The solution to our debt crisis is for "We the People" to take our Republic back from the special interests by educating voters to enforce the Constitution, not by adding a Balanced Budget Amendment via an Article V convention.  "Our country is run by a close network of special interests, public officials, and the media." — Eighty-one percent of Americans agreed with this statement in a 1996 survey.  Back in 1996, the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture at the University of Virginia published the results of their survey of the American public based on 2,000 face-to-face, in-depth interviews. They titled their survey "The State of Disunion — 1996."  Their finding that 81 percent of Americans believe "Our country is run by a close network of special interests, public officials, and the media" was recently reaffirmed by a January 2016 Gallup poll that revealed that 84 percent of Americans agree with the statement, "powerful special interests [have] too much control over what the government does." According to the Gallup poll, 51 percent believe that this is a "major problem," while 33 percent believe that this is a "crisis" situation.  This widespread belief that "Our country is run by a close network of special interests, public officials, and the media" has also been validated by the presidential election campaign of 2016. Rarely have we seen so clearly the political power plays of this "close network," which includes of course the establishment elites of both parties, as during the 2016 election cycle.  You might wonder what all this talk of special interests' control over our government has to do with our debt crisis. The connection is that for the last four decades there has been an organized movement to get Congress to call an Article V convention for the purpose of proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA), ostensibly to avert a national debt crisis, such as national bankruptcy or some other type of "economic meltdown." The proponents of this BBA constitutional convention tell us that the government is out of control, as shown by our steady diet of $500 billion or higher federal deficits and the resulting skyrocketing national debt, currently around $20 trillion. According to these proponents, the solution is to add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution via an Article V convention.  However, the federal government is not out of control. It is under the control of a "close network" of powerful special interests, aka establishment elites, whose carefully nurtured voting blocs benefit from ever-larger, unconstitutional federal programs. The problem is not just the huge annual federal deficits and the towering national debt they contribute to, it is the bloated and tyrannical federal government that has been created and powered by congressional approval of myriad special interest-sponsored unconstitutional programs.  Establishment Elites Plot to Rewrite the Constitution  Throughout its 30-year history, this magazine has led the way in exposing the powerful establishment elites who run this country. These elites are found in such leading special-interest groupings as Big Business, Big Labor, Big News Media, the education establishment, foundations, internationalist foreign policy organizations, big political donors, and the major political parties. An excellent example of this magazine's exposés is "Council on Foreign Relations," an article that was originally published in the August 3, 2009 issue. That article described the amazing degree of influence over our government exercised by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the preeminent internationalist foreign policy special-interest group, as follows: Chief among these groups is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the most visible manifestation of what some have called the American establishment. Members of the council have dominated the administrations of every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt, at the cabinet and sub-cabinet level. It does not matter whether the president is a Democrat or Republican.  Although the CFR has only about 5,000 members, a very large number of them are leaders of other leading special-interest groups, serve as public officials, and hold leading management and editorial positions in the media. This is true to such an extent that the CFR membership alone could be thought of as "a close network of special interests, public officials, and the media" that run our country.  An earlier article in this magazine, " Bicentennial Plot " (February 10, 1986 issue), exposed the plans of a powerful establishment special-interest group, the Committee on the Constitutional System (CCS), which was leading the charge to "formalize radical changes that have already been taking place by rewriting the Constitution." As you would expect, two out of the three CCS co-chairs were members of the CFR, and 15 of the 41 members of the CCS board of directors were also CFR members.  Since that special-interest establishment's attempt to rewrite the Constitution in the 1980s fizzled out, there hasn't been another such transparent attempt by the establishment to replace the Constitution. However, we shouldn't neglect to point out that since the 1970s the leading organization promoting the calling of an Article V convention for the purpose of proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment has been the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an establishment special-interest group that boasts of having nearly one-fourth of our nation's state legislators, as well as nearly 300 corporations (including many multinational corporations) and private foundations, as members. ALEC is on record on its website as officially supporting congressional approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), two signature causes of the establishment elites. For more information on this, see our 2014 article " The Not-so-smart ALEC ."  Although the establishment's fingerprints are otherwise hard to find on today's leading initiatives to bring about an Article V convention, there is a somewhat stealthy bipartisan movement to bring about such a convention, as revealed in "Working Together to Rewrite the Constitution" in our June 9, 2014 issue.  Republics and Democracies  To better understand the connection between increasing numbers of unconstitutional programs and an increasingly tyrannical federal government, consider the distinction between republics and democracies.  On September 17, 1961, Constitution Day, Robert Welch (who had founded The John Birch Society less than three years earlier) gave a speech entitled " Republics and Democracies " to a patriotic Chicago-based organization, "We the People." This speech went on to influence millions of Americans to understand that our nation is a republic, not a democracy. It is still available at TheNewAmerican.com.  In his speech, Robert Welch demonstrated that the United States is a constitutional republic characterized by the "rule of law," not a democracy characterized by the "rule of men." And he quoted approvingly from James Madison in The Federalist , No. 10, regarding the nature of a democracy: Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.  One's first reaction to Madison's assertion that democracies are "short in their lives" might be to say, "Madison is wrong because our nation is a democracy and it has lasted for over 200 years." However, our nation is a republic, not a democracy. That's why it has lasted so long. The problem is that the more our nation is transformed into a democracy, the shorter its life will be.  And our nation is being transformed into a democracy by the ongoing passage of unconstitutional programs by Congress. After a century or more of congressional seizures of powers not granted to it by the Constitution (as discussed below), we've long since reached the point where almost the only consideration taken into account by congressmen voting for a bill is whether a majority of their constituents will approve. Very few congressmen vote for a bill based on whether it is constitutional. As Representative "Pete" Stark (D-Calif.) famously opined at a town hall meeting in 2010, "The federal government … can do most anything in this country."  We live in an era of "the tyranny of the majority," which is the basic critique of democracies. In a pure democracy, everything is decided by a simple majority vote of the people or their representatives. There are no constitutional restraints, such as the enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution or a Bill of Rights.  If Congress and the rest of the federal government continue on the path of bowing primarily to majority opinion, usually artfully crafted by the special-interest elites, and not obeying any constitutional limitations on their power, then we will lose all remaining constitutional bulwarks against tyranny, and finally, lose all security for our God-given rights.  Robert Welch ended his "Republics and Democracies" speech by stating, "This is a Republic, not a Democracy. Let's keep it that way!" We need to take this slogan to heart and reject the ongoing transformation of our constitutional Republic into a democracy.  Therefore, the solution to our nation's twin problems of too much national debt and too powerful a federal government is to defeat the special interests' control over our government by educating voters sufficiently to get a majority of constitutionalists elected to Congress. This constitutionalist majority would eliminate or gradually phase out all unconstitutional programs, thereby balancing the budget, reducing taxes, securing our rights, and restoring our constitutional Republic and the rule of law, not of men.  So in terms of the above overview of the national debt/tyrannical government crisis and solution, our main objection to bringing about a Balanced Budget Amendment Article V convention at this time in our nation's history is that the "close network of special interests, public officials, and the media" that runs our country would dominate such a convention process and would most likely end up revising the Constitution in their favor.  History of the National Debt/Tyrannical Government Crisis  Now let's take a look at the history of our national debt/tyrannical government crisis to see how long we've had it, how big it is, and what caused it.  First of all, take a look at the chart in Figure 1a (right), which shows our national debt from 1792-2020 as measured in dollars, uncorrected for inflation and the size of our economy. This chart gives the false impression that we never had a significant national debt in our nation's history until somewhere around 1940, and that sometime in the 1980s the national debt began to increase exponentially and shows no signs of slowing down. This false impression is due to not correcting the chart for inflation and the size of our economy. This is not to say that we don't have a public debt problem. We emphatically do. It's just that the history of our national debt has been more nuanced than what is displayed in Fig. 1a.  Meanwhile, the Balanced Budget Amendment Article V convention movement got rolling in the 1970s. Proponents of such a convention made the argument to state legislators in the 1970s, as they have ever since, that large annual federal deficits and the rapidly growing national debt were leading to economic and fiscal disaster. They argued that the solution was to add a BBA to the Constitution. But since Article V of the Constitution provides only two ways to propose amendments, either by a vote of two-thirds of both houses of Congress or by a state-initiated constitutional convention, and since Congress had still not approved a proposed BBA, then we just had to get 34 states to apply to Congress to call an Article V convention in order to get a BBA proposed and ratified.  It turns out that the dire predictions of economic and fiscal crisis have not come true — yet. However, the catastrophic situation depicted in Fig. 1a does reflect a truly dangerous fiscal situation as revealed in a more accurate way in Fig. 1b. In this chart the level of national debt is measured in terms of percent of real GDP, which provides an automatic correction for inflation and the size of our economy. Just as in Figure 1a, the graph in Fig. 1b shows a dangerous buildup in national debt. In contrast to Fig. 1a though, Fig. 1b provides some valuable information about the history of our nation's national debt. Figure 1b shows that we've had a buildup in national debt many times since 1792. Until the 1980s, these increases in national debt have always been associated with wars, such as the War for Independence, the War of 1812, the Civil War, WWI, and WWII. After each of these wars, we've paid most of the debt off.  But since 1980, we've had a rapid increase in the national debt without being involved in a full-scale war. Since the increases in our national debt are basically due to our annual federal budget deficits, let's examine what's been going on with federal spending and deficits as revealed in Figures 1c and 1d. In these two figures, spending and deficits are measured as a percent of real GDP, again to correct for inflation and the size of our economy. We see a familiar pattern in both 1c and 1d. There are the peaks of spending and deficits corresponding to the major wars we've fought.  However, there's also something very interesting that is revealed in the pattern of federal spending. We see a rapid increase in federal spending beginning in the 1930s and continuing into the 1980s. We know from American political history that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected in 1932 and that he inaugurated many new government programs, not authorized by the Constitution and known collectively as the "New Deal." Once FDR and Congress had opened the floodgates for large-scale unconstitutional spending, there was no turning back.  Unconstitutional programs begat more and more unconstitutional agencies, departments, and programs, and this process has continued right up to today. We'll verify the unconstitutionality of the vast majority of federal spending below when we look at the specific spending categories for fiscal year 2015.  One very striking statistic from Fig. 1c is that during President Obama's first term, annual federal spending set a new, post-WWII record of nearly 25 percent of GDP.  Now look at Fig. 1d. In the 1930s, the increased federal spending led to immediate increases in federal deficits. Next, the massive deficits of the WWII years masked any deficits that were caused by increases in non-war spending. But within a few years after WWII, a pattern of seemingly modest deficits developed. Then, in the 1970s, these deficits began to increase toward five percent of GDP and remained at or near the five-percent level until the late 1990s when federal deficits were eliminated for a few years in the wake of the Republican Revolution of 1994. Under George W. Bush the deficits returned, but it was during the Obama years that some of the deficits set a new post-WWII record of nearly 10 percent of GDP.  So, what's the point of all of this analysis of spending, deficits, and debt? It is that Congress was authorized with specific enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; however, in the 1930s Congress began a lavish spree of unconstitutional spending that increased rapidly for many decades and continues to increase to this day.  The Unconstitutionality of Most Federal Spending  Now take a look at Figure 2 (below). This pie chart shows all federal spending for fiscal year 2015, which amounted to $3.8 trillion (about 20 percent of GDP). Let's see if our characterization of the rapid increase in federal spending since the 1930s as unconstitutional holds up.  If you'll compare the 12 spending categories listed for the various pie pieces in Fig. 2 with the powers granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8, you'll find that over 70 percent of current federal spending is unconstitutional. About the only categories of spending that appear to be constitutional are "Military," "Veterans' Benefits," and "Interest on Debt." Sure there are some constitutional programs buried within the various categories, but the vast majority of spending within the unconstitutional categories is still unconstitutional.  Even a very brief review of some of the various categories of federal spending in Fig. 2 reveals the seeds of the destruction of our freedoms by a tyrannical federal government present in these categories.  For example, the "International Affairs" category includes our unconstitutional foreign aid program and the dues for our unconstitutional United Nations membership. These expenditures are being used to help build a global government, which would destroy our nation's independence and our personal rights and freedoms.  The "Education" spending is used by the federal government to exert its unconstitutional control over all levels of education with the goal of producing compliant citizens who will vote to support the "close network of special interests, public officials, and the media" that runs our country. Think Common Core.  The "Food & Agriculture" spending hides the surprisingly large unconstitutional "food stamp" program, which in 2014 cost $74.1 billion and was used by 46.5 million Americans. This program develops and maintains the loyalty of millions of voters to the special-interest elites on a daily basis.  Then there's the huge "mandatory spending" categories of "Social Security, Unemployment & Labor," and "Medicare & Health," which constituted fully 60 percent of federal spending in 2015. Here is where we find the spending for the big three entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Various economists have estimated that the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid programs have unfunded liabilities of between $100 and $200 trillion. This is equal to between five and 10 times the size of our annual GDP. In short, the promises to pay specific levels of future benefits for these unconstitutional entitlement programs are simply promises that our government can't keep.  Also hidden inside the spending shown in the Fig. 2 pie chart is about $500 billion in unconstitutional federal aid to states each year for health, education, etc., which amounts to about 30 percent on average of each state's annual budget. This unconstitutional federal aid is passed through by the states to its citizens and thereby makes the states complicit in the special interests' rampant unconstitutional federal spending. This level of federal subsidization of state budgets severely compromises state sovereignty.  Furthermore, consider that the 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution … are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." When Congress illegally seizes the power to "do most anything in this country," then that leaves virtually no powers reserved to the states to exercise.  The point of this brief review of the unconstitutionality of over 70 percent of federal spending in 2015 is to confirm that the rapid increase in federal spending that occurred between the mid-1930s and 1980, and that has continued, albeit at a slower pace, right up to today, can be characterized as mostly unconstitutional spending.  BBA Article V Convention Movement  In 1957, Indiana became the first state to apply to Congress to call an Article V convention for the purpose of proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment. Although a sprinkling of states applied to Congress for such a BBA "constitutional convention" in the 1960s and early 1970s, the movement didn't really take off until sometime in the mid-1970s, when the American Legislative Exchange Council began promoting a "Balanced Federal Budget Petition," which later became known as a "Balanced Budget Amendment" petition. (See our 2015 article " The New BBA Con-Con Threat " for more BBA Article V convention history.)  Nowadays most proponents of such a convention deny that it can be properly called a "constitutional convention" — because such a reference warns Americans of the potential danger of such a gathering. However, The John Birch Society and many other organizations and activists continue to correctly refer to an Article V convention as a constitutional convention (often abbreviated as Con-Con). The 1979 fifth edition of the widely used Black's Law Dictionary even explicitly refers to an Article V Convention as an example of a constitutional convention.  By 1983, 32 of the required 34 states had applied to Congress to call a BBA Article V convention. This was the high-water mark of the BBA constitutional convention movement; it has not been surpassed up to the present day. The next state to apply for such a convention was Florida in 2010.  By the mid-1980s members of The John Birch Society and other organizations, such as Eagle Forum, were working with state legislators to oppose the approval of any new Article V convention applications and to rescind (cancel) existing applications. From 1988 to 2010, 17 states, including Florida, rescinded their previous BBA Article V convention applications.  Current Status of the BBA Article V Convention Movement  Although the numerous Article V convention application rescissions during the years 1988 to 2010 reduced the number of states that still had "live" (unrescinded) applications for a BBA Article V convention down to 17, the momentum shifted again in 2010. From 2010 to 2015, eight states that had formerly rescinded their applications reapplied for a BBA Article V convention. Then, Ohio and Michigan made their initial BBA convention applications in 2013 and 2014 respectively, yielding a new total of 27 states with "live" applications as of September 2015, just seven short of the required 34 states.  Then, in 2016 two more states, Oklahoma and West Virginia, applied for a BBA Article V convention to be called; however, Delaware rescinded its existing "live" application for a BBA Article V convention. So, the BBA convention proponents gained a net of one state this year for a total of 28. That leaves them six short of the required 34 states for forcing Congress to call a convention.  Now look at the "BBA Article V Convention Status November 2016" map (right) and see what your state's status is. The John Birch Society is recommending that those readers living in a green state (no "live" BBA Article V convention application) work with others and your state legislators to stop the approval of any BBA Article V convention application in your legislature.  If your state is orange, your state already has an existing "live" BBA Article V convention application. The John Birch Society is recommending that you work with others and your state legislators to get a resolution introduced and approved to rescind all existing Article V convention calls, especially of the BBA variety. Remember that for every additional state that rescinds its BBA convention call, the BBA convention movement is one state further away from its goal of 34. For further information about how to rescind Article V convention applications, see our article " Save the Constitution by Rescinding Article V Convention Applications ."  See the sidebar "Why a BBA Article V Convention Is Not a Wise Idea" at the end of this article for a summary of the reasons for opposing a BBA Article V convention.  This Is a Republic, Not a Democracy!  The point is that our problem with the federal government is not just due to deficit spending, and the federal government is not simply out of control. Our problem with the federal government is that Congress has seized (usurped) powers not granted to it by the Constitution, and special interests have taken control of the federal government by taking advantage of these usurped powers to reward their carefully cultivated constituencies.  Our Republic is being converted into a democracy by the establishment's deliberate flouting of the Constitution, along with its cultivation of voting blocs that are electing congressmen who are moving our nation toward a "tyranny of the majority." Even though our nation was founded on the principle in the Declaration of Independence that "governments are instituted among men" to "secure" our God-given rights, a "tyranny of the majority" would eventually strip our nation of all our rights.  Therefore, the solution to our twin problems of too high a national debt and too powerful a federal government is not to add a BBA to the Constitution, but rather to support grassroots efforts by independent, private organizations to create a constitutionally informed electorate that would nominate and elect a majority of constitutionalists to Congress and state legislatures. We the People are the last resort for enforcing the Constitution and thereby securing our rights. We must not enable the powerful special-interest establishment to revise our Constitution in their favor via an Article V convention process at this time in our history.  The Constitution must be preserved as a rallying point for freedom-loving Americans. This is a republic, not a democracy. Let's keep it that way! * * *  Sidebar: Why a BBA Article V Convention Is Not a Wise Idea  - The national debt is not the real problem. The real problem is how "a close network of special interests, public officials, and the media" control the federal government based on their ability to build voting blocs that benefit from the unconstitutional federal programs that they initiate. The fiscally dangerous size of the national debt is a measure of just how effective the special interests are in getting their deficit-spending programs funded. The solution to the debt crisis is to create a constitutionally informed electorate and pay the national debt off by phasing out unconstitutional spending.  - A runaway convention could rewrite the Constitution. An Article V convention has the inherent power to extensively revise or completely rewrite the Constitution based on the precedent of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and on the right of the people to alter or abolish their form of government (including the ratification procedure) as stated in the Declaration of Independence.  - An Article V Convention would play into the hands of the special interests. The "close network of special interests, public officials, and the media" that control our nation would lead an Article V convention process to revise the Constitution to favor the special interests, and would also massively influence the ratification process to favor the special interests.  - Virtually all BBA proposals include loopholes, such as national emergency exceptions and supermajority exceptions, that would enable Congress to continue approving deficit spending, even if a BBA were to be added to the Constitution.  - A BBA would legitimize unconstitutional spending by shifting the focus away from whether a certain bill is unconstitutional and toward whether the bill would fit within a balanced budget. The BBA Article V convention movement has never been about restoring the spending limitations contained in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.  - A BBA would further transform our Republic into a democracy by making the main criterion for approving a proposed bill the degree of popular support that bill has for including it in a balanced budget, as opposed to its constitutionality. A constitutional republic is characterized by the rule of law, while a democracy is characterized by the rule of men and leads to a tyranny of the majority.  Please review our Comment Policy before posting a comment  Thank you for joining the discussion at The New American. We value our readers and encourage their participation, but in order to ensure a positive experience for our readership, we have a few guidelines for commenting on articles. If your post does not follow our policy, it will be deleted.  No profanity, racial slurs, direct threats, or threatening language.  No product advertisements.  Please post comments in English.  Please keep your comments on topic with the article. If you wish to comment on another subject, you may search for a relevant article and join or start a discussion there.


President Trump and his daughter Ivanka are getting some much welcomed positive press thanks to a social media craze that has slowly been growing over the past few months.A number of women have begun posting images online which show them modelling clothing from Ivanka s eponymous fashion label or Trump-branded wears while voicing their support for the commander-in-chief.It is a diverse array of clothes, and the most popular choice by far this summer is a one-piece women s swimsuit in metallic blue that reads: Make America Great Again. There is even a fan-run Instagram page that gathers all the images featuring ladies in Trump-branded swimwear these days, along with those who are scantily clad while also wearing his trademark hat, Babes For Trump.More women jump in to join the trend to support President Trump with Trump gear and bumper stickers adorning their beach coolers. #MAGA And finally, these young women post an image of themselves pretending to build a wall on the Mexico border: These posts have no official hashtag yet, with the women using a variety of words and phrases, including #womenfortrump, #ivankatrump, and #hillaryforprison to name a few.This surge in popularity for Trump brand clothing comes a little over nine months after women across the country began a boycott of Ivanka s fashions with the #GrabYourWallet campaign.These women are ignoring the left and posting pictures of themselves wearing Ivanka s line of clothing.This woman is dresses as a secret service agent who s wearing Ivanka s line of clothing:This Instagram user posted a picture of herself sporting Ivanka s jewelry:Select retail shops and national department stores also began to drop Ivanka s line around that time, and in some cases were very publicly attacked by Trump supporters.Nordstrom was forced to weather the worst of the storms after the passed on picking up Ivanka s latest collection, with President Trump going after the retailer on Twitter. Daily MailKeep up the great work ladies! #MAGA


The tens of thousands of women marching in the Women's March on Washington demonstration in Washington, D. C. Saturday are "mostly white" and experiencing "therapy" for their anxiety over Hillary Clinton's election loss to Donald Trump in November, the Washington Post reports. [Planned Parenthood tweeted: We stand shoulder to shoulder with all women in the struggle for equality justice. #WhyIMarch @womensmarch pic. twitter. — Planned Parenthood (@PPFA) January 21, 2017, According to the Post: Marchers — mostly women and mostly white — said they came to take the most public possible stand against Trump, a candidate and now president whom they said routinely insults women and the issues they care about. But the gathering also provided therapy for many, the balm of immersing themselves in a sea of citizens who had shared their anxiety and disappointment after Democrat Hillary Clinton's historic bid for the presidency ended in defeat. The report notes some of the women are "sometimes sleeping on the couches of people they had never met before" due to the vast crowd participating in the march. "Organizers, who originally sought a permit for a gathering of 200, 000, said Saturday they now expect as many as a half million participants — potentially dwarfing Friday's inaugural crowd," the report says: 12 Ways You Can Fight Back Against All This Oppressive Crap In 2017: https: . via @buzzfeed #IDEFY, — Planned Parenthood (@PPFA) January 20, 2017, The march's central focus appears to be to protect abortion chain Planned Parenthood from taxpayer defunding, one of the stated goals of the Trump administration. Though cast as a "women's rights" march, women who attempted to register for the march were refused. "If you want to come to the march you are coming with the understanding that you respect a woman's right to choose," Linda Sarsour, a Muslim racial justice and civil rights activist, and a chairwoman of the event, told the New York Times. Feminist Gloria Steinem and Planned Parenthood have partnered for the event, providing it with its decidedly tone. On her website, Steinem says to her fans: We have all the powers we had [before Trump was elected] of lobbying and pressuring and making clear that the political consequences are great. We may look up and feel powerless and think there's nothing we can do, but it's not true. There are things we can do at each level. And there's always civil disobedience. Trump is not my president. Steinem also recently said she would refuse to pay the full amount of her federal income tax if Planned Parenthood's taxpayer funds were eliminated. Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said about the march: We will send a strong message to the incoming administration that millions of people across this country are prepared to fight attacks on reproductive health care, abortion services, and access to Planned Parenthood, as they intersect with the rights of young people, people of color, immigrants, and people of all faiths, backgrounds, and incomes. According to the march's website, its mission is to "send a bold message to our new government on their first day in office, and to the world that women's rights are human rights. " Democrat Sens. Patty Murray (WA) and Elizabeth Warren (MA) are supporting Planned Parenthood: Today, we stood with Planned Parenthood and the millions of women men who don't want to see their health care taken away. pic. twitter. — Senator Patty Murray (@PattyMurray) January 20, 2017, Despite its message of unity among all the left's political identity groups, the Times previously reported the "Women's March" has been anything but unified from its inception: On the march group's Facebook page, it is easy to see how complicated the idea of the "women's vote," an already mythological concept, has become, and how difficult it might be for organizers to fulfill their aim of gathering women who remain fiercely divided on reproductive rights, gun control, marriage and immigration, among other issues. Not everyone on the page believes, for instance, that Hillary Clinton would have made a good president, or that Stephen K. Bannon, a chief strategist under Mr. Trump, holds divisive views about minorities. Debates over both have sprung up in recent days. Bob Bland, one of the march's organizers, said in an email that organizers in Maryland had to change a Facebook page from public to private to protect the safety of women who want to attend. Writing at the Week, abortion rights supporter Shikha Dalmia asserts the demonstration has already failed in its mission. "Demonstrations serve a useful function in a democracy — but only when they have clarity of purpose," she writes, adding that the march is "shaping up to be a exercise in search of a cause. " Dalmia writes some of the "absurdity" related to the event stems from "the fact that they are billing this event as the voice of women when 42 percent of women (and 62 percent of educated white women) actually voted for Trump. " She also observes "the progressive hysteria over the event's name. " The initial plan by the "three white women" organizers, she says, was to call the event the "Million Women March," but the women were criticized for "cultural appropriation" for "allegedly poaching the heritage of the 1997 Million Woman March for black women. " "Feminists are confusing the issue by making Trump's threat about themselves," Dalmia concludes. "If they really wanted to help, they would have kept their powder dry for now, rather than embark on this confused and pointless march. "


U.S. President Donald Trump reviewed an array of options for a strategy on Afghanistan with his top national security aides, but made no decision on whether he would commit more troops to America's longest war. Friday's meeting was the latest in a series of high-level discussions on Afghanistan and a broader security strategy for the South Asia region that has been bogged down by internal differences. Trump was briefed extensively "on a new strategy to protect America's interests in South Asia", White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters, after the meeting at the Camp David Maryland retreat. "The president is studying and considering his options and will make an announcement to the American people, to our allies and partners, and to the world at the appropriate time," Sanders said. National security adviser H.R. McMaster and other top national security officials went into the meeting backing a modest increase in troops. At a mid-July meeting, they had thrown their weight behind 3,000 to 5,000 additional U.S. and coalition soldiers. "Anti-globalists," who were led by Steve Bannon before he was fired on Friday as Trump's chief strategist, backed withdrawing U.S. forces, U.S. officials said. Other options which were to be discussed included keeping the status quo of some 8,400 U.S. troops, a modest hike, or a small reduction that would focus on counter-terrorism operations enhanced by drone strikes and intelligence-gathering, they said. A U.S. official said that during a trip to Afghanistan earlier this year, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told Afghan President Ashraf Ghani that the United States would have a sustained commitment to Afghanistan. More than 15 years since the United States invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Islamist Taliban government for giving al Qaeda a sanctuary where it plotted the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, there is no sign to an end in fighting. U.S. intelligence agencies assessed in May that the conditions in Afghanistan will almost certainly deteriorate through next year, even with a modest increase in military assistance from America and its allies. Senator Lindsey Graham, a senior Republican and advocate of a stronger U.S. role in Afghanistan, urged Trump in a statement to "listen to his generals. At the end of the day, Afghanistan is about American homeland security - not building empires." The Camp David discussions have also been complicated by differences over taking a harder line on Pakistan for failing to close Afghan Taliban sanctuaries and arrest Afghan extremist leaders. U.S. officials say the Afghan Taliban are supported by elements of Pakistan's military and top intelligence agency, a charge Islamabad denies. Under one proposal, the United States would begin a review of whether to designate Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism unless it pursues senior leaders of the Afghan Taliban and the allied Haqqani network, considered the most lethal Afghan extremist group, U.S. officials said. Such a designation would trigger harsh U.S. sanctions, including a ban on arms sales and an end to U.S. economic assistance. Finalizing a regional security strategy has been held up by Trump's frustration with a lack of options for defeating the Taliban and ending the longest foreign conflict in U.S. history. At the meeting in mid-July, Trump said Mattis and Marine General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, should consider firing Army General John Nicholson, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, for not winning the war. The delay for a decision left an opening for Erik Prince, the founder of the former Blackwater military contracting firm and the brother of Trump's education secretary, Betsy DeVos, to propose replacing U.S. forces in Afghanistan with mercenaries. The plan made its way into the White House, according to a senior administration official. There is no indication, however, that the proposal – promoted by Prince in media interviews – garnered serious attention and it was not among the options prepared for consideration at Camp David, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. McMaster, Mattis, Dunford and retired Marine General John Kelly, the president's chief of staff, are opposed to this plan, according to U.S. officials. It was not known whether Prince's proposal was brought up at the meeting. With Afghan security forces struggling to prevent Taliban advances and the country's political leadership all but paralyzed by infighting, Nicholson in February requested thousands of additional U.S. troops to bolster U.S. military trainers, advisers and special forces. U.S. military and intelligence officials are concerned that a Taliban victory would allow al Qaeda and Islamic State's regional affiliate to establish bases in Afghanistan from which to plot attacks against the United States and its allies.


New US Ambassador Nikki Haley strutted into the UN on Friday with a blunt message to American allies: For those who don t have our backs, we re taking names. The former South Carolina governor made the remark to reporters as she arrived at the world body s headquarters in Manhattan to present her credentials to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Our goal with the administration is to show value at the UN and the way that we ll show value is to show our strength, show our voice, have the backs of our allies and make sure that our allies have our back as well, she said. For those that don t have our back, we re taking names, we will make points to respond to that accordingly, President Trump s envoy said.She said Trump wants her to put fresh eyes on the UN. Everything that s working, we re going to make it better, she said. Everything that s not working we re going to try to fix, and anything that seems to be obsolete and not necessary we re going to do away with. She then hopped on an elevator and went to the 38th floor to meet Guterres, who became UN chief on Jan. 1. They then went into his office for a private sit-down. There have been reports that the White House is poised to demand major cutbacks in UN agencies and personnel in slashing Washington s financial contributions to the organization. NYP


The president of the Texas Association of Business (TAB) duped Texas lawmakers with false claims of economic destruction if legislators pass a bill protecting women and children in the privacy of their bathrooms and dressing areas. Few people know the history of this business association leader's Democratic voting record and donations to political groups that push a agenda under the guise of equality. [TAB President Chris Wallace appears to be attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of Texas legislators about the possible loss of business and tax revenue to the state if it passes Senate Bill 6, also known as the "bathroom bill. " Citing "dire consequences" for the state, Wallace is attempting to "warn leaders" that passing the bill would cost the state of Texas 185, 000 jobs and $8. 5 billion in lost revenue from lost sporting events, concerts, conventions and other business related losses. These claims have been discredited by none other than the Politifact who rated his claims as "Mostly False. " Politifact defines "Mostly False" to mean the statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. Politifact surmised: The TAB said a study projects up to $8. 5 billion in lost GDP and up to 185, 000 lost jobs in Texas if lawmakers approve a discriminatory measure like proposals in other states. Such a law might cause economic shivers. But we find this study's headlined figures, reached about 13 months ago, to be based on predicted or actual effects of discriminatory mandates in Arizona, Louisiana and Indiana that didn't make it into law or were rescinded or softened. Moreover, not all the study's numbers, calculations and assumptions proved solid and a key figure, reflecting on Indiana losing $1. 5 billion in conventions, doesn't appear to have a documented basis. The Texas Tribune summarized the intent of SB6 stating, "Senate Bill 6, one of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick's legislative priorities, would require transgender people to use bathrooms in public schools, government buildings and public universities based on 'biological sex.' The measure would also local nondiscrimination ordinances that allow transgender Texans to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity. " The bill creates guidelines that only impact government buildings including schools and universities. It does not address what businesses do with their bathrooms or changing rooms. Texas State Senator Paul Bettencourt ( ) also debunked the threats made by Wallace and noted there had been no economic impact in Houston after the city reversed Mayor Parker's bathroom ordinance. During the Senate committee hearing on the bill, Senator Bettencourt and Senator Kelly Hancock ( Richland Hills) picked Wallace's testimony apart. This raises the question as to why a respected organization like the TAB would go out on a limb with easily discredited statements. Dr. Steve Hotze suggests in the Conservative Republicans of Texas News that Wallace is more motivated by a political agenda than the interests of the businesses he represents. Hotze wrote: Chris Wallace's political allegiances and philosophy are demonstrated by his voting record and by his political contributions to the Texas Democrat Party, to numerous Democrat candidates and to the No Nonsense in November PAC that opposed the Texas Constitution Marriage Amendment in 2005. Wallace has made contributions to the Texas Democrat Party, Al Gore against George Bush in 2004, Obama for America in 2008, Bill White for Governor against Gov. Abbott in 2009 and 2010, Wendy Davis against Gov. Abbott in 2014, Leticia Van de Putte against Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick in 2014, and four separate contributions to the Human Rights (Campaign) PAC in 2016. The Human Rights (Campaign) PAC describes itself as the "largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer civil rights organization. " The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) PAC supports candidates who "have a solid history of support for lesbian and gay equality" (www. hrc. org). In 2016, the HRC opposed Donald Trump, while supporting Hillary Clinton. Wallace financially supports this homosexual front group. Wallace has voted numerous times in the Democrat Primary, and yet he has been hired as the spokesman for conservative Texas businessmen. "These facts are well documented," former Harris County GOP Chairman Jared Woodfill told Breitbart Texas late this week. "We have copies of his voting record and the contributions made to the Human Rights Commission PAC which supports the LGBT agenda. " SB6, authored by State Senator Lois Kolkhorst ( ) passed the Senate in a bipartisan vote of on March 15 after a lengthy hearing and public testimony on the matter and moved it forward to the House. State Senator Eddie Lucio, Jr. joined with the Republican majority in supporting the bill's passage. The bill has not yet been scheduled for a committee hearing in the House. It is expected to face tougher opposition and could possibly die in the committee or in the Calendars committee before coming to the House Floor for a vote. "All we want is an up or down vote," Jared Woodfill told Breitbart Texas. "The people should not be denied the right to know where their representatives stand on this issue. " Bob Price serves as associate editor and senior political news contributor for Breitbart Texas. He is a founding member of the Breitbart Texas team. Follow him on Twitter @BobPriceBBTX and Facebook.


A major road in east London was partially closed due to a significant police incident on Tuesday, the British capital s transport operator said. Transport for London said on Twitter that East India Dock Road was partially blocked both ways due to a significant police incident . London police had no immediate comment.


Comments  A Catholic church in San Diego has taken Donald Trump's calls to demonize of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton a tad too literally. The Immaculate Conception Catholic Church was caught passing out flyers last week that told parishioners that voting Democratic was a sin, and would immediately damn them to the fires of hell.  This week, they've gone even further, and declared that the lawyer, former First Lady, and lifelong public servant is in fact an agent of the ruinous dark lord of evil incarnate himself, Satan.  "The devil does this through tactics outlined by Saul Alinsky with the outcome as Hillary Clinton stated 'And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed,' to draw us away from God's teachings regarding the sanctity of life to those of the world and its prince!" railed the flyer.  Previously, the flyers asserted that "it is a mortal sin to vote Democrat … immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell."  This, of course, is not the first time that Secretary Clinton has been compared to the despoiler of worlds. Former neurosurgeon and pyramid expert Ben Carson declared Hillary in league with the devil at the Republican National Convention . A recent poll of Florida Trump supporters found a staggering 40% of them believe that the former New York Senator is a literal demon .  The irrational and all-consuming hatred that the right-wing feels for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is astonishing, and the fact that this is an actual issue shows that either the American public schooling system is entirely failing to do its job, or that a fair segment of the American population has fallen to thirteenth-century radical Christian extremism.  What's truly ironic is that if one were to rationally approach this from such a literalist perspective, it is quite obvious that the envious glutton, shameless thief, and unrepentant lecher Donald Trump is Sin Manifest and his supporters are worshiping a false prophet, placing their own souls in mortal danger as they are consumed in heresy.  But since those are fairytales designed to maintain social control over an illiterate pre-industrial peasant populace, it's hard to explain this phenomenon without concluding that they may all just be idiots. Forgive me, but at this point my patience with these people is running very thin.


The following statements were posted to the verified Twitter accounts of U.S. President Donald Trump, @realDonaldTrump and @POTUS. The opinions expressed are his own. Reuters has not edited the statements or confirmed their accuracy. @realDonaldTrump : - Stock Market could hit all-time high (again) 22,000 today. Was 18,000 only 6 months ago on Election Day. Mainstream media seldom mentions! [0849 EDT] - "Corporations have NEVER made as much money as they are making now." Thank you Stuart Varney @foxandfriends Jobs are starting to roar,watch! [0903 EDT] - Only the Fake News Media and Trump enemies want me to stop using Social Media (110 million people). Only way for me to get the truth out! [0955 EDT] -- Source link: (bit.ly/2jBh4LU) (bit.ly/2jpEXYR)


The U.N. Human Rights Council agreed on Thursday to send experts to work with Burundi s government in pursuing perpetrators of deplorable crimes but the European Union and United States criticized the resolution. They said the last-minute move presented by African nations failed to take into account the conclusions of an existing probe which accused senior Burundian officials of atrocities that may amount to crimes against humanity. That commission said there are reasonable grounds to believe crimes against humanity have been committed since April 2015 when President Pierre Nkurunziza said he would seek a third term in office. The opposition said he was acting unconstitutionally. A government crackdown on protests followed and the ensuing upheaval triggered a food crisis and the exodus of over 400,000 refugees. The African text, supported by Bujumbura s delegation, was adopted by a vote of 23 states in favor, 14 against, with nine abstentions at the 47-member Geneva forum. The text in no way reflects the scale or severity of the situation in Burundi, Latvia s ambassador Janis Karklins said on behalf of the EU. It doesn t take into account the conclusions of the investigation team and no follow-up is provided to them. The last-minute maneuver by the African Group, led by Tunisia, presents a dangerous precedent for the Council , he said. It was unclear if an EU resolution on Burundi, which would extend the mandate of the existing U.N. inquiry, could survive in some form after the African resolution. The Council is expected to decide on the EU resolution before its three-week session ends on Friday. The United States voiced deep disappointment at what it called the African resolution s failure to address the grave human rights situation in Burundi. Due to severe restrictions on space for civil society and independent media, the Commission of Inquiry serves as a critical and credible source of information and must be able to continue its work, U.S. diplomat Jason Mack said. We remind this Council that after conducting more than 500 interviews the commission found reasonable grounds to believe that crimes against humanity have been committed in Burundi and the government of Burundi continues to engage in extrajudicial killing, torture, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances and sexual violence, he said. The Human Rights Council should not support any mechanism short of a commission of inquiry or this Council further risks diminishing its credibility as the primary mechanism for protecting and promoting human rights , Mack added. Burundi s ambassador Renovat Tabu declined to comment after the vote, but earlier told the Council that the EU had a hidden agenda against his country. The (Burundi) government has already achieved substantial progress in improving the human rights situation as well as building the rule of law, and in the fight against impunity and is determined to continue its efforts to move forward, he said.


Four people were killed on Thursday when a helicopter belonging to utility Hydro One crashed in central Ontario, the company said in a statement. Hydro One did not provide details on its four employees who were killed in the crash, saying names would not be released until next of kin had been notified. The company, which is based in Ontario, said emergency services were on site in the Tweed area of rural central Ontario, some 250 kilometers (155 miles) from Toronto. It said it had notified the appropriate oversight groups. The Ontario Provincial Police said in a statement that officers responded to the crash shortly after 12:30 pm ET (1730 GMT), and were joined by emergency response services, including a forensic identification unit. Police said Canada s Transportation Safety Board would investigate. A woman named Kim Clayton tweeted that Hydro One staff had been working on power lines on her property before the crash. On Wednesday a small airplane carrying 22 passengers and three crew members crashed after taking off in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan.


Yet another example of our airline industry s awesomeness occurred Friday when an employee was captured on video challenging a passenger to a fight after a woman holding a baby was hit with her stroller. The video begins with the crying woman holding one of her children in her arms while begging for her stroller back.One angry witness can be heard saying he s not going to sit here and watch this before going to the front of the plane to demand the name of the employee who hit the woman. Another woman on the flight can be heard confronting the staff about their treatment of the latest victim of airline violence. Much of the staff s conversation can not be heard from the vantage point of the person filming, but the gentleman who initially confronted the thugs on the plane stands up and says you do that to me and I ll knock you flat. You stay out of this! the male flight attendant shot back. Try it. Hit me. You don t know what the story is. But the passenger knew what the story is (the part that matters, anyway):I don t care what the story is. You almost hit that baby!Q13 Fox spoke to some of the people aboard the plane, and the story is just as terrible as it seems:Olivia Morgan was standing in the doorway of the aircraft with her 8-year-old daughter waiting to board when the altercation happened. The flight attendant wrestled the stroller away from the woman, who was sobbing, holding one baby with the second baby in a car seat on the ground next to her, she said.Morgan said the flight attendant was violent when taking the metal stroller from the woman and nearly hit the baby with the stroller. He stormed by me with the stroller and I said something like, What are you doing? You almost hit that baby! And he yelled at me to stay out of it! just like he does in the video, she said.Morgan said she talked to the woman about the incident. The woman said a female flight attendant told her she could look for space to store the stroller because it folds up very small, but if there was no available space, she would need to check it at the gate. She was looking for space when the male attendant tried to take it away from her and she said she told him the other attendant had told her it was okay to look, she said.According to the American Airlines website, small strollers can be checked at the gate but there is no policy about strollers in the overhead bin. The lady and her two children were seated near the back of the plane. She was somehow able to get her stroller on board and back near her seat, said Tom Watson, who was sitting just behind the first class section when the staff went insane. She refused to let him take it and she was almost to the point of shouting. The flight attendant and the woman started making their way to the front of the plane. They were at the front of the plane near the crew area. The woman was holding on to the stroller and refusing to let go, he continued, adding that The flight attendant should not have been so aggressive and should have been more aware of the kids. He then says the woman was escorted off the plane.Fortunately, American Airlines seems to have learned from United s numerous blunders following employees assault on a doctor. Rather than attempt to blame the woman, the company released a statement announcing that the employee has been suspended (not terminated though):We have seen the video and have already started an investigation to obtain the facts. What we see on this video does not reflect our values or how we care for our customers. We are deeply sorry for the pain we have caused this passenger and her family and to any other customers affected by the incident. We are making sure all of her family s needs are being met while she is in our care. After electing to take another flight, we are taking special care of her and her family and upgrading them to first class for the remainder of their international trip.The actions of our team member captured here do not appear to reflect patience or empathy, two values necessary for customer care. In short, we are disappointed by these actions. The American team member has been removed from duty while we immediately investigate this incident.The woman had to take another flight, but was given upgraded accommodations.Watch video shot directly following the attack below:


The Trump administration on Friday imposed sanctions on Iran, which it said were just "initial steps" and said Washington would no longer turn a "blind eye" to Iran's hostile actions. The sanctions on 25 individuals and entities were the opening salvo by President Donald Trump who has vowed a more aggressive policy against Tehran and came two days after the administration had put Iran 'on notice' following a ballistic missile test. "The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate Iran's provocations that threaten our interests," National Security Advisor Michael Flynn said. "The days of turning a blind eye to Iran's hostile and belligerent actions toward the United States and the world community are over," Flynn said in a White House statement. Suggesting that more concrete action could follow if Iran does not curb its ballistic missile program and continues support in regional proxy conflicts, a senior administration official said the latest sanctions were the initial steps in response to Iran's "provocative behavior". The administration was "undertaking a larger strategic review" of how it responds to Iran. Iran denounced the sanctions as illegal and said it would impose legal restrictions on American individuals and entities helping "regional terrorist groups", state TV quoted a Foreign Ministry statement as saying. Those affected under the sanctions cannot access the U.S. financial system or deal with U.S. companies and are subject to secondary sanctions, meaning foreign companies and individuals are prohibited from dealing with them or risk being blacklisted by the United States. The White House said that while the sanctions were a reaction to recent events, they had been under consideration before. It added that a landmark 2015 deal to curb Iran's nuclear program was not in the best interest of the United States. White House spokesman Sean Spicer said the missile test did not violate the nuclear agreement. "It's not a direct violation ... I think there is no question that it violates the spirit of that," Spicer said in an interview with MSNBC. He said the nuclear agreement was a "sweetheart deal" for Iran. Citing a foreign ministry statement, Iran's semi-official Fars news agency said the missile program is "the undeniable and inalienable right of our nation under international law and the UN charter. Any foreign interference in this regard is a violation of international law." The new designations stuck to areas that remain under sanctions even with the 2015 nuclear deal sealed between Iran and world powers in place, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, an elite military body that is powerful in Iranian politics and the economy, and Iran's ballistic missile program. Zarif led Iran's delegation at the nuclear negotiations in 2015. Among those affected by the sanctions were what it said was a Lebanon-based network run by the Revolutionary Guards. "The list is actually so targeted and comparatively mild, it leads one to surmise that it may have been a set of targets devised by the Obama administration, and was ready to go when Trump came into office," said Adam Smith, former senior advisor to the Director of the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control. "As such, the real test for which way the Trump team will go on Iran may well be not this list release but the next one, whenever that occurs," Smith said. The sanctions' impact will be more symbolic than practical, especially as they do not affect the lifting of broader U.S. and international sanctions that took place under the nuclear deal. Also, few of the Iranian entities being targeted are likely to have U.S. assets that can be frozen, and U.S. companies, with few exceptions, are barred from doing business with Iran. Meanwhile, the U.S. moved a Navy destroyer, the USS Cole, close to the Bab al-Mandab Strait off the coast of Yemen to protect waterways from Houthi militia aligned with Iran. German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel on Friday expressed understanding over the sanctions, but warned against conflating Sunday's test with the nuclear deal. Earlier on Friday, Trump tweeted: "Iran is playing with fire". U.S. Senator Mark Warner expressed support for the sanctions, adding: "I urge the Administration to bring clarity to their overall strategy towards Iran, and to refrain from ambiguous rhetoric – or provocative tweets – that will exacerbate efforts to confront those challenges." Some of the entities sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury are based in the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon and China. Among those affected were companies, individuals and brokers the U.S. Treasury said support a trade network run by Iranian businessman Abdollah Asgharzadeh. Treasury said he supported Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group, which the United States has said is a subsidiary of an Iranian entity that runs Iran's ballistic missile program. Hasan Dehghan Ebrahimi, a Beirut-based official with the Revolutionary Guard's Qods Force, which runs its operations abroad, was put under sanctions for acting on behalf of the Qods Force, Treasury said. Three Lebanese companies involved in waste collection, pharmaceuticals, and construction were also listed under the sanctions for being owned or controlled by Muhammad Abd-al-Amir Farhat, one of Ebrahimi's employees. Treasury said he has facilitated millions of dollars in cash transfers to Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. Two of his employees and a company he manages were also sanctioned. Treasury said Ebrahimi and his employees used a Lebanon-based network to transfer funds, launder money, and conduct business.


0 comments  CNN's Dana Bash attacked Donald Trump on Wednesday for "taking time out of swing states" to attend the opening of his newest hotel in Washington, D.C., even though he had three campaign stops scheduled for that same day.  She instantly regretted that decision, though, because Trump but her in her place without even blinking an eye.  Watch: Dana Bash: Is your DC hotel opening free advertising?Donald Trump: "No, not at all" https://t.co/6OZtrfIwim https://t.co/9HHqooom8r  — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) October 26, 2016  SHARE this if you think Donald Trump has what it takes to #MakeAmericaGreatAgain!


Boxer Ray Beltran, a Mexican national, is fighting for more than just an International Boxing Federation World title, he is also battling the U. S. Immigration Service to have his immigration status approved, and his green card issued. [Beltran, who grew up in Los Mochis, Sinaloa, Mexico, will face Jonathan Maicelo in an IBF world title eliminator at Madison Square Garden in New York City this weekend. "This fight is the key. It is the key to everything," lightweight boxer Beltran said according to USA Today. The boxer is being literal in several ways. Not only will it give him a shot at gaining a title for his professional boxing career, but a win could also prove to U. S. Immigration Services officials that he is worthy of permanent residency. "(In boxing) the green card process is unique," Beltran's manager, Steve Feder, told the media. "You have to prove yourself unique to anyone else, not just in the world but within the sport itself, you have to be a great fighter among great fighters. It is twice as hard. It is not about how long you have been here if you pay your taxes, it is nothing to do with that. " For Beltran, a winning career would prove him to be of "exceptional ability" and would mean he would be afforded an green card. But, this upcoming fight in New York is an important milestone in both his career and his immigration application process. "It is like a championship belt," Beltran said in a recent interview. "It is like winning the lottery ticket because I know that being (permanent) here I will have a lot more opportunities. (If) I can be deported at any time, who will provide for my family and take care of them? I want to grow and do something and contribute to this country. " The boxer entered the U. S. illegally with his mother when he was and now, as he climbs the ranks in the world of boxing, he is also trying to rectify the problem of his legal status. The boxer has had an equally rocky road to boxing stardom as to legal status. After an early career that floundered a bit, he recently began to pick up speed by winning a few bouts he wasn't expected to win. But, even that didn't goad some of the higher ranked boxers to take his fights. Now, with his with 20 knockouts record, he is advancing to a spot where other, boxers will be forced to meet him in the ring. So, this weekend's match with Jonathan Maicelo has deep personal significance for Beltran. It will prove a lot of things. If he wins it will show that he is a sportsman to be reckoned with, it will prove that sticking with his career choice was the right one, and it just might mean he can finally be a legal citizen of the United States of America. Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston or email the author at igcolonel@hotmail. com.


Lawyers for Jacob Zuma have until midnight to file papers outlining why nearly 800 corruption charges shelved before he became South African president eight years ago but recently reinstated by the courts should not be brought against him. The revival of the charges could increase pressure on Zuma to step down before his term ends in 2019 and diminish his influence over who succeeds him when the ruling African National Congress (ANC) chooses a new leader in December. The 75-year-old president has faced and denied numerous other corruption allegations since taking office in 2009. The 783 charges, which relate to a 30 billion rand ($2.2 billion) government arms deal arranged in the late 1990s, were filed but then dropped by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) shortly before he ran for the presidency. South Africa s High Court reinstated the charges last year and the Supreme Court upheld that decision in October, rejecting an appeal by Zuma and describing the NPA s decision to set aside the charges as irrational . The NPA said then that Zuma had until Nov. 30 to make submissions before it decided whether to pursue the charges. Spokesmen for the NPA and Zuma were not available for comment on Thursday. Last month s Supreme Court ruling lifted the rand currency against the dollar as investors bet that Zuma s removal may be inching closer. The president is unpopular with many investors after sacking respected finance minister Pravin Gordhan in March, a move that hit South African financial assets and helped tip the country s credit ratings into junk territory. Infighting within the ruling ANC ahead of next month s conference to elect a successor to Zuma as party chief has also sapped confidence among the investors upon whom South Africa relies to finance its hefty budget and current account deficits. One of South Africa s leading universities, the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) in Johannesburg, said on Thursday that it had appointed Gordhan as a visiting professor. He will join other ANC heavyweights who have ended up at the Wits after being sidelined by Zuma, among them another respected and ousted finance minister, Nhlanhla Nene, and former Reserve Bank Governor Tito Mboweni. Widely seen as a competent and honest technocrat, Gordhan has become an unlikely poster boy for public anger at the president, whose administration has been marred by missteps and allegations of corruption. Zuma denies any wrongdoing. ($1 = 13.6794 rand)


Timing is everything, and no one knows how to seize the moment better than members of the Kardashian family. The progressive left is determined to bully Americans into submission when it comes to accepting the LGBT lifestyle as mainstream. After spending years in the reality TV business, Bruce Jenner just happens to know a thing or two about marketing himself and has a chosen much kinder and more palatable approach. And now, in true Kardashian style, it s time to sit back and cash in and his contribution to the decay of our society big time.Watch new promo for Bruce s new show I am Cait here: How many people go through life and just waste their entire life because they never deal with themselves, with who they are? Jenner says at the start of the 60-second spot. According to a press release, the eight-part, one-hour series I Am Cait will tell the story of Jenner as he lives his new normal. Living for the first time as the person he feels he was born to be, the docuseries will also explore what Bruce s transition means for the people in his life and how those relationships are affected, while offering a better understanding of many of life s challenges, E! said in the statement.The promo follows Jenner as he applies makeup in a mirror and drives out into the world. It s so bright out there, look at that, Jenner says from the backseat of a car. Isn t it great that maybe someday you ll be normal? Just blend into society? You are normal, a woman interjects. Put it this way: I m the new normal, Jenner replies.Bruce Jenner, who appeared for the first time as a transgender woman on an infamous Vanity Fair magazine cover earlier this week, could parlay his transition into a half-billion dollar fortune within a decade, experts predict.Jenner s net worth is already estimated to be $100 million. But experts familiar with the earning potential of media figures told the New York Daily News that the former gold medal Olympian and Keeping Up with the Kardashians star could be worth as much as $500 million in the next five to ten years. She could become the wealthiest of them all, VH1 s The Gossip Table host Rob Shuter told the paper, referring to the rest of the Kardashian family. If Bruce Jenner made $100 million in 65 years, if all the stars align, she could be worth over $500 million in the next five to 10 years. Caitlyn is going to be a pioneer. Jenner is set to star in an eight-part, one-hour reality television series called I Am Cait, airing this summer on E! And he was already earning between $20,000-$40,000 in speaking fees prior to his transition, according to fee tracking website BigSpeak.com. But that figure could shoot up sharply in the wake of Jenner s transformation and subsequent magazine cover. A book deal could hit seven figures, Brian Balthazar, editor of culture website Pop Goes the Week, told the Daily News. Speeches could garner six figures each. There is no denying the transgender movement s recent ascendancy in the national culture. In addition to Jenner s record-breaking magazine cover and upcoming reality show, popular television shows like Amazon s Transparent have catapulted the issue to the forefront of American consciousness, and some companies are already jumping on the chance to get involved.


What To Watch For At Democrats' First Debate A bruised Hillary Clinton will have much to prove as she takes the debate stage Tuesday evening alongside four of her Democratic presidential challengers. The former secretary of state has been damaged by lingering questions about her private email server and doubts about her trustworthiness. That has partly enabled Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders to ride a wave of progressive support to a lead over her in New Hampshire and an impressive $25 million fundraising haul last quarter. Sanders, too, will need to impress in his most high-profile appearance so far. This will be the first chance for many voters to see him on stage, and they'll be watching to see if he's someone they want to be president. "It's certainly not going to be as entertaining as some of the previous Republican debates, but it will be important, especially for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, to finally show the broader public what exactly they're made of," said Jim Manley, a longtime Democratic strategist and former top Senate aide. Of course, there's also the elephant — or, rather, the donkey — in the room: Vice President Joe Biden. He's not yet announced his intentions, as he continues a public flirtation with a bid. CNN has left open the possibility of allowing Biden on stage, even if he were to decide as late as Tuesday. He has given no indication that he will do so. But perhaps the most important thing for Democrats is that it's finally their turn in the political spotlight. After two rollicking GOP debates and a cycle that's largely been dominated by the outsiders in the Republican field, party loyalists have worried they are being overshadowed. "This is the first real opportunity for a Democratic message to break through," said Mo Elleithee, a former Democratic National Committee communications director who now directs the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service. "The numbers game is working against us right now, and the Republican message is penetrating far more than the Democratic message." Here's what to watch for from each candidate in the first Democratic debate. CNN's coverage begins at 8:30 p.m. ET, while the debate is expected to start at 9 p.m. ET Tuesday on CNN. Need: Appear likable and straightforward, especially when talking about those emails and recent policy positions She will be center stage and the center of attention. She's the most experienced campaign debater on stage — there were 25 primary debates in 2008 — and that will be an asset. But Clinton still has some of the same struggles she had eight years ago — trying to appear likable and not scripted to a public very skeptical of traditional politicians. "In Hillary's case, she has to be more likable and come across as genuine and down to earth," said Dan Payne, a Democratic strategist and debate coach. "She is those things, from what people say who know her well. She can talk to day-to-day people about their lives and share experiences, but somehow it doesn't come across when she's on camera. She gets stiff and stern, and not likable." She wasn't that way during her cameo on Saturday Night Live last week, Payne noted, and that should be an instance her team should draw from. "She was self-aware," he added. "She was poking fun at herself and doing it with a laugh. If she can do that in the debate occasionally, it can help." One of the first questions directed to her will likely be about her email server. She has yet to put to rest questions about why she had the private server and whether it was a security threat. Last month she finally apologized for the decision, but it may have been too little too late. In an interview on 60 Minutes on Sunday, President Obama said the server was not a national-security threat. But he did not forcefully defend Clinton, instead directing questions back to her. "I would hope that, if pressed, she would again apologize for allowing this to be an issue in the first place," said Manley, who is a Clinton supporter. It's no mistake that in the run-up to the debate, Clinton came out against both the Keystone XL Pipeline and Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership, something she once called the "gold standard" of trade agreements. Clinton was trying to clean up messy policy positions ahead of the debate. But Clinton will still likely have to answer whether the moves were politically calculated. Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley have been against both for some time; expect them to point out the disparity. Need: Convince a national audience he's presidential material and that he can branch out beyond his core economic message While Sanders may not have had much campaign debating experience — he has faced mostly safe elections in Vermont — he does have more than two decades of congressional experience to draw from. He brings skills debating on the House and Senate floor and in committees to Tuesday's event. His challenge will be translating the considerable enthusiasm he's been generating on the campaign trail to the debate stage. Filling arenas is quite impressive, but facing questions from moderators and elbows from his rivals is another thing entirely. "He can give a line or two or three and get a roar from the crowd," Payne said, "but you have much longer in a TV debate — you have to sustain your argument for 45 seconds to a minute." Don't expect Sanders to go for the jugular against his chief rival, though. As much as the moderators might try to goad him into it, the Vermont senator has largely avoided direct attacks on Clinton, and his team has telegraphed to expect the same on Tuesday. Instead of focusing on lobbing hits, Politico reported, his somewhat limited debate prep has instead been policy-heavy. Ultimately, Democrats say, they don't anticipate fireworks between the two top candidates. "I suspect that neither one is really going to go after the other," predicted Elleithee, who worked on Clinton's 2008 campaign. "They may disagree, and they will point out where they disagree. That's normal, and that's fine. But I don't think you'll see either one come in and try to tear the other one down. That would be a bad strategy." But Sanders will have to keep his cool throughout the debate, too. He's been testy with reporters when pressed in the past, and that type of reaction might not play well in front of a national TV audience. "In Bernie's case, he has to be in control and not appear unpleasant — be a man who you could conceivably believe is president," said Payne, the debate coach. "If you're angry, it may come across as extremely harsh." Need: Show he belongs in consideration as a top-tier candidate Avoid: Debating about debates and getting on a high horse Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley has struggled to catch fire, but has also proven to be the most dogged Clinton attacker of the bunch — another element Clinton will have to manage. Ultimately, O'Malley may have the most to gain and the most to lose during Tuesday's debate. Once seen as a rising star in the Democratic Party, he was supposed to have been the top alternative to Clinton. Instead, that distinction has gone to Sanders (or possibly even Biden, if he does indeed run). Now, O'Malley needs to give a rationale for his candidacy and prove he can be an able sparring partner with both Clinton and Sanders. O'Malley has vigorously pushed for more debates instead of the scheduled six face-offs, and he needs to show why that's a good idea for him. "This could be his Scott Walker moment," Elleithee said, comparing O'Malley to the Wisconsin governor whose presidential campaign was doomed after a dismal performance in the second GOP debate. "O'Malley can either break through and show he deserves to be considered as a top-tier candidate," he continued, "or if he doesn't break through, his advisers are going to have to circle up, re-calibrate, and figure out what they're going to say to donors. The rationale for his candidacy is not very evident." That doesn't mean O'Malley should come in being a bomb-thrower, which could backfire on stage. Instead, he needs to draw well-reasoned contrasts with his opponents. One top issue where he could do that is on gun control, which is back in the news after yet another mass shooting last week. O'Malley has, by far, the most progressive and far-reaching plan of any Democratic candidate. He also stands in contrast especially with Sanders, who has had a mixed record on the issue. Need: A breakout moment to show they're serious candidates Avoid: Getting left out of the conversation The other two candidates on stage — former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb and former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee — have been almost entirely absent from the campaign trail and will simply need to explain why they're in the race. Both need to introduce themselves to voters, as expectations are already very low. Webb, the only veteran on the stage, could bring a valuable voice in terms of foreign policy and national security. "He needs to tell his story," Payne said. "He was a star in the making eight years ago, but once he left the Senate, his star has all but extinguished." Chafee, a former GOP senator turned independent turned Democrat, could still have to explain his liberal bona fides and defend a controversial tenure as Rhode Island governor. Expect him to needle Clinton on her vote for the Iraq War — and to point out that even as a Republican, he opposed it from the start. Both Webb and Chafee need a breakthrough moment.


Starting Saturday, about two million Muslims will participate in the hajj, an annual pilgrimage to holy sites in Saudi Arabia. I'll be participating for the first time, and to prepare, I assembled an eclectic reading list including Islamic history, firsthand accounts of the hajj and spiritual meditations. I am rereading "The Autobiography of Malcolm X," which culminates with one of the most meaningful passages I have ever encountered on the pilgrimage. Also, I revisited "The Sun Also Rises" by Ernest Hemingway, for his sharp prose and as a reminder that a journey can always be an adventure. I bought "Getting the Best Out of " by Abu Muneer Ismail Davids, a droll manual that includes invaluable advice, including where to camp at the plains of Mina, why you should bring an inflatable mattress, and what direction to walk to avoid being crushed by the crowds of pilgrims. I have already flagged many pages with note reminders. Also on the list: • "Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam," edited by Venetia Porter, to help me understand the spiritual importance of the hajj. • "The Siege of Mecca: The 1979 Uprising at Islam's Holiest Shrine," by Yaroslav Trofimov, about the great rupture almost 40 years ago between Saudi Arabia and Iran that played out at the hajj. • Finally, "Sea Without Shore: A Manual of the Sufi Path" by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, to immerse myself in some spirituality before I head to Mecca.


The lead Brexit negotiator for the European Parliament, Guy Verhofstadt, said on Thursday that a Brexit withdrawal agreement could be reached with Britain. That s the assumption that I have and it is towards that that we work, Verhofstadt said after a speech to students at the London School of Economics. And that a withdrawal agreement be done in March 2019 means that there has to be an agreement in fact in October or November because then the agreement will go to the European Parliament and we need four or five months, he said.


The ethics committee of the U.S. House of Representatives said on Tuesday it would continue to investigate possible conflicts of interest by Representative Alan Grayson, a Florida Democrat and liberal firebrand running for the Senate seat soon to be vacated by Marco Rubio. The possible conflicts of interest relate to Grayson's roles as both a hedge fund manager and a member of Congress. The committee in a statement said the matter needed further review; it gave no time frame for completion. Grayson has denied any wrongdoing. In a statement Tuesday, his campaign called the ethics probe a "political witch hunt." The extension means the issue will still hover over a race that is seen as key to Democrats' bid to wrest control of the Senate from Republicans in November's elections. The primary is in August. The New York Times reported in February that emails and the fund's marketing documents showed Grayson had promoted his international travels, some with congressional delegations, to solicit business for the fund, in possible violation of House ethics rules. "The larger picture here is that the Washington political establishment has decided who their favored candidate is, and it's not Rep. Grayson," the statement from Grayson's campaign said. Top Democrats have tried to get Grayson to drop out of the Florida Senate race because of the questions about the hedge fund, throwing their support to Democratic opponent Representative Patrick Murphy. President Barack Obama has endorsed Murphy, and Vice President Joe Biden has campaigned with Murphy. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said earlier this year that Grayson's actions had disgraced Congress and that he should leave the Senate race immediately. But Grayson has been endorsed by some grassroots liberal groups who appreciate his outspokenness. One of his more famous lines, delivered during the Obamacare debate in 2009, was that the Republican health-care plan for America amounted to "don't get sick," and if you do, "die quickly." The New York Times reported that Grayson had created the hedge fund in 2011 after losing a race for re-election to Congress, and kept it open after he was re-elected in 2012. According to filings with the Securities and Exchange, the fund had been called the Grayson Fund, but Grayson changed the name to Sibylline Fund LP. The Times reported the fund had closed branches previously located in the Cayman Islands. Rubio, who recently ended a campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, leaves the Senate after this year after just one term. Republicans seeking the seat include Representatives Ron DeSantis and David Jolly.


Brand new White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer is off to a rough start. In just a few days, the media has been relentless for calling him out on his never-ending stream of lies, or, as Kellyanne Conway put it, alternative facts. Publicly, everything seems peachy keen after all, the boss has been known to fudge a truth or a few thousand. Privately, though, there s word that the Trump White House is already looking to replace its first scapegoat. Not, though, because of the lies. Trump s not a fan of Spicer s performance because of optics:Politico Playbook alum Mike Allen writes, This West Wing is a tough neighborhood. Even AFTER Sean Spicer s successful get-back-on-the-horse presser yesterday, I m told that a top White House official was discussing his possible replacement. On Day 4! He continues, reporting that Trump himself is displeased with Spicer for reasons completely divorced from his argumentative skills. Unfortunately for Spicer, Trump is obsessed with his press secretary s performance art. Our Jonathan Swan hears that Trump hasn t been impressed with how Spicer dresses, once asking an aide: Doesn t the guy own a dark suit? Source: MediaiteTrump s problem with Spicer has nothing to do with the media s calling him out on his lies. If anything, for Trump, Spicer didn t lie enough, and he certainly didn t prop up his new Commander-in-Chief enough:Many critics thought Spicer went too far and compromised his integrity. But in Trump s mind, Spicer s attack on the news media was not forceful enough. The president was also bothered that the spokesman read, at times haltingly, from a printed statement.Trump has been resentful, even furious, at what he views as the media s failure to reflect the magnitude of his achievements, and he feels demoralized that the public s perception of his presidency so far does not necessarily align with his own sense of accomplishment.Source: Washington PostAs for Trump preferring a woman, don t take that as a sign that the glass ceiling will break during Trump s administration. Trump wants a spokesmodel who he can easily manipulate.While Spicer might get better at his job and at predicting his boss wants, press secretaries don t have a lot of job stability. None have lost their jobs after less than a week though.Featured image by Shawn Thew via Getty Images


Last night during the third debate, FOX News Chris Wallace asked Donald J. Trump if he would accept the election results? With multiple stories of voter fraud being committed by Democrats across the nation and a video (see below) proving that the DNC and Hillary s campaign are coordinating with criminals to plan massive voter fraud, why would Trump make a statement that he was willing to accept the outcome of the election regardless of how it may be won? Hillary chastised Trump for having VERY LEGITIMATE concerns over the potential for voter fraud to swing the election. Her admonishment was carried by every mainstream media outlet, but wait what about the Al Gore election result?Here s the exchange:Here s Hillary discussing Al Gore s contested election to CNN s Larry King: From everything I ve seen and heard, ah more people did intend to vote for Vice President Al Gore. I hope there still will be an opportunity to have the votes counted. I think that s the best for whoever is inaugurated. Watch Al Gore s announce at a press conference in 2000, that he will continue to contest the results of the election and even suggests the Republicans committed voter fraud in the hotly contested 2000 election against George W. Bush.Al Gore even goes as far as to suggest the GOP prevented blacks from voting (a common Democratic Party tactic). He makes it perfectly clear that he will not concede the election until the Supreme Court makes a decision on the election:And more recently, here is Hillary nodding in agreement with her small crowd of supporters as they chant You won! to her featured guest, professional liar and con-man Al Gore:https://youtu.be/xpYwiYvSO8MWatch Jr. Senator Barack Obama suggest the results of the Florida Supreme Court decision on the Bush-Gore election was incorrect (challenging the election results):WATCH this video and then tell us if you would accept the results of the election if the race is close and Hillary wins:


In case you haven t heard, after Texas Governor Greg Abbott ordered an investigation into Planned Parenthood after disingenuous, heavily-edited videos were produced by the deceptively-named Center For Medical Progress. The videos, which claimed the women s health organization sold baby parts to the highest bidder, launched a wave of investigations nationwide all of which turned up absolutely no wrongdoing on the part of Planned Parenthood.One such investigation in Texas involved Planned Parenthood of the Gulf Coast. Though a grand jury cleared the much-maligned institution of any and all wrongdoing, two indictments were handed down against the producers of the anti-Planned Parenthood fabrications.David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt were both indicted for Tampering with a Governmental Record. In addition, Daleiden received an indictment for Prohibition of the Purchase and Sale of Human Organs an incredibly serious charge. We were called upon to investigate allegations of criminal conduct by Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, said Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson. As I stated at the outset of this investigation, we must go where the evidence leads us. All the evidence uncovered in the course of this investigation was presented to the grand jury. I respect their decision on this difficult case. The people behind this fraud lied and broke the law in order to spread malicious lies about Planned Parenthood to advance their extreme anti-abortion political agenda, Planned Parenthood said in a statement. As the dust settles and the truth comes out, it s become totally clear that the only people who engaged in wrongdoing are the criminals behind this fraud, and we re glad they are being held accountable. Nothing about today s announcement in Harris County impacts the state s ongoing investigation, said Governor Abbott, who promised to continue to waste state money in fruitless attempts to smear the women s health group. The State of Texas will continue to protect life, and I will continue to support legislation prohibiting the sale or transfer of fetal tissue. The horrific nature of these videos demand scrutiny and investigation. The Senate Committee on Health and Human Services will continue to examine the practices of abortion providers and whether state law adequately protects the sanctity of life, Lt. gov. Dan Patrick added. I will never be deterred from standing up to fight to protect the unborn. Daleiden s supporters similarly don t care about the facts, with many demanding an investigation into the grand jury because they can t possibly think that laws were broken when the Center for Medical Progress illegally recorded privileged information and slopping edited clips together to give the impression of wrongdoing no matter what the evidence says. On Fox News Facebook page, they let their thoughts (we use that word loosely) be known: It s important to remember that these people will be voting in November.


on November 13, 2016 3:09 pm ·  As predicted, Donald Trump's victory on Election Day has emboldened racist conservatives to start harassing and attacking minorities.  And it's even happening in the deep blue state of California, where a woman spotted a sign hanging on the side of a building in the town of Pittsburg and snapped a photo of it.  Twitter user James Thompson posted the image of the sign on the social media platform after his sister sent it to him. This picture was taken in Pittsburgh California. My sister texted this to me 10 minutes ago.Our democracy is being tested even in California pic.twitter.com/gDLKw54Lox  — James Thompson (@JETBallin) November 13, 2016  The sign clearly promotes lynching to prevent African-Americans from getting equal rights.  "You can hang a n****r from a tree / Equal rights he will never see!" it says.  The FBI has been notified and local police have filed a lawsuit in an effort to force the owners of the sign to remove it.  In the wake of Trump's surprising and depressing victory there has been a rise in the number of racist incidents in this country. In fact, there have been 139 reports of people being bullied by Trump supporters since the election night results.  These incidents include the harassment of a Muslim teacher by a student in Georgia, and students designating water fountains "white" or "colored" at a Florida high school.  Frankly, there are so many incidents that it's difficult to list them all. You can find a somewhat comprehensive tally here .  This is what Trump's America looks like and it's scary. And this has all happend in the course of a few days as Melania Trump continues to tell the media that her focus will be on ending bullying. What exactly does she mean by that? Is she going to call out all bullying, including the racist bullying being perpetrated by her husband's own supporters? Or is she going to ignore those incidents and merely whine about people who criticize her husband. Because right now, she isn't even First Lady yet and her "effort" has failed miserably. And she only has her husband to blame.