Washington (CNN) As Vice President Joe Biden continues to contemplate a late entry into the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, he faces obstacles toward arriving at yes -- not least of which is his own emotional state three months after his son's death. After a week of meetings with key Democrats -- including influential Sen. Elizabeth Warren and labor leader Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO -- Biden on Friday didn't appear any closer to making a decision, which advisers still expect is weeks away. He'll have more chances to consult members of his party next week, when he heads south to rally support behind the administration's nuclear deal with Iran. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, invited Biden to make the case for the agreement in person in south Florida on Thursday. The DNC has kept Biden and his political team abreast of debate schedules heading into the fall, and most Democratic operatives say the vice president must decide by the first forum -- a CNN-sponsored event on Oct. 13 -- whether or not he's running. Biden still faces the daunting proposition of raising enough campaign cash to compete with the tens of millions already collected by Hillary Clinton, and carving out support among key Democratic voting blocs to make a dent in her front-runner status. But weighing heaviest, friends say, is the grueling toll a third presidential campaign could exact on his family. He told a conference call of Democrats this week that he was still in the process of determining "whether or not there is the emotional fuel at this time to run," just months after his eldest son Beau Biden lost his battle with brain cancer. Associates say the vice president's son Hunter supports a bid, and Beau encouraged his father to join the race before he died. But having weathered two previous presidential bids, the Biden family is intimately familiar with the withering pace and barbed attacks that would come with becoming a candidate again. His wife, Dr. Jill Biden, is said to be apprehensive about joining another run for president as her family continues to grieve. "I've given this a lot of thought and dealing internally with the family on how we do this," Biden told Democrats on the conference call this week, as first reported by CNN. "The calculus for this has been evaluating his personal feelings, having just come off Beau's passing," said James Smith, a South Carolina state legislator who's a supporter of Biden's. Deciding whether to run for president "has little to do with a calculation of his own ambitions," Smith said. A Quinnipiac survey this week showed Biden faring well against potential Republican challengers; in potential general election match-ups against Donald Trump and Jeb Bush, he performs better than Clinton. His favorability rating was higher than any candidate actually running for the Democratic nomination. And even though he has yet to declare his intentions, he's still running ahead of former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chaffee or former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb. But even those numbers may not be enough to convince Biden that jumping into the race is worth it. Politicians merely contemplating a bid -- and not yet subject to the attacks of their rivals or scrutiny from opposition researchers -- often poll better than when they become full-blown candidates. Case in point: Clinton, whose favorability stood near 60% last fall as she contemplated a run, but had dropped to 44% in the latest CNN/ORC survey taken in mid-August. Clinton's campaign this week attempted to flex its organizing muscle by unveiling endorsements in key early voting states, including from former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, currently serving alongside Biden in the Obama administration as agriculture secretary. Vilsack was the first cabinet secretary to declare an allegiance in the Democratic primary, though other key figures within the Clinton orbit were also signaling wariness about a Biden run. "Running for office is one thing. You have to also have the energy for that process," said Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who served as Obama's first chief of staff and supports Clinton in the primary. "You also have to have the energy for the job." Former Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, another Clinton supporter, told The New York Times this week that Biden has "served the country so well" but that making a run for president "I just don't think ... would be a wise move." Clinton, speaking at the summer meeting of Democrats in Minnesota, said she wanted to give Biden the "space and time" to make up his mind. "I have the greatest affection and admiration for the vice president," she said during a press conference in Minneapolis. "This is a difficult decision for him to make." As she spoke, members of the "Draft Biden" group were eagerly making the case for a Biden candidacy to Democratic Party members and so-called "superdelegates." Their pitch: that it's "too early to anoint" a front-runner in the Democratic race and that influential party members should remain open-minded about selecting a candidate to support. "While the vice president is working through his process on whether or not he actually wants to run for president ... we continue to make the public case for why we think he's the best candidate for our party to put up for the presidency," said Steve Schale, an adviser to the group. A key mission: developing a campaign infrastructure in early voting states Biden could utilize if he decides to jump in. 'Going to be up to the American people' For Biden, the decision on entering the race risks dividing loyalists to President Barack Obama, who has repeatedly praised Biden's work as vice president while also proclaiming Clinton an exemplary secretary of state. Some White House aides have expressed concern a Biden bid -- at this point, still a longshot against Clinton -- could end poorly, damaging the vice president's political legacy. Obama discussed the potential of Biden joining the race during a regularly scheduled lunch with the vice president Monday, and hasn't dissuaded the vice president from running as he's publicly weighed a run over the past several months. Asked this week about potentially having to decide between his vice president and his former top diplomat, Obama offered his typical demurral. "Joe and Hillary are wonderful people and great friends," he told CNN Philadelphia affiliate WPVI during an interview at the White House Wednesday. "Joe's been as good a vice president as I think we've seen in American history. Been at my side on every tough decision I've ever made." Clinton, meanwhile, "was one of our best secretaries of state and helped work on a whole range of important issues," Obama said. "The truth is, though, the great thing about American democracy is it's not up to me. I'm just one voter. It's going to be up to the American people." The White House says Obama will indeed vote in the Illinois Democratic primary next year, and hasn't ruled out a presidential endorsement in the race.


navy , RBTH Daily , spain , syria Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov in international waters off the coast of Northern Norway on Oct. 17, 2016. Source: Reuters  Madrid has decided not to allow the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov to refuel in the port of Ceuta, a Spanish enclave on the North African coast, reneging on a previous agreement with Moscow.  On Oct. 26, the warships of the Northern Fleet's aircraft carrier group led by the cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov , having passed the English Channel, were moving toward Gibraltar.  Their route and tasks, according to presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov, are "in a sealed envelope marked 'Top Secret'."  As the Spanish Foreign Ministry said earlier, the ships were to arrive on Oct. 28 in the port of Ceuta (a Spanish enclave in Morocco). The permit, as Madrid noted, was issued in September.  However, when the news of the imminent arrival of the ships in Ceuta made the press, Spain came under heavy criticism from its NATO allies.  NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that he would not have had anything against the refueling of Russian ships in other circumstances, but now he was extremely concerned that they could be used to attack Aleppo. Similar statements were made by politicians and military figures from the UK and the U.S.  In Spain itself, the Republican Left of Catalonia was most vocal in protesting against the arrival of the Russian ships in Ceuta. Their press service confirmed to Kommersant that members of the Congress of Deputies of Spain from the party had demanded that acting Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo and acting Defense Minister Pedro Morenesa explain why Russian ships involved in the Syrian operation were being serviced in the territory of a NATO country. 9 intriguing facts about the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier  Initially, the Ceuta authorities were confused about the situation. Since 2011, the enclave's port has been visited, according to the newspaper El Pais, by 60 Russian vessels.  "The normal criteria for accepting the visits was 'the safety of the surroundings, population and port'," The Spain Report said, citing sources in the port's administration. But under the barrage of criticism, the Spanish Foreign Ministry announced yesterday that it was reviewing "the decision following consultations."  But by the middle of the day, El Pais quoted diplomatic sources as saying permission would be revoked if it was confirmed that the ships were heading to Syria. Without waiting for the outcome, the Russian authorities themselves abandoned the idea. "We affirm that the ships will not enter the port of Ceuta, because the route has changed," the Russian Embassy in Spain said. Moscow's reaction  Speaking to Kommersant, the Embassy's press secretary Vasily Nioradze Embassy urged the media not to dramatize the situation. "Approval of such stopovers is a routine process," he said. "We send a request in advance, and the decision is made based on international law and the requirements of the host country. Now this decision was made, in other cases it will be different."  Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov chose to place a different accent on the incident: According to him, the Russian military department provided for the possibility of "a technical stopover [in Ceuta – Kommersant] of individual ships or a supply vessel from the group of ships, in agreement with the Spanish side."  However, according to him, no official request from the Defense Ministry was sent to Madrid.  "The representatives of the Spanish leadership said that due to the pressure on them from the U.S. and NATO, the entry of the Russian ships in the port of Ceuta would be inappropriate," said Konashenkov. Publicly, however, the Spanish authorities did not make such statements. Russian experts: Cruiser is on training mission  Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (TsAST), does not view the change of the Admiral Kuznetsov 's route as a disaster.  "We might as well refuel in Algeria or Malta, I'm betting on Algeria since Malta is an EU member state and it will face the same problems as Spain," he told Kommersant. Russia to establish a permanent naval base in Syria  At the same time, according to Pukhov, the arrival of the Admiral Kuznetsov in Syria is unlikely to radically change the balance of forces in the region, but it will allow Russia to increase its international prestige.  "The French use an aircraft carrier in that region, because they do not have a base, while we do have one," he said. "The purpose of the Kuznetsov 's mission is likely to be training. Pilots of deck aircraft need to train, and Syria provides an opportunity to do it in combat conditions."  TsAST expert Andrei Frolov added that the Admiral Kuznetsov 's mission has "an advertising component.""India is thinking about buying MiG-29K/KUB deck fighters for future aircraft carriers, and a demonstration of their capabilities in Syria will help it decide sooner," he said. Subscribe to get the hand picked best stories every week Subscribe to our mailing list Facebook


U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday endorsed a move by Saudi Arabia s future king that tightened his grip on power through the arrests of royals, ministers and investors in an anti-corruption purge. The endorsement cemented a U.S.-Saudi relationship that has improved dramatically under Trump s presidency, partly because of both leaders vision of confronting Riyadh s arch-rival Iran more aggressively in the region. Trump tweeted on Monday that he had great confidence in King Salman and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia following the mass arrests - the biggest such purge of the kingdom s affluent elite in its modern history. Trump also tweeted that they know exactly what they are doing, adding: Some of those they are harshly treating have been milking their country for years. The purge was the latest in a series of dramatic steps by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, or MbS as he is commonly referred to in Western circles, to assert Saudi influence internationally and amass more power for himself at home. A U.S. official who declined to be named told Reuters that MbS has become the primary driver of Saudi policy-making. He has moved aggressively to sideline opponents, concentrate decision-making authority, and establish himself as the undisputed heir to the al Saud legacy. He seeks to reinvigorate the public s confidence in the Saudi monarchy by diversifying the economy, loosening religious restrictions, and carrying out wide ranging social reforms, the official said. Trump s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, the president s senior adviser, who has cultivated a close relationship with MbS, recently returned from Saudi Arabia, fuelling speculation on whether he may have had wind of MbS plans. The White House said at the time the trip was reported that it was within the context of Kushner s efforts on Israeli-Palestinian peace conversations. Among those arrested were billionaire investor Alwaleed bin Talal, who is one of the kingdom s most prominent businessmen and whose investments in companies like Twitter make him the most recognized Saudi name on Wall Street. It s an impressive feat to have basically neutered virtually all of the sources of potential opposition, dissent rivalry, whether it s religious, media, political, military, said Rob Malley, vice president for policy of the International Crisis Group. On the other hand... it s always risky to make too many enemies at the same time. It s not clear how those enemies can react, said Malley, a former senior adviser on Middle East affairs under President Barack Obama. Also detained was Prince Miteb bin Abdullah, who was replaced as minister of the National Guard, a pivotal power base rooted in the kingdom s tribes. That recalled a palace coup in June that ousted Mohammed bin Nayef as heir to the throne. A former senior U.S. intelligence official cautioned that given the National Guard s loyalties, MbS could face a backlash. I find it difficult to believe that it (National Guard) will simply roll over and accept the imposition of new leadership in such an arbitrary fashion. ANTI-IRANIAN CONFRONTATION U.S.-Saudi ties had been strained under Obama, who Riyadh felt considered their alliance less important than negotiating the Iran nuclear deal. But the Trump administration has vowed to confront Iran much more aggressively in the region, where it shares the Saudi view that Tehran is fomenting instability via a number of proxies in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen among other countries. Tehran denies the allegations. Events in Saudi Arabia in recent days appeared to open the prospect for a sharper confrontation with Iran and its proxies. Saudi Arabia accused Lebanon on Monday of declaring war against it because of what it called aggression by the Iran-backed Lebanese Shi ite group Hezbollah. Saudi-allied Lebanese politician Saad al-Hariri quit as prime minister on Saturday, announcing his resignation from Riyadh and blaming Iran and Hezbollah in his resignation speech. Also on Saturday, Saudi Arabia s air defense forces intercepted a ballistic missile fired from warring Yemen over the capital, Riyadh. The Pentagon praised Saudi Arabia for exposing Iran s role in Yemen and Tehran s provision of missile systems to Houthi militia fighting there. Between that (Hariri s resignation) and the missile launch on Riyadh ... the coincidence of those two does mean that the prospect of some escalation, some strike either against Hezbollah or against Iran or against both is more likely, certainly than it was a few days ago, Malley told Reuters.


The international "March for Science" appears to have Earth Day, casting "social justice" as "science. "[The Earth Day Network that owns the international rights to the annual — and celebration of Vladimir Lenin's birth — artfully sought to rebrand its messaging by having protestors in 610 locations around the planet swap their shirts for the patina of scientific truth associated with white lab coats. The festivities began in the wee hours of April 22 in New Zealand, then followed the sun to circumnavigate the globe. The event's blog reported 50 celebrants showed up at Antarctic research stations, and 2 very intrepid souls showed up in degree weather at the North Pole. Although it seemed that the media in many locations outnumbered the demonstrators, San Francisco and Washinton, D. C. both produced about 5, 000 marchers. The March for Science website in January trumpeted, under "Diversity and Inclusion Principles": "Colonization, racism, native rights, sexism, ableism, econ justice are scientific rights. " But as the event neared, the scientific communism of Marx and Engle's Das Capital morphed into Principals and Goals: "Our wealth of personal experiences and perspectives is our greatest strength. In putting the people who do science at the forefront of this discussion, we can show that scientists come from all cultural backgrounds, belief systems, orientations, genders, and abilities. " Honorary Bill Nye the Science Guy said, "We march forward to ensure a better world for people all over the world. " But he and Senator Bernie Sanders ( ) made it clear in their February Facebook Live "Conversation on Climate Change" that they believe all skeptics of climate change are suffering from cognitive dissonance. The most interesting coverage of the event came from Science magazine, which the events with about 60 posts over 24 hours. Demonstrating the tenuous connection between the "March for Science" and actual scientists, the first April 22 speaker at the New Zealand event was leftist Green Party James Shaw, who is a former accountant with no science background. Shaw said, "When politicians use their belief systems to override the facts, the scientific facts, we are all in for a whole world of hurt. " Shaw then droned on about his social justice belief system that New Zealanders needed to stand up against the U. S. political discourse questioning climate change.


Jeffrey Gundlach, the widely followed investor who runs DoubleLine Capital, foresees a "global growth scare" between now and the end of the summer, triggered by a presidential nomination of Donald Trump. "That is where I see the vulnerabilities," Gundlach said in a telephone interview on Monday. Trump's protectionist policies could mean negative global growth, Gundlach warned. "As he gets the nomination, the markets and investors are going to worry about it more. You will see a downgrading of global growth based on geopolitical risks. You must factor this into your risk-management." Trump has blamed currency devaluations around the world for hurting the U.S. economy and costing American jobs, and has called for a tougher U.S. stance on trade. "We just sit back and do nothing," Trump said earlier this month. "That's getting to be very dangerous as far as I'm concerned." A more effective economic move than devaluations would be charging a tax on products made abroad and sold in the United States, particularly those from China, Trump said. Gundlach, who oversees $93 billion at Los Angeles-based DoubleLine Capital, said it isn't premature to think about a Trump nomination. "You have to entertain the hypothetical." Phone calls and emails to Trump's spokeswoman were not returned. For its part, stock markets, which moved into positive territory after the U.S. Federal Reserve's dovish move last week, will continue to track oil prices, Gundlach said, who was prescient in his call for $40 per barrel. "I think oil will have a hard time moving up to $45," Gundlach said. The risk-reward proposition is "so bad right now because you had this easy rally" in risk markets, Gundlach said. He added: "No way I would buy junk bonds at this level." Gundlach also criticized Fed officials for changing their stance on interest rates. "They've been flip-flopping like crazy over the past few months," he said. Just three days after the Fed held interest rates and cautioned "global economic and financial developments continue to pose risks," Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart said on Monday that the United States may be in line for an interest rate hike as soon as April given "sufficient momentum" in U.S. growth. Gundlach said it's become obvious Fed officials are seeking guidance from markets. "If it is going to be about the markets, they should just come out and say, 'If the S&P hits 2,100 we will tighten - and if it goes to 1,900 we will ease," Gundlach said.


Trump Warns That By Attacking Assad, US Will 'End Up Fighting Russia' By RT November 13, " RT " - US President-elect Donald Trump has confirmed that he will most likely abandon the Obama administration policy on Syria to seek a possible rapprochement with Russia on the issue of Assad. "I've had an opposite view of many people regarding Syria," the 70-year-old Republican told the Wall Street Journal in his first interview since the election. From the start of the Syrian war, Barack Obama's foreign policy has been focused on the support and training of the so-called "moderate" rebel groups who were supposed to defeat Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) terrorists, and survive to eventually overthrow Assad. That approach became deadlocked this year when Washington failed to honor its obligations under an agreement with Moscow to separate their moderate rebel forces from internationally-recognized terrorists. Trump, on the other hand, said on Friday that the US should be focused on fighting Islamic State, instead of pursuing regime change in Syria. "My attitude was you're fighting Syria, Syria is fighting ISIS, and you have to get rid of ISIS. Russia is now totally aligned with Syria, and now you have Iran, which is becoming powerful, because of us, is aligned with Syria... Now we're backing rebels against Syria, and we have no idea who these people are." It has been widely documented and reported that American weapons supplied to the moderate rebels are often obtained by extremists in Syria. Those weapons, in turn, are being used by the jihadists to strike civilian positions and deploy them against Syrian forces. The president-elect warned that if the US attacks Assad, "we end up fighting Russia, fighting Syria." The US coalition bombing of Syrian Army positions near the city of Deir el-Zour on September 17 led to the collapse of the US-Russian peace initiative. Rapprochement in US-Russia ties could, however, be on the horizon after Trump admitted receiving a "beautiful" letter from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump said a phone call between them is scheduled shortly. Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are "very much alike... in their basic approaches toward international affairs," Dmitry Peskov told the Associated Press earlier. "[Trump] has been a very firm supporter of the idea of a good relationship between our countries, because we do carry a joint responsibility for strategic stability in the world, strategic security," the spokesman said. Immediately after Trump's victory, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that Moscow looks forward to restoring bilateral relations with the United States. The US military establishment, however, already seems to be working against Trump's policies. In an interview with CBS This Morning, Defense Secretary Ash Carter leveled a barrage of accusations at Russia. He said the Russian campaign in Syria "fuels the fires" of ongoing violence in the country, claiming "they're not doing what we need to do and think needs to be done [in Syria]." "What the Russians said, if you'll remember, was that they were going to come in and fight terrorism and help remove Assad," Carter said. "They haven't done either of those things. They haven't done any of that." While Moscow has been undertaking efforts to eliminate Islamic State and Al-Nusra Front terrorists in Syria, it never said it would take part in the forcible removal of President Bashar Assad. When the anchor Norah O'Donnell said "They're helping Assad?" Carter continued, "Exactly. Which in turn simply fuels the fires of the Syrians civil war. So the Russians have been completely backwards there, in what they've been doing. "So we have not been able to, and I have not been in favor, and am not recommending to the president that we associate ourselves with or work with the Russians until they start doing the right thing," Carter concluded.


Donald Trump s son-in-law Jared Kushner has found himself at the focus of the Russia scandal which has gripped the administration. It s always the quiet ones you have to worry about, as they say. Kushner released an 11-page statement earlier in which he appeared to throw Donald Trump Jr. under the bus.Then Kush (I can call you Kush, right?) spoke for two hours in a closed-door session with Senate Intelligence Committee staff members investigating Russia s interference in the 2016 presidential election. After that, Kushner proceeded to talk to reporters, but didn t take any questions. I did not collude with Russia and I do not know of anyone else in the campaign who did so, Kushner said outside the White House.Kushner insisted that he has been fully transparent which is totally untrue, according to the written statement he issued just hours earlier.In that statement, Kushner said he had four contacts with Russians during the presidential campaign and transition and declared that none of them were improper, even though they were not disclosed previously.Even most Republicans agree that Donald Trump Jr. should not have held that controversial meeting with a Russian lawyer, which was attended by Kushner and former campaign manager Paul Manafort.According to Kushner, it s all cool because he said he did not read emails that showed that Junior enthusiastically accepted the meeting with the idea that he would receive damaging information about Hillary Clinton.Kushner went on to deny that Russians financed some of his business interests in the private sector. However, it s been revealed that Trump s son-in-law bought part of old New York Times building from a Soviet-born oligarch who is allegedly tied to money laundering. There are many other instances we could cite, too. Like, for example, Kush s meeting with Russian banker Sergey Gorkov. That bank is sanctioned so it s alarming that he would even take the 30 minute meeting.But since Kush feigns to be transparent, he can prove that right now.USA Today reports:Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., called on Kushner to testify in public under oath, and said his written statement raised more questions about his relationships with Russians. He noted that the White House senior adviser has repeatedly concealed information about his personal finances and meetings with foreign officials. There should be no presumption that he is telling the whole truth in this statement. At the very least, said Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Va., the transcript from Kushner s meeting with staff members should be made public. Make everything as transparent as possible, Manchin told reporters. All of my actions were proper, he said outside the White House. So, the four undisclosed meetings (that we know about so far) were proper ?When Kushner sought top-secret security clearance which would give him access to some of the nation s most closely guarded secrets, he was required to disclose all encounters with foreign government officials over the last seven years, but he failed to do so. You know, because he s so transparent. He or she who has not had undisclosed contacts with Russian officials, let them cast the first stone.Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images


Marijuana legalization is on the cusp in America. There are proven medical benefits and evidence that it s more effective as a painkiller for people with chronic pain than opiates. It relieves nausea in cancer patients and stress related to PTSD. it s a nifty plant, whose commercial counterpart also offers an array of revolutionary products that are cheaper and stronger.Marijuana is here to stay. As more states move to legalize, cases will begin moving through the courts of citizens being denied their 14th Amendment right from a state where pot is a crime. In order for that to happen, however, pot has to really NOT be a crime. When you get to the federal level, it simply is. Marijuana is in the same class as cocaine and heroin, two drugs known to destroy peoples lives with serious psychological and physical addiction.Eric Holder, former attorney general, told PBS that he thinks that is wrong. Holder said in a recently released Frontline interview: You know, we treat marijuana in the same way that we treat heroin now, and that clearly is not appropriate. So at a minimum, I think Congress needs to do that. Then I think we need to look at what happens in Colorado and what happens in Washington. What is unfortunate is that at one time, Eric Holder actually did have the power to at least initiate unilateral marijuana legalization through studies done by Health and Human Services. In the case of marijuana, there are two options to legalize:Courtesy of Brookings Yes, that means that Eric Holder had the keys to the shiny new pot plant but he never used them. He passed them on, instead, to Loretta Lynch, who has stayed out of the marijuana issue completely.No that it really matters at this point. Marijuana has far too many benefits. You re talking medicinal, production, research, retail counter. All of those things equal jobs which equal revenue. It means people doing life for a half pound of schwag can be let go. It means our upside-down legal system is going to have find something other than a little bit of pot to keep their machine running.It also takes the dealer out. Nobody needs them, their cartels, their smuggling operations none of it. Now that pain pills have brought the war on drugs into wealthy white neighborhoods where the evolution from Oxycontin to shooting up heroin is a shocking revelation, Law enforcement and treatment professionals can focus their attention where it belongs.It seemed when the drugs were reserved for low-income and minority neighborhoods the answer was jail. Now all of a sudden it s treatment. As long as everyone benefits then so be it.Featured image from Wikipedia


Share on Facebook Do you remember jumping on your parents bed when you were really young? They probably told you that it was very dangerous and warned you not to ever do it, so you did it anyways! When things were off-limits because mom and dad said so, they became even more fun than they already were. It's not just kids who have a super awesome, fun time jumping around on the bed, dogs also love to mess around! The little Dachshund puppy featured in this video is named Pepper and he's normally not allowed to go on his owner's bed. However, this time his human set up a hidden camera and captured his hilarious antics. The little cutie is a furry ball of energy as he zips around in circles across the bed. He gets completely carried away and the look on his face is priceless, you just have to see it for yourself! About halfway through the clip Pepper's fellow doggy friend Margo makes an appearance. She jumps up and joins him on the bed for some fun, taking her plushy raccoon along with her. The pair are sweet as can be and by the end of it all they're both completely tuckered out. Check them out and prepare to smile and say awww because that's the normal reaction to these adorable types of videos! Related:


U.S. President Donald Trump is likely to rescind an Obama-era policy that protects nearly 600,000 immigrants who entered the country illegally as children and are known as "Dreamers," according to media reports on Friday. Trump's decision on whether to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, policy could be announced as early as next week, reported ABC News, citing multiple sources. Attorney General Jeff Sessions discussed the program with senior White House officials on Thursday, according to an administration official. Department of Homeland Security spokesman David Lapan denied reports that the department had made any recommendations on DACA to the White House. "There have been continuing discussions about DACA but nothing has been determined," Lapan told Reuters. White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters on Friday that the program continues to be under review. A White House spokesperson told Reuters that only Congress can legislate a permanent solution for the plight of children who are currently protected from deportation by DACA. Trump had pledged on the election campaign trail to scrap all of former President Barack Obama's executive orders on immigration, including DACA. Immigrant advocates reacted to the news with a flurry of statements, promising to defend the program with protest and legal action. "Immigrant youth fought to create the DACA program and we will fight like hell to defend it," said Greisa Martinez Rosas, Advocacy Director and DACA-beneficiary of United We Dream said in a statement. Civil rights groups said ending the program could increase racial divisions in the country in the wake of the recent violence in Charlottesville. Ten Republican state attorneys general in June urged the Trump administration to rescind the DACA program, while noting that the government did not have to revoke permits that had already been issued. If the federal government did not withdraw DACA by Sept. 5, the attorneys general said they would file a legal challenge to the program in a Texas federal court. The 10 who signed the letter represent Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia. A larger coalition of 26 Republican attorneys general had challenged the Obama-era policy covering illegal immigrant parents, known as DAPA, that had been blocked by the courts before it took effect. The Department of Homeland Security rescinded that policy earlier this year.


Maybe the Queen of Incompetence isn t as popular as she had hoped with the Socialist Party of America, aka the former Democrat Party It s not just Republicans who get riled by the thought of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton ascending to the presidency. Some people on the left lock horns over Clinton often enough to suggest that Team Hillary still has a long way to go before she has shored up the traditional base of progressive voters.A controversial book cover is the latest flashpoint to lay bare the divisions in the Democratic base over the Clinton candidacy. The forthcoming book, My Turn, by Nation Magazine Contributing Editor Doug Henwood, critiques the former secretary of state s decades-long political career, calling out her foreign policy positions and purported connections to big-money interests, among other contentious points.And the book cover s flamboyant illustration featuring a stoic Hillary Clinton, in a blood-red dress, pointing a gun at the reader has sparked a heated debate among her supporters and detractors.Salon editor Joan Walsh and former Obama speechwriter Jon Lovett both called the drawing gross. The leftist rag Salon.com has this to say about the new Hillary Clinton book: A stink bomb into liberals certainty : Doug Henwood on his anti-Clinton crusade.Here is a portion of Salon.com s review of Henwood s My Turn book:In this regard, Harper s latest (paywalled) cover story a cri de coeur against Hillary Clinton from economist, radio host, author and Left Business Observer founder Doug Henwood is no exception. A mix of biography and political analysis, Henwood s essay depicts the likely 2016 presidential candidate as a relatively unaccomplished conformist and careerist, one who s far more interested in acquiring power (and protecting the interests of her wealthy funders) than making real the progressive vision. What is the case for Hillary? Henwood asks. It s hard to find any substantive political argument in her favor. Even the author and the artist have different takes on the imagery. People often see in texts what they want to see. The reaction to this cover, which has been circulating less than 48 hours, has been a vivid reminder of this, Henwood told MSNBC. When I first saw the design I knew it would attract a lot of attention. But I couldn t have predicted the diversity of reactions. Where Henwood sees ruthlessness and hawkishness, in the image, the artist, Sarah Sole told the International Business Times she sees it as pulpy and sexy. Henwood is a well-known Clinton critic on the left who skewered the former secretary of state, senator and first lady in a controversial 2014 Harper s Magazine cover story titled Stop Hillary. In it he wrote:What is the case for Hillary (whose quasi-official website identifies her, in bold blue letters, by her first name only, as do millions upon millions of voters)? It boils down to this: She has experience, she s a woman, and it s her turn. It s hard to find any substantive political argument in her favor. She has, in the past, been associated with women s issues, with children s issues but she also encouraged her husband to sign the 1996 bill that put an end to the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC), which had been in effect since 1935. Indeed, longtime Clinton adviser Dick Morris, who has now morphed into a right-wing pundit, credits Hillary for backing both of Bill s most important moves to the center: the balanced budget and welfare reform.1 And during her subsequent career as New York s junior senator and as secretary of state, she has scarcely budged from the centrist sweet spot, and has become increasingly hawkish on foreign policy.What Hillary will deliver, then, is more of the same. And that shouldn t surprise us. As wacky as it sometimes appears on the surface, American politics has an amazing stability and continuity about it. Obama, widely viewed as a populist action hero during the 2008 campaign, made no bones about his admiration for Ronald Reagan. The Gipper, he said,changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt [that] with all the excesses of the Sixties and the Seventies, government had grown and grown, but there wasn t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating.Now, the excesses of the Sixties and the Seventies included things like feminism, gay liberation, the antiwar movement, a militant civil rights movement all good things, in my view, but I know that many people disagree. In any case, coming into office with something like a mandate, Obama never tried to make a sharp political break with the past, as Reagan did from the moment of his first inaugural address. Reagan dismissed the postwar Keynesian consensus the idea that government had a responsibility to soften the sharpest edges of capitalism by fighting recession and providing some sort of basic safety net. Appropriating some of the language of the left about revolution and the promise of the future, he unleashed what he liked to call the magic of the marketplace: cutting taxes for the rich, eliminating regulations, and whittling away at social spending.What Reagan created, with his embrace of the nutty Laffer curve and his smiling war on organized labor, was a strange, unequally distributed boom that lasted through the early 1990s. After the caretaker George H. W. Bush administration evaporated, Bill Clinton took over and, with a few minor adjustments, kept the party going for another decade. Profits skyrocketed, as did the financial markets.But there was a contradiction under it all: a system dependent on high levels of mass consumption for both economic dynamism and political legitimacy has a problem when mass purchasing power is squeezed. For a few decades, consumers borrowed to make up for what their paychecks were lacking. But that model broke down once and for all with the crisis of 2008. Today we desperately need a new political economy one that features a more equal distribution of income, investment in our rotting social and physical infrastructure, and a more humane ethic. We also need a judicious foreign policy, and a commander-in-chief who will resist the instant gratification of air strikes and rhetorical bluster.Is Hillary Clinton the answer to these prayers? It s hard to think so, despite the widespread liberal fantasy of her as a progressive paragon, who will follow through exactly as Barack Obama did not. In fact, a close look at her life and career is perhaps the best antidote to all these great expectations.But the intimidating image glaring out from the front of My Turn was created long before Henwood penned the book, which he says was developed out of the Harper s piece and goes into greater detail about her long history in shaping the New Democrat agenda, an agenda which she now purports to be running against, Henwood told MSNBC.And then there s Sole, a diehard Clinton supporter and also a fan of Henwood s, according to International Business Times.Sole debuted the painting, along with other similarly themed pieces, last year. Later, the pieces were published in Politico magazine under the headline Extremely Ready for Hillary, according to the International Business Times. I love Hillary Clinton, I support Hillary Clinton, I very much want her to be president. I will certainly vote for her, Sole told International Business Times. What I don t get is the reaction that calls the cover sexist, Henwood told MSNBC. Hillary is tough and determined, characteristics that shouldn t be seen as off-limits to women. The political question is what she or anyone else does with toughness and determination, and that s what my criticism of her focuses on. I have no problem with ball-busting women, Henwood continued. I kinda like them, in fact. I just don t like [Hillary Clinton s] politics.


Maxine is the worst enemy of the black community and Americans! She needs the struggle to continue so she can be reelected. Wouldn t it be dangerous to her reelection if Donald Trump was successful at helping the black community? The fear mongering is how she gets reelected! Remember the housing crisis? Maxine was responsible for much of the crash in housing yet she s never taken responsibility for it. She and Barnie Frank pushed and pushed to get home loans for people who should have never owned a home! The black community should run this woman out of town! In the period 1989-2008, topping the list of recipients of contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Dodd (D-Connecticut), who received $165,400. Second on the list is Sen. Obama (D-Illinois), receiving $126,349 with only three years in the Senate. Rep. Frank (D-Massachusetts), received $42,350.February 1990Madeline Talbott, a well-known radical ACORN leader and banking industry agitator, challenged the merger of a Chicago thrift, Bell Federal Savings and Loan Association, who responded that they were being bullied into irresponsible affirmative-action lending policy. 1991ACORN interfered with a House Banking Committee meeting for two days protesting a move to bring CRA reform.1992Enforcement of CRA was sporadic, as the Washington Times notes, until a Federal Reserve Bank of Boston study asserted that there were substantially higher denial rates for black and Hispanic applicants than for white applicants. Co-author Lynn Browne was approached by co-author Alicia Munnell to do the study because community activists were complaining that mortgage loans were not being made in minority communities. According to the Times, however, the study had mishandled statistics on minority default rates. When the errors were accounted for, the same study showed no evidence that nonwhite mortgage applicants were being discriminated against. Frank Quaratiello, writing in the Boston Herald, cites Stan Liebowitz, My guess is that they were interested in finding a particular result. Said Liebowitz, Richard Syron was head of the Boston Fed at the time. He went on to be the head of Freddie Mac. They were looking for mortgage discrimination and they found it. According to Quaratiello, Syron became Freddie Mac CEO and chairman in 2003 and faced increasing pressure to buy up more and more risky mortgages, some of which the Boston Fed s guide had, in effect, served to legitimize. Regarding Syron s total compensation in 2007 of $18.3 million, Liebowitz reportedly quipped, Nice reward for presiding over unprofessional research behavior, bankrupting Freddie Mac and crippling our financial system, all in the name of politically correct lending. September 1992The Chicago Tribune described the ACORN agenda as affirmative action lending. And, writes Kurtz, ACORN was issuing fact sheets bragging about relaxations of credit standards that it had won on behalf of minorities. October 1992Congress, enacting the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, allowed legislation to amend and extend certain laws relating to housing and community development. The Act created the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) within HUD to ensure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are adequately capitalized and operating safely. It also established HUD-imposed housing goals for financing of affordable housing and housing in central cities and other rural and underserved areas. Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) warned about the impending danger non-regulated GSEs posed. As the Washington Post reports, his concern was that Congress was hamstringing the regulator. Complaint was that OFHEO was a weak regulator. Leach worried that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were changing from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the stockholding few. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) countered, as the Post reports, the companies served a public purpose. They were in the business of lowering the price of mortgage loans. September 1993The Chicago Sun-Times reports an initiative led by ACORN s Talbott with five area lenders participating in a $55 million national pilot program with affordable-housing group ACORN to make mortgages for low- and moderate-income people with troubled credit histories. Kurtz notes that the initiative included two of her former targets, Bell Federal Savings and Avondale Federal Savings, who had apparently capitulated under pressure.July 1994Represented by Obama and others, Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Citibank had intentionally discriminated against the Plaintiffs on the basis of race with respect to a credit transaction, calling their action racial discrimination and discriminatory redlining practices. November 1994President Clinton addresses homeownership: I think we all agree that more Americans should own their own homes, for reasons that are economic and tangible and reasons that are emotional and intangible but go to the heart of what it means to harbor, to nourish, to expand the American dream. . . . I am determined to see that you have the opportunity and together we can make that opportunity for the young families of our country. I am committed to a new and unprecedented partnership between industry leaders and community leaders and Government to recommit our Nation to the idea of homeownership and to create more homeowners than ever before. June 1995Republicans had won control of Congress and planned CRA reforms. The Clinton Administration, however, allied with Rep. Frank, Sen. Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and Rep. Waters (D-California), did an end-around by directing HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo to inject GSEs into the subprime mortgage market.As Kurtz notes, ACORN had come to Congress not only to protect the CRA from GOP reforms but also to expand the reach of quota-based lending to Fannie, Freddie and beyond. What resulted was the broadening of the acceptability of risky subprime loans throughout the financial system, thus precipitating our current crisis. The administration announced the bold new homeownership strategy which included monumental loosening of credit standards and imposition of subprime lending quotas. HUD reported that President Clinton had committed to increasing the homeownership rate to 67.5 percent by the year 2000. The plan was to reduce the financial, information, and systemic barriers to homeownership which was amplified by local partnerships at work in over 100 cities. Kurtz concludes, Urged on by ACORN, congressional Democrats and the Clinton administration helped push tolerance for high-risk loans through every sector of the banking system far beyond the sort of banks originally subject to the CRA. So it was the efforts of ACORN and its Democratic allies that first spread the subprime virus from the CRA to Fannie and Freddie and thence to the entire financial system. Soon, Democratic politicians and regulators actually began to take pride in lowered credit standards as a sign of fairness and the contagion spread. Attorney General Janet Reno, with a number of bank lending discrimination settlements already, sternly announces, We will tackle lending discrimination wherever it appears. With the new policy in full force, No loan is exempt; no bank is immune. For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement, reiterated Reno.1997HUD Secretary Cuomo said GSE presence in the subprime market could be of significant benefit to lower-income families, minorities, and families living in underserved areas . . . 1998By falsifying signatures on Fannie Mae accounting transactions, $200 million in expenses was shifted from 1998 to later periods, thereby triggering $27.1 million in bonuses for top executives. James A. Johnson received $1.932 million; Franklin D. Raines received $1.11 million; Lawrence M. Small received $1.108 million; Jamie S. Gorelick received $779,625; Timothy Howard received $493,750; Robert J. Levin received $493,750.April 1998HUD announced a $2.1 billion settlement with AccuBanc Mortgage Corp. for alleged discrimination against minority loan applicants. The funds would provide poor families with down payments and low interest mortgages. Announcing the Accubank settlement, Secretary Cuomo said, discrimination isn t always that obvious. Sometimes more subtle but in many ways more insidious, an institutionalized discrimination that s hidden behind a smiling face. October 2003Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.November 2003Council of the Economic Advisers Chairman Greg Mankiw warned, The enormous size of the mortgage-backed securities market means that any problems at the GSEs matter for the financial system as a whole. This risk is a systemic issue also because the debt obligations of the housing GSEs are widely held by other financial institutions. The importance of GSE debt in the portfolios of other financial entities means that even a small mistake in GSE risk management could have ripple effects throughout the financial system, from a White House release.Mankiw explains that any legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk. To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards and receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE, says a White House release.February 2004Fiscal Year 2005 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore . . . should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator, reports a White House release.Mankiw cautions Congress to not take [the financial market s] strength for granted. Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator, says a White House release.June 2004Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System, the White House reports.September 2004OFHEO reported that Fannie Mae and CEO Raines had manipulated its accounting to overstate its profits. Congress and the Bush administration sought strong new regulation and authority to put the GSEs under conservatorship if necessary. As the Washington Post reports, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac responded by orchestrating a major campaign by traditional allies including real estate agents, home builders and mortgage lenders. Fannie Mae ran radio and television ads ahead of a key Senate committee meeting, depicting a Latino couple who fretted that if the bill passed, mortgage rates would go up. Again, GSE pressure prevailed.October 2004Rep. Baker again warned about the coming crisis in the Wall Street Journal: Then there s the lesson of a company, Frankenstein-like, seemingly grown so powerful that it can intimidate and arrogantly flout all accountability to the very government that created it. Baker adds, Although their bonds bear the disclaimer not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, the market does not believe it and looks right past the companies risk strategies to the taxpayers pockets. In a subcommittee testimony, Democrats vehemently reject regulation of Fannie Mae in the face of dire warning of a Fannie Mae oversight report. A few of them, Black Caucus members in particular, are very angry at the OFHEO Director as they attempt to defend Fannie Mae and protect their CRA extortion racket.Chairman Baker (R-Louisiana): It is indeed a very troubling report, but it is a report of extraordinary importance not only to those who wish to own a home, but as to the taxpayers of this country who would pay the cost of the clean up of an enterprise failure. . . . The analysis makes clear that more resources must be brought to bear to ensure the highest standards of conduct are not only required, but more importantly, they are actually met. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): Through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn t broke. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-New York): And as well as the fact that I m just pissed off at OFHEO, because if it wasn t for you I don t think that we d be here in the first place, and now the problem that we have and that we re faced with is: maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you ve given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the, uh, the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they ve done a tremendous job. There s been nothing that was indicated that s wrong, you know, with uh Fannie Mae. Freddie Mac has come up on its own. And the question that then presents is the competence that, that, that, that your agency has, uh, with reference to, uh, uh, deciding and regulating these GSEs. Uh, and so, uh, I wish I could sit here and say that I m not upset with you, but I am very upset because, you know, what you do is give, you know, maybe giving any reason to, as Mr. Gonzales said, to give someone a heart surgery when they really don t need it. Rep. Ed Royce (R-California): In addition to our important oversight role in this committee, I hope that we will move swiftly to create a new regulatory structure for Fannie Mae, for Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks. Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Missouri): This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines. Rep. Ed Royce (R-California): There is a very simple solution. Congress must create a new regulator with powers at least equal to those of other financial regulators, such as the OCC or Federal Reserve. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-New York): What would make you, why should I have confidence? Why should anyone have confidence, and uh, in, in you as a regulator at this point? Armando Falcon, OFHEO Director: Sir, Congressman, OFHEO did not improperly apply accounting rules. Freddie Mac did. OFHEO did not fail to manage earnings properly. Freddie Mac did. So this isn t about the agency engaging in improper conduct. It s about Freddie Mac. Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut): And we passed Sarbanes-Oxley, which was a very tough response to that, and then I realized that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wouldn t even come under it. They weren t under the 34 act, they weren t under the 33 act, they play by their own rules, and I and I m tempted to ask how many people in this room are on the payroll of Fannie Mae, because what they do is they basically hire every lobbyist they can possibly hire. They hire some people to lobby and they hire some people not to lobby so that the opposition can t hire them. Rep. Artur Davis (D-Alabama): So the concern that I have is you re making very specific, what you have correctly acknowledged, broad and categorical judgments about the management of this institution, about the willfulness of practices that may or may not be in controversy. You ve imputed various motives to the people running the organization. You went to the board and put a 48-hour ultimatum on them without having any specific regulatory authority to put that kind of ultimatum on em. Uh, that sounds like some kind of an invisible line has been crossed. Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut): Fannie Mae has manipulated, in my judgment, OFHEO for years. And for OFHEO to finally come out with a report as strong as it is, tells me that s got to be the minimum not the maximum. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): Uh, I, this, you, you, you seem to me saying, Well, these are in areas which could raise safety and soundness problems. I don t see anything in your report that raises safety and soundness problems. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): Under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines, everything in the 1992 Act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing mission, a mission that has seen innovation flourish from desktop underwriting to 100% loans. Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Missouri): I find this to be inconsistent and a and a rush to judgment. I get the feeling that the markets are not worried about the safety and soundness of Fannie Mae as OFHEO says that it is, but of course the markets are not political. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): But I have seen nothing in here that suggests that the safety and soundness are at issue, and I think it serves us badly to raise safety and soundness as kind of a general shibboleth when it does not seem to me to be an issue. Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): Mr. Raines, 1.1 million bonus and a $526,000 salary. Jamie Gorelick, $779,000 bonus on a salary of 567,000. This is, what you state on page eleven is nothing less than staggering. Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): The 1998 earnings per share number turned out to be $3.23 and 9 mills, a result that Fannie Mae met the EPS maximum payout goal right down to the penny. Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): Fannie Mae understood the rules and simply chose not to follow them that if Fannie Mae had followed the practices, there wouldn t have been a bonus that year. Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut): And you have about 3% of your portfolio set aside. If a bank gets below 4%, they are in deep trouble. So I just want you to explain to me why I shouldn t be satisfied with 3%? Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae CEO: Because banks don t, there aren t any banks who only have multifamily and single-family loans. Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae CEO: These assets are so riskless that their capital for holding them should be under 2%. January 2005-July 2006Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), co-sponsored by Sens. Sununu and Dole and later Sen. McCain, re-introduced legislation to address GSE regulation. The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006, reports the Wall Street Journal.Greenspan testified that the size of GSE portfolios poses a risk to the global financial system. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to bail out the lenders [GSEs] . . . should one get into financial trouble. He added, If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis . . . We put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States, a key ingredient of support for homeownership. Greenspan warned that if the GSEs continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road . . . We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk. Bloomberg writes, If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. . . . But the bill didn t become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn t even get the Senate to vote on the matter. That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. April 2005Treasury Secretary John Snow again calls for GSE reform, Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America. . . . Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system, from a White House release.May 2005At AEI Online, Wallison warned that allowing Fannie and Freddie to continue on their present course is simply to create risks for the taxpayers, and to the economy generally, in order to improve the profits of their shareholders and the compensation of their managements. It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. January 2006Chairman Greenspan, in a letter to Sens. Sununu, Hagel and Dole, warned that the GSE practice of buying their own MBS creates substantial systemic risk while yielding negligible additional benefits for homeowners, renters, or mortgage originators. He stated, . . . the GSEs and their government regulator need specific and unambiguous Congressional guidance about the intended purpose and functions of Fannie s and Freddie s investment portfolios. March 2006Sens. Sununu and Hagel introduced an amendment to a Lobbying Reform Bill directing GAO to study GSE lobbying and requiring HUD to audit the GSEs annually.May 2006After years of Democrats blocking the legislation, Sens. Hagel, Sununu, Dole and McCain write a letter to Majority Leader William Frist and Chairman Richard Shelby expressing demanding that GSE regulatory reform be enacted this year to avoid the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the Housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole. May 2006Sen. McCain (R-Arizona) addressed the Senate, Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae s regulator reported that the company s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were illusions deliberately and systematically created by the company s senior management. . . . Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator s examination of the company s accounting problems. . . . OFHEO s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay. McCain stressed, If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole. I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation. April 2007Sens. Sununu, Hagel, Dole, and Mel Martinez (R-Florida) re-introduced legislation to improve GSE oversight.April 2007In A Nightmare Grows Darker, the New York Times writes that the democratization of credit is turning the American dream of homeownership into a nightmare for many borrowers. The newfangled mortgage loans called affordability loans represent 60 percent of foreclosures. September 2007President Bush: These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs . . . the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon. 2007-2008The housing bubble began to burst, bad mortgages began to default, and finally the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac portfolios were revealed to be what they were, in collapse. And the testimony is evident as to why. As Wallison noted, Fannie and Freddie were, I would say, the poster children for corporate welfare. September 2008Rep. Arthur Davis, whose testimony is found above in October 2004, now admits Democrats were in error: Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. Today 2008The narrative is of another socialist experiment failed, this time a massive federal effort, imperiling the whole US banking industry. Facing this economic disaster, will an informed American people put their trust Obama s socialist ideology to bring remedy? To do so is to trust in an acetylene torch to put out the fire.


U.S. President Donald Trump told Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday that he believes, like Xi, that there is a solution to the North Korea issue. It was too bad that past U.S. administrations let trade get out of kilter but we will make it fair to both sides, Trump also told Xi as they begun formal talks at Beijing's Great Hall of the People.


Election crossroads: Socialism or capitalism? Exclusive: Jane Chastain explains impact of Dems' 'living wage' proposal Published: 20 mins ago Jane Chastain About | | Archive Jane Chastain is a Southern California-based broadcaster, author and political commentator. Despite her present emphasis on politics, Jane always will be remembered as the nation's first female TV sportscaster, spending 17 years on the sports beat. Jane blogs at JaneChastain.com. She is a pilot who lives on a private runway. Print  Our country is at a crossroads. Never before have we faced such an obvious fork in the road. One road, the one favored by politician Hillary Clinton and her Democratic colleagues, promises to lead us to a socialist utopia. The other, favored by businessman Donald Trump and some of his Republican colleagues, promises to get us back on the road toward free-market capitalism.  It is no secret that most career politicians lean toward a socialist system. In this system they control the lion's share of our money and, in turn, hand out favors. In this system, they make the major decisions that affect our lives. As the government accumulates more and more power, we invariably end up with less. Statistics show that the longer a politician stays in power, the more of our hard-earned money he or she spends. Yet we keep electing the same people over and over and over again, expecting a different result.  We've been headed down the road toward socialism for quite some time, and this could be the last fork in the road we will have to get us back to the free-market system that has given this country the highest standard of living in the world. No, it isn't perfect, but it works for everyone who is willing to work hard and wants to improve his or her life.  Notice what I didn't say is "simply willing to work hard." There is the belief by some that if you simply work hard, you should have what these politicians now call a "living wage" – the income necessary to support a family of four and supply all its basic needs, which is around $85,000 a year in some parts of the country. The Democrats want to replace the minimum wage, which is a training wage, with this living wage. That completely kicks the bottom rungs out from under the economic ladder Americans have traditionally climbed to reach their goals and live independently.  Ideally, it would mean that you could take a job flipping hamburgers and never gain any skills or accept any responsibility, and live as comfortably as the guy or gal who does.  Unfortunately, this so-called living wage will destroy jobs. It will cause companies to automate, and those that cannot will begin moving offshore at an even faster rate.  But this living wage is only part of what the Democrats want to do in the name of fairness.  This, no doubt, appeals to many in this poor economy who have lost all hope, so they are lulled into thinking that the socialist road is much better.  Wages have remained flat for far too long, but the Democrats are proposing raising taxes even higher on businesses and job creators.  Most people simply do not understand that businesses don't pay taxes. They are passed down to consumers in the form of higher prices. And when the price of the necessary goods and services becomes too high, such as we've seen in Obamacare, there is a large outcry. That's when the government steps in and takes over the means of production and the control of those services. That's when the door to socialism/communism slams shut.  They tell us if we take this socialist road there is nothing to fear. Our benevolent government will take care of us. They are offering us free college – or almost free loans – in order to get the job we want at a salary we think we deserve. And if we don't get that job, the government is going to give us free health care, free food and free housing. Under President Hillary, there will be free child care, free preschool and paid family leave. What a country!  If we don't reach our goals, everything will be OK because Social Security and Medicare will be there to finance our retirement, and if that isn't enough, the government will put us in a retirement center where we live out the remainder of our years playing checkers or watching television.  What about the fact that Social Security and Medicare are going broke? How long can we keep printing money to keep us afloat before our economy collapses? They never talk about that.  As British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."  Don't be fooled: This election is about a lot more than the two personalities at the top of the ticket. It's an important fork in the road: One fork requires hard work and sacrifice but offers freedom. The other offers a free lunch.  Media wishing to interview Jane Chastain, please contact . Receive Jane Chastain's commentaries in your email BONUS: By signing up for Jane Chastain's alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email. Name *


The debacle in Congress last week over President Barack Obama's trade agenda was further evidence that domestic political wrangling is harming U.S. leadership in the global economy. By failing to pass Trade Adjustment Assistance, which provides help to American workers affected by international trade, Congress has raised doubts about the U.S.'s ability to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an agreement with 11 other Pacific Rim economies. It also dims the prospects for the negotiations on the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with Europe. It wasn't the first time recently that Congress sought to derail an agreement the executive branch had successfully advanced abroad. In recent months, lawmakers have again failed to approve reforms to the International Monetary Fund that were crafted by the administration, approved by most of the fund's global membership and are in the U.S. national interest (and they entail neither additional financial obligations nor an erosion of U.S. influence, representation and veto power on major IMF decisions). As with trade, congressional blockage of IMF reforms had less to do with the merits of the case than with the posturing of individual lawmakers as they prepare to seek re-election. The dysfunction reflects a legislative branch that has been operationally undermined not just by extreme polarization of the two parties, but also by the influence of the extremes within the parties as they set up the terms of the debate for the next presidential-nomination primaries. Outside the U.S., the image of an uncooperative Congress has also been fueled by the Republican lawmakers who took the unprecedented step of sending a letter to Iran's leadership warning that the nuclear agreement being pursued by Obama could well be overturned after the November 2016 elections. To be fair, such signals to the rest of the world haven't been emitted by Congress alone. The administration itself slipped in its handling of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Ignoring advice to join this new institution and seek to shape and influence it from within, the U.S. embarked on a concerted public campaign to block it. Those efforts were thwarted as U.S. allies joined the China-led initiative, forcing a rather embarrassing retreat. All this justifiably worries those who believe that effective U.S. economic leadership is essential to a well-functioning global system. This is especially true now, when world growth is struggling, there are genuine concerns about currency wars and countries have fallen further behind in dealing with some collective challenges, including environmental ones. Historically, the U.S. has been the most effective in coordinating crisis management efforts, pushing forward multilateral reforms and enabling global policy cooperation. Moreover, there is no credible alternative to U.S. leadership on the international economic stage. The Group of Seven isn't representative of the realities of recent global economic realignments. The G-20 is unwieldy and lacks sufficient continuity. Europe, with its endless challenges, is too internally focused and preoccupied. China is hesitant to step up to broader international responsibilities. And too many international institutions are burdened with longstanding legitimacy and credibility deficits related to outmoded representation and governance features. After Congress's loud statement last week, many hope that lawmakers will find a way to put trade authorization back on track this week. Yet such a stop-go strategy is far from cost-free. It does little to restore confidence in Congress, whose public approval rating languishes at or close to record lows. And it suggests to the rest of the world that, due to seemingly endless internal political polarization and dysfunction, the U.S. cannot be relied on to play its natural role as the world's economic conductor. Congress would be well advised to take note of this before turning other international economic initiatives into spectacles. And, while it is at it, it should really move to approve IMF reforms that are in both the national and global interest. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. To contact the author of this story:  Mohamed A. El-Erian at melerian@bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story:  Max Berley at mberley@bloomberg.net


The U.S. State Department said on Thursday it was concerned that a non-binding independence referendum planned this year in Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region will distract from "more urgent priorities" such as the defeat of Islamic State militants. While saying it appreciated the "legitimate aspirations" of the people of Iraqi Kurdistan, the State Department said in a statement it supports a "unified, federal, stable and democratic Iraq" and had voiced concerns about the planned September referendum to Kurdish authorities. "We ... encourage the regional authorities to engage with the government of Iraq on the full range of important issues, including the future of relations between Baghdad and Erbil, on the bases of the Iraqi constitution," the department said.


Is our government telling us certain hate groups are more acceptable than others?Does the Ku Klux Klan have a constitutional right to adopt a highway ?That question was at the center of a high-profile battle Monday before the Georgia Supreme Court, where the Klan is challenging the state s refusal to let it participate in the popular Adopt-A-Highway program.The hate group, with the American Civil Liberties Union by its side, is casting its bid as a free speech issue. The government cannot be a censor of free speech, Alan Berger, an attorney for the International Keystone Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, said.But the Georgia Department of Transportation has resisted the KKK s efforts ever since 2012 to join the program.For its part, GDOT maintains it should be allowed to exclude certain groups from the program and stands by its claim that the KKK s long rooted history of civil disturbance would cause a significant public concern. Monday s arguments centered around Georgia s claim of so-called sovereign immunity a legal doctrine that shields the state from civil suit or criminal prosecution. The state had appealed a lower court decision by Judge Shawn LaGrua, who ruled Georgia was not protected against the KKK suit because the group claimed the discrimination involved a violation of its constitutional rights. The state denied the application, not because of safety hazard or some other compelling government interest, but because the state disagrees with what the KKK represents, Maya Dillard Smith, executive director of the ACLU of Georgia, told FoxNews.com. It is precisely this kind of government action the Constitution prohibits. While Smith admits that many people who hear about the case have a visceral reaction to it, she warns its outcome could have a dangerous ripple effect. What may seem as chipping away only at the KKK s free speech right, will, in fact, open Pandora s box and create legal precedent that justifies curtailing the free speech rights of religious evangelicals, abortion protestors and even Black Lives Matter supporters and opponents, she said.A judgment is not expected for a couple of months, Berger told FoxNews.com following Monday s oral arguments. In the meantime, GDOT has suspended Adopt-a-Highway applications.This isn t the first time a state has gone rounds with the white supremacist group.In 1994, Missouri tried to block the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan from participating in its Adopt-A-Highway program.The group which excludes anyone who is black, Jewish, Mexican or Asian had requested a half-mile section of road on Interstate 55, one of the routes that had been used to bus black students to school as part of desegregation efforts near St. Louis.The state denied the KKK s request.In that case, lawyers for the state unsuccessfully argued that it had a right to control its own speech and that allowing the Klan to participate would violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act s ban on racial discrimination in federally funded programs.The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, thereby forcing the state to allow the group to take part in its Adopt-A-Highway program. However, the state later kicked the group out, saying it failed to do its job and pick up the litter on its adopted stretch of highway. So what about the YMCA which houses the Fred Hampton Aquatic Center on former Oak Street In Maywood, IL that was officially named after Black Panther, Fred Hampton who was slain in a police raid in 2007. September 9, 2007From now on, Oak Street in Maywood will be known as Fred Hampton Way.Relatives of the slain Black Panther leader joined congressmen, activists and Maywood residents Saturday to dedicate the street and a statue of Hampton that now sits in front of the Fred Hampton Family Aquatic Center.Last year, efforts to name a street on Chicago s West Side for Hampton failed amid controversy that Hampton and the Panthers advocated violence against police.But there was no such debate in Maywood, whose mayor, Henderson Yarbrough, said the village council unanimously, proudly voted to give Hampton his due. There ought to be some footprints in the sand in relation to this man, said the Rev. Al Sampson, one of about 75 people at the ceremony. Fred Hampton represents part of the tradition of liberation freedom fighters. Killed in police raid in 69 Maywood s police chief attended the event, along with U.S. Representatives Danny Davis and Bobby Rush, a co-founder of the Illinois Black Panther Party.Hampton, who grew up in Maywood, and fellow Panther Mark Clark were gunned down by Chicago Police in a 1969 raid at Hampton s apartment. Hampton had helped bring the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party to national prominence and also brokered a nonaggression pact between gangs.


The man charged with murdering the British lawmaker Jo Cox made his first court appearance on Saturday, telling the court when asked his name, "My name is death to traitors, freedom for Britain. " Thomas Mair, 52, had been charged earlier Saturday with murder and several other offenses, including inflicting grievous bodily harm and possession of a firearm. Mr. Mair, of the town of Birstall, appeared briefly at Westminster Magistrates' Court in London. Once charges have been brought, British media law prohibits any reporting about the case that might prejudice a trial. Ms. Cox, 41, a member of Parliament who advocated for immigrants' causes, was gunned down on Thursday outside a library in Birstall, a town near the city of Leeds in northern England, as she was wrapping up a meeting with constituents. A man was also slightly injured in the attack. Her death came just days before a referendum on whether Britain should leave the European Union, and it led to an immediate suspension of campaigning on both sides out of respect for her memory. But Vote Leave, which supports Britain's departure from the bloc, said Friday that it would resume campaigning over the weekend. Issues of immigration and national identity have been central to the occasionally bitter clashes over the referendum, and critics say the tone of the debate has verged on racism and xenophobia. The killing of Ms. Cox — the first of a sitting member of Parliament since the Irish Republican Army assassinated Ian Gow, a Conservative lawmaker, in 1990 — elicited an outpouring of sympathy in Britain, where gun ownership is strictly regulated. Ms. Cox, a member of the opposition Labour Party, was elected to Parliament to represent the area of Batley and Spen only in May 2015. But she had already established a strong reputation. Prime Minister David Cameron and his rival Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party, both praised her as a rising star in British politics. President Obama was reported to have called Ms. Cox's husband to offer condolences. "The president noted that the world is a better place because of her selfless service to others, and that there can be no justification for this heinous crime, which robbed a family, a community, and a nation of a dedicated wife, mother, and public servant," Sky News reported, citing the White House.


Even before Sunday night's vicious presidential debate, Republican Donald Trump was losing ground in many of the states he needs to win to capture the presidency, according to the latest Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation Project analysis released on Monday. The project estimates that if the election had been held at the end of last week, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton had at least a 95 percent chance of winning enough states to reach the minimum 270 Electoral College votes needed to become the next president, based on polling between Sept. 30 and Oct. 7. _________________________ STATES OF THE NATION What would it take for Donald Trump to turn the map red? _________________________ Those odds had steadily grown from about 60 percent on Sept. 15 to almost 90 percent on Sept 30. In the last four weeks, her estimated margin of victory has grown from about 14 votes to 118, according to the project. The polling did not capture reaction to Trump's performance in Sunday's debate or the release on Friday of his 11-year-old sexually aggressive comments about women. The results, however, mirrored other estimates of her chances of winning the campaign. Statistical analysis outfit FiveThirtyEight, for example, put Clinton's chance of victory in the election at about 55 percent three weeks ago. Currently, they estimate the odds of a Clinton win at 82 percent. In the same period, the New York Times' estimates of the odds of a Clinton victory have also increased, from about 70 percent to 84 percent. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada and Florida are now leaning toward the Democratic candidate, according to the Reuters/Ipsos project, an online survey of about 15,000 people every week. Arizona and Iowa are in the too-close-to-call category after being considered likely Trump states. More broadly, the state-by-state results show how Trump's support is sliding. In the last week, he has lost ground in at least 21 states, including in seven of the 18 states where he is leading, while improving his position in 19 states. Meanwhile, Clinton lost ground in 12 states, including in three of the 23 states where she is leading, and improved her standing in 30 sates. Based on these results, Trump's best hope for a victory would require a precipitous drop in the number of Democratic voters going to the polls on Nov. 8 from expected levels, combined with a similarly large increase in Republican turnout. LOCKER-ROOM TALK Trump's crude comments about groping women and aggressively pursuing a married woman, captured on an open microphone, have sent his campaign into turmoil. The recording, first reported by The Washington Post, was made in 2005, in advance of a cameo appearance on a soap opera. Over the weekend, numerous Republican elected officials and candidates responded by calling for Trump to step aside. Trump responded to his waning support among some Republicans by calling them hypocrites. During Sunday's debate he apologized but said the comments were just "locker-room talk." He also attacked Bill Clinton's treatment of women and said Hillary Clinton should be in jail for her use of a private email server while secretary of state. Trump said that, if elected, he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate her. A nearly yearlong FBI investigation into the emails concluded earlier this year that no charges should be filed, although FBI Director James Comey said Clinton had been careless in her handling of sensitive material. The sexually explicit comments controversy followed published reports suggesting the Republican Party leadership was having an internal debate about shifting resources away from the presidential race and into U.S. House and Senate races. The Republicans currently control both branches of Congress. Many experts think control of the Senate could shift to the Democrats, although few are predicting the Republicans will lose control of the U.S. House of Representatives. Even before the weekend, the Trump campaign had struggled through two weeks of negative news coverage that began with the campaign's first presidential debate on Sept. 26, which Reuters/Ipsos polling suggested Clinton had won. Shortly after the first debate, the New York businessman also attacked – in tweets that began in the early hours of the morning – a former Miss Universe whom Clinton had referred to during the debate as an example of Trump degrading women. Also during that period, a New York Times report detailed how Trump lost nearly $1 billion in 1995, a loss that could be used to avoid paying federal taxes for up to 18 years, depending on his annual income. Clinton has had her share of woes as well, including the release of hacked emails last week of comments she appeared to have made to banks and big business. In the 2014 comments, she pushes for open trade and open borders, and takes a conciliatory approach to Wall Street, both positions she later backed away from.


While the media is focused on the horserace that will help determine politics for the next eight years, they re pretty much ignoring the fact that Washington is still in business and Republicans are busy being Republicans, which is to say that the rich will be getting richer while everyone else will be getting poorer.Ryan, who s not sure he can back Donald Trump, likely because Trump dares say the things that Republicans generally say behind closed doors, has released a new domestic plan, called, A Better Way. Ryan calls it his antidote to anger and division. The only problem is that if anyone pays attention to the plan, they will be angry at how he divides Americans into tax brackets, and as usual, the top tax brackets win.His plan includes a lot of Republican staples, like more military, less regulation, repealing Obamacare and deep cuts for poor people. In other words, same old cold-hearted Ayn Rand I got mine, now f*** you GOP themes. Perhaps the worst part, though, is the tax plan. There are a lot of tax cuts (mostly at the cost to poor people) and nearly all of those 99.6 percent go to the top one percent.A typical Republican tax cut will give about 40 percent of its tax cuts to the richest one percent. Ryan s plan, according to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, will give three-quarters of its tax cuts to the richest one percent in the first year. And that s only because the cuts are slowly phased in. By 2025, the highest-earning one percent will enjoy 99.6 percent of the tax cuts. The remaining 0.4 percent will be divided up among the other 99 percent of the country. The new Paul Ryan tax cuts make the Bush tax cuts look like socialism.Source: NY MagazineHere s the video:While Ryan likes to separate himself from Donald Trump, his plan proves his policies are no less racist and classist than the worst Trump can imagine. He s just hoping we won t notice.


There is no debating the fact that tensions between the United States and North Korea have reached a boiling point. But what s still being continuously debated is how to handle these tensions.President Trump threatened to use fire and fury against North Korea after it was revealed that North Korea successfully created a miniaturized nuclear weapon designed to fit inside its missiles. In an interview with NBC s Tim Russert in 1999, then businessman Donald Trump voiced his support for a pre-emptive military strike against North Korea.Trump told Russert that if he was President, a Trump administration would negotiate like crazy to get the best deal possible. If a deal was not possible, Trump said he would order a pre-emptive strike. He went on to successfully predict that that they re [North Korea] are going to have those weapons pointed all over the world and specifically at the United States. He goes further by saying that it only does the U.S. minimal good to discuss the economy and Social Security without addressing the biggest problem: nuclear proliferation. He also calls out previous politicians including Jimmy Carter for not facing this situation head on and negotiating properly.Following President Trump s warning North Korea over further provocations, the Hermit Kingdom has announced it is considering striking Guam. The North Korean military warned it may carry out a preemptive operation once the US shows signs of provocation , and that it is seriously considering a strategy to strike Guam with mid-to-long range missiles. As Trump moves forward, this interview serves as evidence that his strategy will hold up against North Korea.


Advocacy groups launched petitions and sent letters on Wednesday urging two of the biggest U.S. public pension funds to divest from an investment fund unless it stops paying one of President Donald Trump's companies to run a New York hotel. Reuters reported on April 26 that public pension funds in at least seven U.S. states periodically send millions of dollars to an investment fund that owns the upscale Trump SoHo Hotel and Condominium in New York City and pays a Trump company to run it, according to a Reuters review of public records. Two legal advocacy groups sent petitions to half a million of their members and letters urging state officials who oversee the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and the New York State Common Retirement Fund to reconsider their investments in CIM Fund III, which owns the Trump SoHo. "The money used for this investment comes from mandatory deductions from the paychecks of public employees. These employees are thus forced to indirectly subsidize President Trump beyond the Constitution's mandate of a fixed salary," said the letters from Free Speech for People in Newton, Massachusetts, and Courage Campaign in Los Angeles. Article II of the U.S. Constitution bars the president from receiving additional payments beyond his salary from state governments. The fees that public pension funds pay CIM may fall into that category, several constitutional lawyers have told Reuters. The White House in June rejected the allegation that government payments to Trump's businesses violated the Constitution and said "partisan politics" had motivated lawsuits challenging Trump's continued ownership of his businesses. The advocacy groups urged the pension funds either to divest from the CIM fund or work with other investors to demand that CIM end its relationship with the Trump Organization. CalPERS declined to comment, but CalPERS officials disclosed in response to a public records request that the pension fund paid CIM $1,722,418 in management fees for the first three months of 2017. In a statement, a spokesman for New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli noted that the CIM fund was in the process of gradually selling off the properties it owns and said the New York state pension fund "has limited rights as an investor and does not make or control CIM's investment choices." CIM said in a statement that it "is committed to creating attractive investment opportunities for its investors and then overseeing those investments to produce the best outcomes possible for the funds it manages." It added that the Trump SoHo was underperforming and said it was "working hard to restore its performance before we bring it to market." The White House and the Trump Organization did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Democratic officials and lawmakers have also raised concerns over the payment chain between the public pension funds and the Trump SoHo. The public pension funds' investments in CIM Fund III were cited in a June lawsuit that the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia filed against Trump, alleging that government payments to his businesses violated the Constitution. In May, the top Democrat on the Senate committee overseeing pensions asked the U.S. Office of Government Ethics to assess the constitutionality of the payments. The office said it was not authorized to probe presidential actions.