations over an anti-Muslim video. In the immediate aftermath, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice described it as a "horrific incident where some mob was hijacked, ultimately, by a handful of extremists." The White House says Rice reflected the best information available while facts were still being gathered. Goodlatte said the committee planned to find out more about the status of what the congressman called the FBI's "stalled investigation" in Libya. GOP lawmakers also have questioned why the military couldn't get aircraft or troops to Benghazi in time to thwart a second attack after the first incident that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. Four Americans, including Stevens, died in the attacks that took place several hours apart. Regarding the Boston Marathon bombings, committee members want to know whether there was a breakdown in information-sharing between federal agencies, preventing the FBI from thwarting the explosions that killed three people and injured more than 260. Russia's internal security service, the FSB, sent information to the FBI about now-deceased bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011. The Russians told the FBI that Tsarnaev, an ethnic Chechen Russian immigrant living in the Boston area, was a follower of radical Islam and had changed drastically since 2010. Because of a subsequent FBI inquiry, Tsarnaev's name was added to a Homeland Security Department database called TECS that is used by U.S. officials at the border to help screen people coming in and out of the U.S. In January 2012, Tsarnaev traveled to Russia and returned to the U.S. in July. Three days before he left for Russia, the TECS database generated an alert on Tsarnaev. That alert was shared with a Customs and Border Protection officer who is a member of the FBI's Boston joint terrorism task force. By that time, the FBI's investigation into Tsarnaev had been closed for nearly six months because the FBI uncovered no evidence that he was tied to terror groups. Tsarnaev died after a shootout with police four days after the April 15 bombings. His brother, Dzhokhar, was charged in the bombings and is recovering from gunshot wounds at a federal prison hospital in central Massachusetts.

www.newsmax.com

right

LFfGxQyftf9FUcwT

test

uI2K5BSCO0LaWuKb

palestine

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/03/20/obama-media-lied-about-netanyahu-and-the-palestinian-state/

Obama, Media Lied About Netanyahu and the Palestinian State

2015-03-20

Ben Shapiro

For the last several days , the entire Western media has run with a false story : the story that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he no longer would , under any circumstances , endorse the possibility of a Palestinian state . Ha ’ aretz , a left-wing Israeli newspaper opposing Netanyahu , reported Netanyahu ’ s supposed comment with this headline : “ Netanyahu : If I ’ m Elected , There Will Be No Palestinian State. ” The rest of the media quickly followed . Days later , when Netanyahu said that he had never disavowed his prior support for the possibility of a Palestinian state – support he expressed in a speech at Bar Ilan University in 2009 – the media accused Netanyahu of flip-flopping . There is only one problem : Netanyahu never said that a Palestinian state was out of the question . The interview in which Netanyahu expressed the much-misinterpreted remark took place with the conservative Israeli publication NRG . It also took place in Hebrew , a language virtually none of the members of the Western press read or speak ; most simply took the Ha ’ aretz report and ran with it . Netanyahu was asked directly about whether his Bar-Ilan speech was “ irrelevant. ” Here is what Netanyahu actually said : NETANYAHU : I think anyone who is going to build a Palestinian state today will be freeing up space to give an attack area to radical Islam against Israel . This is the reality created here in recent years . Anyone who ignores this sticks his head in the sand . The left does this , burying its head in the sand again and again . We are realistic and understand… NRG : If you are elected head of state , no Palestinian state will come to fruition ? NETANYAHU : Indeed . NRG : Construction in Jerusalem and the West Bank will renew ? NETANYAHU : We are continuing all the time , but that ’ s not a question about additional building . There is a real threat that the government of the left will join the international community and do their bidding… . Netanyahu continued by arguing that the left would buy into the “ international initiatives to return to the 1967 borders and divide Jerusalem . ” In other words , Netanyahu did not discount the possibility of a Palestinian state forever . He said that anyone who tries to build a Palestinian state “ hayom ” – “ today ” – would be giving territory to radical Islam . He even added that this was a reality created in recent years . To read that as a wholesale rejection of a Palestinian state is to lie . Which is what Ha ’ aretz did . And the entire lazy and ridiculous world media followed . Netanyahu never flip-flopped , because Netanyahu never flipped . And Netanyahu ’ s policy is the exact same as the policy of the man who created the Oslo Accords , Yitzchak Rabin , who said just one month before his assassination in 1995 , “ We view a permanent solution [ involving ] a Palestinian entity which is less than a state… We will not return to the June 4 , 1967 lines… We committed ourselves before the Knesset not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement , and not to hinder building for natural growth… And first and foremost in our concerns is a united Jerusalem , as the capital of Israel , under Israeli sovereignty . ” Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of ███ and author of the new book , The People vs. Barack Obama : The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration ( Threshold Editions , June 10 , 2014 ) . He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org . Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @ benshapiro .

For the last several days, the entire Western media has run with a false story: the story that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he no longer would, under any circumstances, endorse the possibility of a Palestinian state. Ha’aretz, a left-wing Israeli newspaper opposing Netanyahu, reported Netanyahu’s supposed comment with this headline: “Netanyahu: If I’m Elected, There Will Be No Palestinian State.” The rest of the media quickly followed. Days later, when Netanyahu said that he had never disavowed his prior support for the possibility of a Palestinian state – support he expressed in a speech at Bar Ilan University in 2009 – the media accused Netanyahu of flip-flopping. There is only one problem: Netanyahu never said that a Palestinian state was out of the question. The interview in which Netanyahu expressed the much-misinterpreted remark took place with the conservative Israeli publication NRG. It also took place in Hebrew, a language virtually none of the members of the Western press read or speak; most simply took the Ha’aretz report and ran with it. Netanyahu was asked directly about whether his Bar-Ilan speech was “irrelevant.” Here is what Netanyahu actually said: NETANYAHU: I think anyone who is going to build a Palestinian state today will be freeing up space to give an attack area to radical Islam against Israel. This is the reality created here in recent years. Anyone who ignores this sticks his head in the sand. The left does this, burying its head in the sand again and again. We are realistic and understand… NRG: If you are elected head of state, no Palestinian state will come to fruition? NETANYAHU: Indeed. NRG: Construction in Jerusalem and the West Bank will renew? NETANYAHU: We are continuing all the time, but that’s not a question about additional building. There is a real threat that the government of the left will join the international community and do their bidding…. Netanyahu continued by arguing that the left would buy into the “international initiatives to return to the 1967 borders and divide Jerusalem.” In other words, Netanyahu did not discount the possibility of a Palestinian state forever. He said that anyone who tries to build a Palestinian state “hayom” – “today” – would be giving territory to radical Islam. He even added that this was a reality created in recent years. To read that as a wholesale rejection of a Palestinian state is to lie. Which is what Ha’aretz did. And the entire lazy and ridiculous world media followed. Netanyahu never flip-flopped, because Netanyahu never flipped. And Netanyahu’s policy is the exact same as the policy of the man who created the Oslo Accords, Yitzchak Rabin, who said just one month before his assassination in 1995, “We view a permanent solution [involving] a Palestinian entity which is less than a state… We will not return to the June 4, 1967 lines… We committed ourselves before the Knesset not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth… And first and foremost in our concerns is a united Jerusalem, as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty.” Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

www.breitbart.com

right

uI2K5BSCO0LaWuKb

test

gnTIomgi2fRzKEL3

politics

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dramatic-change-obama-hits-campaign-trail-swinging-trump/story?id=57675836

In a dramatic course change, Obama breaks tradition and blasts Trump: Analysis

No former American president in memory has so publicly rebuked his successor the way that Barack Obama did today to Donald Trump . Interested in Barack Obama ? Add Barack Obama as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Barack Obama news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest It has long been a tradition of ex-presidents , following the example of George Washington , to leave office for a quiet retirement in the background of public life . “ The point Washington made , ” Obama said , speaking from a stage in rural Illinois , “ is that it ’ s essential to American democracy that in a government of and by and for the people , there should be no permanent ruling class . ” Indeed , days before he left office in 2016 , Obama told reporters , “ I want to be quiet a little bit and not hear myself talk so darn much . “ But today , the former president made clear the consequences of being quiet –- of polite presidential deference -- have become too “ dire . ” “ I 'm here today because this is one of those pivotal moments when every one of us as citizens of the United States need to determine just who it is that we are , ” Obama said . For months , the 44th president has been a model of patience and restraint under a barrage of criticism and attacks –- sometimes personal and unfounded -– launched by the man who succeeded him . Aides close to Obama have said he has bit his lip , wanting to avoid an ugly tit-for-tat and to stay above the fray . Now , as 2018 midterm campaign season gets underway , it ’ s likely a very public Trump-versus-Obama showdown becomes a defining storyline of the year . `` Demagogues promise simple fixes for big problems , '' Obama said , swiping at Trump . `` They promise to clean up corruption then plunder away . '' For the first time in a public speech leaving office , Obama publicly said the words , “ Donald Trump ” -– twice , though he made no mention of his title as the nation 's president . “ ” I 'm here today because this is one of those pivotal moments when every one of us as citizens of the United States need to determine just who it is that we are . And Obama went on from there , calling Trump out over “ cozying up to Putin , ” for not standing up to “ Nazi sympathizers , ” for attacking the press , for directing his own Justice Department to show political deference , and for costing us “ honesty and decency and lawfulness in our government . ” In many ways , Obama spoke beyond Trump -- calling him the `` symptom not the cause '' of a broader crisis in American democracy – indicting the Republican Party for what he described as timidity in failing to reject the politics of conspiracy theories and resentments . `` It 's not conservative , '' Obama said . `` It is n't normal . It 's radical . '' Donald Trump seemed to respond to it all with a shrug . On the stump in North Dakota , the 45th president mocked his predecessor ’ s speech . “ I watched it , but I fell asleep , '' Trump claimed . `` I found he 's very good . Very good for sleeping . ” By that measure , Trump could be in store for a lot of “ good sleep ” this fall . Obama plans to hit the campaign trail for Democratic candidates in competitive races all across the country through October , appearing first in California on Saturday and Ohio next week . “ If you do n't like what 's going on right now , and you should n't -- do not -- complain , ” Obama said . “ Do n't lose yourself in ironic detachment . Do n't put your head in the sand . Vote . ”

No former American president in memory has so publicly rebuked his successor the way that Barack Obama did today to Donald Trump. Interested in Barack Obama? Add Barack Obama as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Barack Obama news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest It has long been a tradition of ex-presidents, following the example of George Washington, to leave office for a quiet retirement in the background of public life. “The point Washington made,” Obama said, speaking from a stage in rural Illinois, “is that it’s essential to American democracy that in a government of and by and for the people, there should be no permanent ruling class.” Indeed, days before he left office in 2016, Obama told reporters, “I want to be quiet a little bit and not hear myself talk so darn much. “ But today, the former president made clear the consequences of being quiet –- of polite presidential deference -- have become too “dire.” John Gress/Reuters “I'm here today because this is one of those pivotal moments when every one of us as citizens of the United States need to determine just who it is that we are,” Obama said. For months, the 44th president has been a model of patience and restraint under a barrage of criticism and attacks –- sometimes personal and unfounded -– launched by the man who succeeded him. Aides close to Obama have said he has bit his lip, wanting to avoid an ugly tit-for-tat and to stay above the fray. Now, as 2018 midterm campaign season gets underway, it’s likely a very public Trump-versus-Obama showdown becomes a defining storyline of the year. "Demagogues promise simple fixes for big problems," Obama said, swiping at Trump. "They promise to clean up corruption then plunder away." John Gress/Reuters For the first time in a public speech leaving office, Obama publicly said the words, “Donald Trump” -– twice, though he made no mention of his title as the nation's president. “ ” I'm here today because this is one of those pivotal moments when every one of us as citizens of the United States need to determine just who it is that we are. And Obama went on from there, calling Trump out over “cozying up to Putin,” for not standing up to “Nazi sympathizers,” for attacking the press, for directing his own Justice Department to show political deference, and for costing us “honesty and decency and lawfulness in our government.” In many ways, Obama spoke beyond Trump -- calling him the "symptom not the cause" of a broader crisis in American democracy – indicting the Republican Party for what he described as timidity in failing to reject the politics of conspiracy theories and resentments. "It's not conservative," Obama said. "It isn't normal. It's radical." Donald Trump seemed to respond to it all with a shrug. On the stump in North Dakota, the 45th president mocked his predecessor’s speech. “I watched it, but I fell asleep," Trump claimed. "I found he's very good. Very good for sleeping.” By that measure, Trump could be in store for a lot of “good sleep” this fall. Obama plans to hit the campaign trail for Democratic candidates in competitive races all across the country through October, appearing first in California on Saturday and Ohio next week. “If you don't like what's going on right now, and you shouldn't -- do not -- complain,” Obama said. “Don't lose yourself in ironic detachment. Don't put your head in the sand. Vote.”

www.abcnews.go.com

left

gnTIomgi2fRzKEL3

test

ql1zIJ9pLBVTOUiS

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Senate-Open-Government/2015/05/06/id/642995/

State Dept. Official: Clinton Email Practices 'Not Acceptable'

2015-05-06

Erica Werner

A high-ranking State Department official said Wednesday it 's `` not acceptable '' for any agency employee to conduct government business on a private email server as former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did . Joyce Barr , the agency 's chief freedom of information officer , made the comment under questioning from Republican senators who used a Senate Judiciary hearing on open records laws to attack Clinton over her email practices . Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said that Clinton 's approach amounted to a `` premeditated and deliberate '' attempt to avoid open records requirements . Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said that anyone who took such an approach should be fired , and asked Barr whether it would be considered acceptable . Barr said that she had not been aware of Clinton 's decision to conduct all her State Department email on a private server but that the agency has now made it clear to employees that such an approach would not be acceptable . `` I think that the actions that we 've taken in the course of recovering these emails have made it very clear what people 's responsibilities are with regard to record-keeping , '' she said . `` We continue to do training , we 've sent department notices , telegrams , we 've talked to directors and I think the message is loud and clear that that is not acceptable . '' Clinton , who is running for president , has defended using a personal email account while serving as secretary of state as a matter of personal convenience . She says she has turned over to the State Department all work-related emails — more than 30,000 of them — though House Republicans investigating the 2012 attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi , Libya , are demanding more . They insist the server itself should be examined by a third party . A spokesman for Clinton 's campaign declined comment . Clinton has agreed to testify on Capitol Hill later this month at the request of the special committee investigating the Benghazi attacks . Barr acknowledged problems with the State Department 's overall performance responding to open records requests , calling an existing backlog of 18,000 requests `` unacceptable . '' But she insisted improvements were being made even as the number of requests keeps growing and the agency is understaffed . Like other government agencies , the State Department is bound by laws including the Freedom of Information Act that generally require them to maintain records and make them available to the public when asked , with some exceptions . Karen Kaiser , general counsel at The Associated Press , testified that despite promises of greater transparency by the Obama administration , most agencies are not abiding by their legal obligations under open records laws . `` Non-responsiveness is the norm , and the reflex at most agencies is to withhold information , not to release it , '' she told senators . Lawmakers are weighing legislation to improve the Freedom of Information Act , but Kaiser said agencies should also be made to comply with the laws already enacted . `` We can have all the wonderful laws on the books and the presumptions of disclosure written in , but if the agencies do n't abide by the requirements we 're in a bad position , '' she said .

A high-ranking State Department official said Wednesday it's "not acceptable" for any agency employee to conduct government business on a private email server as former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did. Joyce Barr, the agency's chief freedom of information officer, made the comment under questioning from Republican senators who used a Senate Judiciary hearing on open records laws to attack Clinton over her email practices. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said that Clinton's approach amounted to a "premeditated and deliberate" attempt to avoid open records requirements. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said that anyone who took such an approach should be fired, and asked Barr whether it would be considered acceptable. Barr said that she had not been aware of Clinton's decision to conduct all her State Department email on a private server but that the agency has now made it clear to employees that such an approach would not be acceptable. "I think that the actions that we've taken in the course of recovering these emails have made it very clear what people's responsibilities are with regard to record-keeping," she said. "We continue to do training, we've sent department notices, telegrams, we've talked to directors and I think the message is loud and clear that that is not acceptable." Clinton, who is running for president, has defended using a personal email account while serving as secretary of state as a matter of personal convenience. She says she has turned over to the State Department all work-related emails — more than 30,000 of them — though House Republicans investigating the 2012 attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, are demanding more. They insist the server itself should be examined by a third party. A spokesman for Clinton's campaign declined comment. Clinton has agreed to testify on Capitol Hill later this month at the request of the special committee investigating the Benghazi attacks. Barr acknowledged problems with the State Department's overall performance responding to open records requests, calling an existing backlog of 18,000 requests "unacceptable." But she insisted improvements were being made even as the number of requests keeps growing and the agency is understaffed. Like other government agencies, the State Department is bound by laws including the Freedom of Information Act that generally require them to maintain records and make them available to the public when asked, with some exceptions. Karen Kaiser, general counsel at The Associated Press, testified that despite promises of greater transparency by the Obama administration, most agencies are not abiding by their legal obligations under open records laws. "Non-responsiveness is the norm, and the reflex at most agencies is to withhold information, not to release it," she told senators. Lawmakers are weighing legislation to improve the Freedom of Information Act, but Kaiser said agencies should also be made to comply with the laws already enacted. "We can have all the wonderful laws on the books and the presumptions of disclosure written in, but if the agencies don't abide by the requirements we're in a bad position," she said.

www.newsmax.com

right

ql1zIJ9pLBVTOUiS

test