Datasets:

cjziems

/

Article-Bias-Prediction

like 2

dzOtRmthZn0xL2l8

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/GOP-midterms-wave-Hillary/2014/11/05/id/605341/

Huge GOP Win Recasts Hillary's Chances for 2016

2014-11-05

Melanie Batley

As Democrats absorb their historic losses from Tuesday 's midterm elections , pundits are already reflecting on what it means for the 2016 presidential prospects of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.According to Politico , Clinton will likely face much pressure from her party to declare her candidacy as soon as possible , giving supporters and donors a new leader to rally around.Clinton , on the other hand , may choose to delay a planned announcement so as to distance herself from the party 's losses.The losses could also give Clinton a new strategic opportunity to tap into the anti-Washington sentiment among voters that drove the midterm results.The results will make it easier for her to separate herself from President Barack Obama . At the same time , she might also be able to campaign against a GOP Senate that may struggle to unify the conservative and establishment wings of the party , Politico said.Clinton also will benefit from the success of minimum wage ballot initiatives in the red states of Arkansas and Nebraska . The results demonstrate a populist momentum behind an issue that she has been campaigning on for months.Meanwhile , the new political landscape gives the White House a chance to nudge Republicans further to the right , potentially giving a new center ground for the likely Democratic nominee in 2016 , USA Today reported.But the results are not all good news for Clinton.For one , the defeat of Democratic challenger Charlie Crist in Florida to Republican incumbent Rick Scott means that she will have less leverage in a pivotal state for the presidential election.The situation is similar with Republican Joni Ernst 's win in Iowa.Ernst will be a strong surrogate for the eventual GOP nominee and a detractor of Clinton 's , Politico said.New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen 's re-election victory , however , will likely boost Clinton 's chances in the early primary state.Separately , the results could prompt the Democratic party to `` pull to the left , '' USA Today Washington bureau chief Susan Page said , moving closer to the `` Elizabeth Warren wing '' of the party . `` There is another effect from this election tonight that could affect Hillary Clinton , and that is the fact that a lot of those moderate Democrats in the Senate are the ones who are endangered . You 're going to have a Democratic caucus that is more uniformly liberal , '' Page told MSNBC 's Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday , according to the Washington Free Beacon Separately , the poor showing of Democratic candidates could also be a bad reflection on Clinton , who made 45 campaign stops throughout the election season on their behalf.Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul , a possible GOP presidential rival , underscored that point by posting on his Facebook page numerous pictures of Clinton with Democrats who lost their races , along with the hashtag `` # HillarysLosers . `` `` Today , voters sent a message to President Obama and Hillary Clinton , rejecting their policies and many of their candidates , '' the post says .

As Democrats absorb their historic losses from Tuesday's midterm elections, pundits are already reflecting on what it means for the 2016 presidential prospects of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.According to Politico , Clinton will likely face much pressure from her party to declare her candidacy as soon as possible, giving supporters and donors a new leader to rally around.Clinton, on the other hand, may choose to delay a planned announcement so as to distance herself from the party's losses.The losses could also give Clinton a new strategic opportunity to tap into the anti-Washington sentiment among voters that drove the midterm results.The results will make it easier for her to separate herself from President Barack Obama. At the same time, she might also be able to campaign against a GOP Senate that may struggle to unify the conservative and establishment wings of the party, Politico said.Clinton also will benefit from the success of minimum wage ballot initiatives in the red states of Arkansas and Nebraska. The results demonstrate a populist momentum behind an issue that she has been campaigning on for months.Meanwhile, the new political landscape gives the White House a chance to nudge Republicans further to the right, potentially giving a new center ground for the likely Democratic nominee in 2016, USA Today reported.But the results are not all good news for Clinton.For one, the defeat of Democratic challenger Charlie Crist in Florida to Republican incumbent Rick Scott means that she will have less leverage in a pivotal state for the presidential election.The situation is similar with Republican Joni Ernst's win in Iowa.Ernst will be a strong surrogate for the eventual GOP nominee and a detractor of Clinton's, Politico said.New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen's re-election victory, however, will likely boost Clinton's chances in the early primary state.Separately, the results could prompt the Democratic party to "pull to the left," USA Today Washington bureau chief Susan Page said, moving closer to the "Elizabeth Warren wing" of the party."There is another effect from this election tonight that could affect Hillary Clinton, and that is the fact that a lot of those moderate Democrats in the Senate are the ones who are endangered. You're going to have a Democratic caucus that is more uniformly liberal," Page told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday, according to the Washington Free Beacon Separately, the poor showing of Democratic candidates could also be a bad reflection on Clinton, who made 45 campaign stops throughout the election season on their behalf.Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul , a possible GOP presidential rival, underscored that point by posting on his Facebook page numerous pictures of Clinton with Democrats who lost their races, along with the hashtag "#HillarysLosers.""Today, voters sent a message to President Obama and Hillary Clinton, rejecting their policies and many of their candidates," the post says.

www.newsmax.com

right

dzOtRmthZn0xL2l8

test

8AnzuMk478xHQsx6

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/22/5_signs_america_is_devolving_into_a_plutocracy_partner/

5 signs America is devolving into a plutocracy

2015-03-22

Have you ever undertaken some task you felt less than qualified for , but knew that someone needed to do ? Consider this piece my version of that , and let me put what I do understand about it in a nutshell : based on developments in our post-9/11 world , we could be watching the birth of a new American political system and way of governing for which , as yet , we have no name . And here ’ s what I find strange : the evidence of this , however inchoate , is all around us and yet it ’ s as if we can ’ t bear to take it in or make sense of it or even say that it might be so . Let me make my case , however minimally , based on five areas in which at least the faint outlines of that new system seem to be emerging : political campaigns and elections ; the privatization of Washington through the marriage of the corporation and the state ; the de-legitimization of our traditional system of governance ; the empowerment of the national security state as an untouchable fourth branch of government ; and the demobilization of `` we the people . '' Whatever this may add up to , it seems to be based , at least in part , on the increasing concentration of wealth and power in a new plutocratic class and in that ever-expanding national security state . Certainly , something out of the ordinary is underway , and yet its birth pangs , while widely reported , are generally categorized as aspects of an exceedingly familiar American system somewhat in disarray . Check out the news about the 2016 presidential election and you ’ ll quickly feel a sense of been-there , done-that . As a start , the two names most associated with it , Bush and Clinton , couldn ’ t be more familiar , highlighting as they do the curiously dynastic quality of recent presidential contests . ( If a Bush or Clinton should win in 2016 and again in 2020 , a member of one of those families will have controlled the presidency for 28 of the last 36 years . ) Take , for instance , “ Why 2016 Is Likely to Become a Close Race , ” a recent piece Nate Cohn wrote for my hometown paper . A noted election statistician , Cohn points out that , despite Hillary Clinton ’ s historically staggering lead in Democratic primary polls ( and lack of serious challengers ) , she could lose the general election . He bases this on what we know about her polling popularity from the Monica Lewinsky moment of the 1990s to the present . Cohn assures readers that Hillary will not “ be a Democratic Eisenhower , a popular , senior statesperson who cruises to an easy victory. ” It ’ s the sort of comparison that offers a certain implicit reassurance about the near future . ( No , Virginia , we haven ’ t left the world of politics in which former general and president Dwight D. Eisenhower can still be a touchstone . ) Cohn may be right when it comes to Hillary ’ s electability , but this is not Dwight D. Eisenhower ’ s or even Al Gore ’ s America . If you want a measure of that , consider this year ’ s primaries . I mean , of course , the 2015 ones . Once upon a time , the campaign season started with candidates flocking to Iowa and New Hampshire early in the election year to establish their bona fides among party voters . These days , however , those are already late primaries . The early primaries , the ones that count , take place among a small group of millionaires andbillionaires , a new caste flush with cash who will personally , or through complex networks of funders , pour multi-millions of dollars into the campaigns of candidates of their choice . So the early primaries -- this year mainly a Republican affair -- are taking place in resort spots like Las Vegas , Rancho Mirage , California , and Sea Island , Georgia , as has been widely reported . These “ contests ” involve groveling politicians appearing at the beck and call of the rich and powerful , and so reflect our new 1 % electoral system . ( The main pro-Hillary super PAC , for instance , is aiming for a kitty of $ 500 million heading into 2016 , while the Koch brothers network has already promised to drop almost $ 1 billion into the coming campaign season , doubling their efforts in the last presidential election year . ) Ever since the Supreme Court opened up the ultimate floodgates with its 2010 Citizens United decision , each subsequent election has seen record-breaking amounts of money donated and spent . The 2012 presidential campaign was the first $ 2 billion election ; campaign 2016 is expected to hit the $ 5 billion mark without breaking a sweat . By comparison , according to Burton Abrams and Russell Settle in their study , “ The Effect of Broadcasting on Political Campaign Spending , ” Republicans and Democrats spent just under $ 13 million combined in 1956 when Eisenhower won his second term . In the meantime , it ’ s still true that the 2016 primaries will involve actual voters , as will the election that follows . The previous election season , the midterms of 2014 , cost almost $ 4 billion , a record despite the number of small donors continuing to drop . It also represented the lowest midterm voter turnout since World War II . ( See : demobilization of the public , below -- and add in the demobilization of the Democrats as a real party , the breaking of organized labor , the fragmenting of the Republican Party , and the return of voter suppression laws visibly meant to limit the franchise . ) It hardly matters just what the flood of new money does in such elections , when you can feel the weight of inequality bearing down on the whole process in a way that is pushing us somewhere new . 2 . The Privatization of the State ( or the U.S. as a Prospective Third-World Nation ) In the recent coverage of the Hillary Clinton email flap , you can find endless references to the Clintons of yore in wink-wink , you-know-how-they-are-style reporting ; and yes , she did delete a lot of emails ; and yes , it ’ s an election year coming and , as everyone points out , the Republicans are going to do their best to keep the email issue alive until hell freezes over , etc. , etc . Again , the coverage , while eyeball gluing , is in a you ’ ve-seen-it-all-before , you ’ ll-see-it-all-again-mode . However , you haven ’ t seen it all before . The most striking aspect of this little brouhaha lies in what ’ s most obvious but least highlighted . An American secretary of state chose to set up her own private , safeguarded email system for doing government work ; that is , she chose to privatize her communications . If this were Cairo , it might not warrant a second thought . But it didn ’ t happen in some third-world state . It was the act of a key official of the planet ’ s reigning ( or thrashing ) superpower , which -- even if it wasn ’ t the first time such a thing had ever occurred -- should be taken as a tiny symptom of something that couldn ’ t be larger or , in the long stretch of history , newer : the ongoing privatization of the American state , or at least the national security part of it . Though the marriage of the state and the corporation has a pre-history , the full-scale arrival of the warrior corporation only occurred after 9/11 . Someday , that will undoubtedly be seen as a seminal moment in the formation of whatever may be coming in this country . Only 13 years later , there is no part of the war state that has not experienced major forms of privatization . The U.S. military could no longer go to war without its crony corporationsdoing KP and guard duty , delivering the mail , building the bases , and being involved in just about all of its activities , including training the militaries of foreign allies and even fighting . Such warrior corporations are now involved in every aspect of the national security state , including torture , drone strikes , and -- to the tune of hundreds of thousands of contract employees like Edward Snowden -- intelligence gathering and spying . You name it and , in these years , it ’ s been at least partly privatized . All you have to do is read reporter James Risen ’ s recent book , Pay Any Price , on how the global war on terror was fought in Washington , and you know that privatization has brought something else with it : corruption , scams , and the gaming of the system for profits of a sort that might normally be associated with a typical third-world kleptocracy . And all of this , a new world being born , was reflected in a tiny way in Hillary Clinton ’ s very personal decision about her emails . Though it ’ s a subject I know so much less about , this kind of privatization ( and the corruption that goes with it ) is undoubtedly underway in the non-war-making , non-security-projecting part of the American state as well . On a third front , American “ confidence ” in the three classic check-and-balance branches of government , as measured by polling outfits , continues to fall . In 2014 , Americans expressing a “ great deal of confidence ” in the Supreme Court hit a new low of 23 % ; in the presidency , it was 11 % , and in Congress a bottom-scraping 5 % . ( The military , on the other hand , registers at 50 % . ) The figures for “ hardly any confidence at all ” are respectively 20 % , 44 % , and more than 50 % . All are in or near record-breaking territory for the last four decades . It seems fair to say that in recent years Congress has been engaged in a process of delegitimizing itself . Where that body once had the genuine power to declare war , for example , it is now “ debating ” in a desultory fashion an “ authorization ” for a war against the Islamic State in Syria , Iraq , and possibly elsewhere that has already been underway for eight months and whose course , it seems , will be essentially unaltered , whether Congress authorizes it or not . What would President Harry Truman , who once famously ran a presidential campaign against a “ do-nothing ” Congress , have to say about a body that truly can do just about nothing ? Or rather , to give the Republican war hawks in that new Congress their due , not quite nothing . They are proving capable of acting effectively to delegitimize the presidency as well . House Majority Leader John Boehner ’ s invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to undercut the president 's Iranian nuclear negotiations and the lettersigned by 47 Republican senators and directed to the Iranian ayatollahs are striking examples of this . They are visibly meant to tear down an “ imperial presidency ” that Republicans gloried in not so long ago . The radical nature of that letter , not as an act of state but of its de-legitimization , was noted even in Iran , where fundamentalist Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei proclaimed it “ a sign of a decline in political ethics and the destruction of the American establishment from within. ” Here , however , the letter is either being covered as a singularly extreme one-off act ( “ treason ! ” ) or , as Jon Stewart did on “ The Daily Show , ” as part of a repetitive tit-for-tat between Democrats and Republicans over who controls foreign policy . It is , in fact , neither . It represents part of a growing pattern in which Congress becomes an ever less effective body , except in its willingness to take on and potentially take out the presidency . In the twenty-first century , all that “ small government ” Republicans and “ big government ” Democrats can agree on is offering essentially unconditional support to the military and the national security state . The Republican Party -- its various factions increasingly at each other ’ s throats almost as often as at those of the Democrats -- seems reasonably united solely on issues of war-making and security . As for the Democrats , an unpopular administration , facing constant attack by those who loath President Obama , has kept its footing in part by allying with and fusing with the national security state . A president who came into office rejecting torture and promoting sunshine and transparency in government has , in the course of six-plus years , come to identify himself almost totally with the U.S. military , the CIA , the NSA , and the like . While it has launched an unprecedented campaign against whistleblowers and leakers ( as well as sunshine and transparency ) , the Obama White House has proved a powerful enabler of , but also remarkably dependent upon , that state-within-a-state , a strange fate for “ the imperial presidency . ” 4 . The Rise of the National Security State as the Fourth Branch of Government One “ branch ” of government is , however , visibly on the rise and rapidly gaining independence from just about any kind of oversight . Its ability to enact its wishes with almost no opposition in Washington is a striking feature of our moment . But while the symptoms of this process are regularly reported , the overall phenomenon -- the creation of ade facto fourth branch of government -- gets remarkably little attention . In the war on terror era , the national security state has come into its own . Its growth has been phenomenal . Though it ’ s seldom pointed out , it should be considered remarkable that in this period we gained a second full-scale “ defense department , ” the Department of Homeland Security , and that it and the Pentagon have become even more entrenched , each surrounded by its own growing “ complex ” of private corporations , lobbyists , and allied politicians . The militarization of the country has , in these years , proceeded apace . Meanwhile , the duplication to be found in the U.S. Intelligence Community with its 17 major agencies and outfits is staggering . Its growing ability to surveil and spy on a global scale , including on its own citizens , puts the totalitarian states of the twentieth century to shame . That the various parts of the national security state can act in just about any fashion without fear of accountability in a court of law is by now too obvious to belabor . As wealth has traveled upwards in American society in ways not seen since the first Gilded Age , so taxpayer dollars have migrated into the national security state in an almost plutocratic fashion . New reports regularly surface about the further activities of parts of that state . In recent weeks , for instance , we learned from Jeremy Scahill and Josh Begley of the Intercept that the CIA has spent years trying to break the encryption on Apple iPhones and iPads ; it has , that is , been aggressively seeking to attack an all-American corporation ( even if significant parts of its production process are actually in China ) . Meanwhile , Devlin Barrett of the Wall Street Journal reported that the CIA , an agency barred from domestic spying operations of any sort , has been helping the U.S . Marshals Service ( part of the Justice Department ) create an airborne digital dragnet on American cell phones . Planes flying out of five U.S. cities carry a form of technology that `` mimics a cellphone tower . '' This technology , developed and tested in distant American war zones and now brought to `` the homeland , '' is just part of the ongoing militarization of the country from its borders to its police forces . And there ’ s hardly been a week since Edward Snowden first released crucial NSA documents in June 2013 when such “ advances ” haven ’ t been in the news . News also regularly bubbles up about the further expansion , reorganization , and upgrading of parts of the intelligence world , the sorts of reports that have become the barely noticed background hum of our lives . Recently , for instance , Director John Brennan announced a major reorganization of the CIA meant to break down the classic separation between spies and analysts at the Agency , while creating a new Directorate of Digital Innovation responsible for , among other things , cyberwarfare and cyberespionage . At about the same time , according to the New York Times , the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications , an obscure State Department agency , was given a new and expansive role in coordinating “ all the existing attempts at countermessaging [ against online propaganda by terror outfits like the Islamic State ] by much larger federal departments , including the Pentagon , Homeland Security and intelligence agencies . ” This sort of thing is par for the course in an era in which the national security state has only grown stronger , endlessly elaborating , duplicating , and overlapping the various parts of its increasingly labyrinthine structure . And keep in mind that , in a structure that has fought hardto keep what it 's doing cloaked in secrecy , there is so much more that we don ’ t know . Still , we should know enough to realize that this ongoing process reflects something new in our American world ( even if no one cares to notice ) . In The Age of Acquiescence , a new book about America ’ s two Gilded Ages , Steve Fraser asks why it was that , in the nineteenth century , another period of plutocratic excesses , concentration of wealth and inequality , buying of politicians , and attempts to demobilize the public , Americans took to the streets with such determination and in remarkable numbers over long periods of time to protest their treatment , and stayed there even when the brute power of the state was called out against them . In our own moment , Fraser wonders , why has the silence of the public in the face of similar developments been so striking ? After all , a grim new American system is arising before our eyes . Everything we once learned in the civics textbooks of our childhoods about how our government works now seems askew , while the growth of poverty , the flatlining of wages , the rise of the .01 % , the collapse of labor , and the militarization of society are all evident . The process of demobilizing the public certainly began with the military . It was initially a response to the disruptive and rebellious draftees of the Vietnam-era . In 1973 , at the stroke of a presidential pen , the citizen ’ s army was declared no more , the raising of new recruits was turned over to advertising agencies ( a preview of the privatization of the state to come ) , and the public was sent home , never again to meddle in military affairs . Since 2001 , that form of demobilization has been etched in stone and transformed into a way of life in the name of the “ safety ” and “ security ” of the public . Since then , “ we the people ” have made ourselves felt in only three disparate ways : from the left in the Occupy movement , which , with its slogans about the 1 % and the 99 % , put the issue of growing economic inequality on the map of American consciousness ; from the right , in the Tea Party movement , a complex expression of discontent backed and at least partially funded by right-wing operatives and billionaires , and aimed at the de-legitimization of the “ nanny state ” ; and the recent round of post-Ferguson protests spurred at least in part by the militarization of the police in black and brown communities around the country . Otherwise , a moment of increasing extremity has also been a moment of -- to use Fraser ’ s word -- “ acquiescence. ” Someday , we ’ ll assumedly understand far better how this all came to be . In the meantime , let me be as clear as I can be about something that seems murky indeed : this period doesn ’ t represent a version , no matter how perverse or extreme , of politics as usual ; nor is the 2016 campaign an election as usual ; nor are we experiencing Washington as usual . Put together our 1 % elections , the privatization of our government , the de-legitimization of Congress and the presidency , as well as the empowerment of the national security state and the U.S. military , and add in the demobilization of the American public ( in the name of protecting us from terrorism ) , and you have something like a new ballgame . While significant planning has been involved in all of this , there may be no ruling pattern or design . Much of it may be happening in a purely seat-of-the-pants fashion . In response , there has been no urge to officially declare that something new is afoot , let alone convene a new constitutional convention . Still , don ’ t for a second think that the American political system isn ’ t being rewritten on the run by interested parties in Congress , our present crop of billionaires , corporate interests , lobbyists , the Pentagon , and the officials of the national security state . Out of the chaos of this prolonged moment and inside the shell of the old system , a new culture , a new kind of politics , a new kind of governance is being born right before our eyes . Call it what you want . But call it something . Stop pretending it ’ s not happening .

Have you ever undertaken some task you felt less than qualified for, but knew that someone needed to do? Consider this piece my version of that, and let me put what I do understand about it in a nutshell: based on developments in our post-9/11 world, we could be watching the birth of a new American political system and way of governing for which, as yet, we have no name. And here’s what I find strange: the evidence of this, however inchoate, is all around us and yet it’s as if we can’t bear to take it in or make sense of it or even say that it might be so. Advertisement: Let me make my case, however minimally, based on five areas in which at least the faint outlines of that new system seem to be emerging: political campaigns and elections; the privatization of Washington through the marriage of the corporation and the state; the de-legitimization of our traditional system of governance; the empowerment of the national security state as an untouchable fourth branch of government; and the demobilization of "we the people." Whatever this may add up to, it seems to be based, at least in part, on the increasing concentration of wealth and power in a new plutocratic class and in that ever-expanding national security state. Certainly, something out of the ordinary is underway, and yet its birth pangs, while widely reported, are generally categorized as aspects of an exceedingly familiar American system somewhat in disarray. 1. 1% Elections Advertisement: Check out the news about the 2016 presidential election and you’ll quickly feel a sense of been-there, done-that. As a start, the two names most associated with it, Bush and Clinton, couldn’t be more familiar, highlighting as they do the curiously dynastic quality of recent presidential contests. (If a Bush or Clinton should win in 2016 and again in 2020, a member of one of those families will have controlled the presidency for 28 of the last 36 years.) Take, for instance, “Why 2016 Is Likely to Become a Close Race,” a recent piece Nate Cohn wrote for my hometown paper. A noted election statistician, Cohn points out that, despite Hillary Clinton’s historically staggering lead in Democratic primary polls (and lack of serious challengers), she could lose the general election. He bases this on what we know about her polling popularity from the Monica Lewinsky moment of the 1990s to the present. Cohn assures readers that Hillary will not “be a Democratic Eisenhower, a popular, senior statesperson who cruises to an easy victory.” It’s the sort of comparison that offers a certain implicit reassurance about the near future. (No, Virginia, we haven’t left the world of politics in which former general and president Dwight D. Eisenhower can still be a touchstone.) Cohn may be right when it comes to Hillary’s electability, but this is not Dwight D. Eisenhower’s or even Al Gore’s America. If you want a measure of that, consider this year’s primaries. I mean, of course, the 2015 ones. Once upon a time, the campaign season started with candidates flocking to Iowa and New Hampshire early in the election year to establish their bona fides among party voters. These days, however, those are already late primaries. Advertisement: The early primaries, the ones that count, take place among a small group of millionaires andbillionaires, a new caste flush with cash who will personally, or through complex networks of funders, pour multi-millions of dollars into the campaigns of candidates of their choice. So the early primaries -- this year mainly a Republican affair -- are taking place in resort spots like Las Vegas, Rancho Mirage, California, and Sea Island, Georgia, as has been widely reported. These “contests” involve groveling politicians appearing at the beck and call of the rich and powerful, and so reflect our new 1% electoral system. (The main pro-Hillary super PAC, for instance, is aiming for a kitty of $500 million heading into 2016, while the Koch brothers network has already promised to drop almost $1 billion into the coming campaign season, doubling their efforts in the last presidential election year.) Ever since the Supreme Court opened up the ultimate floodgates with its 2010 Citizens United decision, each subsequent election has seen record-breaking amounts of money donated and spent. The 2012 presidential campaign was the first $2 billion election; campaign 2016 is expected to hit the $5 billion mark without breaking a sweat. By comparison, according to Burton Abrams and Russell Settle in their study, “The Effect of Broadcasting on Political Campaign Spending,” Republicans and Democrats spent just under $13 million combined in 1956 when Eisenhower won his second term. Advertisement: In the meantime, it’s still true that the 2016 primaries will involve actual voters, as will the election that follows. The previous election season, the midterms of 2014, cost almost $4 billion, a record despite the number of small donors continuing to drop. It also represented the lowest midterm voter turnout since World War II. (See: demobilization of the public, below -- and add in the demobilization of the Democrats as a real party, the breaking of organized labor, the fragmenting of the Republican Party, and the return of voter suppression laws visibly meant to limit the franchise.) It hardly matters just what the flood of new money does in such elections, when you can feel the weight of inequality bearing down on the whole process in a way that is pushing us somewhere new. 2. The Privatization of the State (or the U.S. as a Prospective Third-World Nation) In the recent coverage of the Hillary Clinton email flap, you can find endless references to the Clintons of yore in wink-wink, you-know-how-they-are-style reporting; and yes, she did delete a lot of emails; and yes, it’s an election year coming and, as everyone points out, the Republicans are going to do their best to keep the email issue alive until hell freezes over, etc., etc. Again, the coverage, while eyeball gluing, is in a you’ve-seen-it-all-before, you’ll-see-it-all-again-mode. Advertisement: However, you haven’t seen it all before. The most striking aspect of this little brouhaha lies in what’s most obvious but least highlighted. An American secretary of state chose to set up her own private, safeguarded email system for doing government work; that is, she chose to privatize her communications. If this were Cairo, it might not warrant a second thought. But it didn’t happen in some third-world state. It was the act of a key official of the planet’s reigning (or thrashing) superpower, which -- even if it wasn’t the first time such a thing had ever occurred -- should be taken as a tiny symptom of something that couldn’t be larger or, in the long stretch of history, newer: the ongoing privatization of the American state, or at least the national security part of it. Though the marriage of the state and the corporation has a pre-history, the full-scale arrival of the warrior corporation only occurred after 9/11. Someday, that will undoubtedly be seen as a seminal moment in the formation of whatever may be coming in this country. Only 13 years later, there is no part of the war state that has not experienced major forms of privatization. The U.S. military could no longer go to war without its crony corporationsdoing KP and guard duty, delivering the mail, building the bases, and being involved in just about all of its activities, including training the militaries of foreign allies and even fighting. Such warrior corporations are now involved in every aspect of the national security state, including torture, drone strikes, and -- to the tune of hundreds of thousands of contract employees like Edward Snowden -- intelligence gathering and spying. You name it and, in these years, it’s been at least partly privatized. All you have to do is read reporter James Risen’s recent book, Pay Any Price, on how the global war on terror was fought in Washington, and you know that privatization has brought something else with it: corruption, scams, and the gaming of the system for profits of a sort that might normally be associated with a typical third-world kleptocracy. And all of this, a new world being born, was reflected in a tiny way in Hillary Clinton’s very personal decision about her emails. Advertisement: Though it’s a subject I know so much less about, this kind of privatization (and the corruption that goes with it) is undoubtedly underway in the non-war-making, non-security-projecting part of the American state as well. 3. The De-legitimization of Congress and the Presidency On a third front, American “confidence” in the three classic check-and-balance branches of government, as measured by polling outfits, continues to fall. In 2014, Americans expressing a “great deal of confidence” in the Supreme Court hit a new low of 23%; in the presidency, it was 11%, and in Congress a bottom-scraping 5%. (The military, on the other hand, registers at 50%.) The figures for “hardly any confidence at all” are respectively 20%, 44%, and more than 50%. All are in or near record-breaking territory for the last four decades. It seems fair to say that in recent years Congress has been engaged in a process of delegitimizing itself. Where that body once had the genuine power to declare war, for example, it is now “debating” in a desultory fashion an “authorization” for a war against the Islamic State in Syria, Iraq, and possibly elsewhere that has already been underway for eight months and whose course, it seems, will be essentially unaltered, whether Congress authorizes it or not. Advertisement: What would President Harry Truman, who once famously ran a presidential campaign against a “do-nothing” Congress, have to say about a body that truly can do just about nothing? Or rather, to give the Republican war hawks in that new Congress their due, not quite nothing. They are proving capable of acting effectively to delegitimize the presidency as well. House Majority Leader John Boehner’s invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to undercut the president's Iranian nuclear negotiations and the lettersigned by 47 Republican senators and directed to the Iranian ayatollahs are striking examples of this. They are visibly meant to tear down an “imperial presidency” that Republicans gloried in not so long ago. The radical nature of that letter, not as an act of state but of its de-legitimization, was noted even in Iran, where fundamentalist Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei proclaimed it “a sign of a decline in political ethics and the destruction of the American establishment from within.” Here, however, the letter is either being covered as a singularly extreme one-off act (“treason!”) or, as Jon Stewart did on “The Daily Show,” as part of a repetitive tit-for-tat between Democrats and Republicans over who controls foreign policy. It is, in fact, neither. It represents part of a growing pattern in which Congress becomes an ever less effective body, except in its willingness to take on and potentially take out the presidency. In the twenty-first century, all that “small government” Republicans and “big government” Democrats can agree on is offering essentially unconditional support to the military and the national security state. The Republican Party -- its various factions increasingly at each other’s throats almost as often as at those of the Democrats -- seems reasonably united solely on issues of war-making and security. As for the Democrats, an unpopular administration, facing constant attack by those who loath President Obama, has kept its footing in part by allying with and fusing with the national security state. A president who came into office rejecting torture and promoting sunshine and transparency in government has, in the course of six-plus years, come to identify himself almost totally with the U.S. military, the CIA, the NSA, and the like. While it has launched an unprecedented campaign against whistleblowers and leakers (as well as sunshine and transparency), the Obama White House has proved a powerful enabler of, but also remarkably dependent upon, that state-within-a-state, a strange fate for “the imperial presidency.” 4. The Rise of the National Security State as the Fourth Branch of Government Advertisement: One “branch” of government is, however, visibly on the rise and rapidly gaining independence from just about any kind of oversight. Its ability to enact its wishes with almost no opposition in Washington is a striking feature of our moment. But while the symptoms of this process are regularly reported, the overall phenomenon -- the creation of ade facto fourth branch of government -- gets remarkably little attention. In the war on terror era, the national security state has come into its own. Its growth has been phenomenal. Though it’s seldom pointed out, it should be considered remarkable that in this period we gained a second full-scale “defense department,” the Department of Homeland Security, and that it and the Pentagon have become even more entrenched, each surrounded by its own growing “complex” of private corporations, lobbyists, and allied politicians. The militarization of the country has, in these years, proceeded apace. Meanwhile, the duplication to be found in the U.S. Intelligence Community with its 17 major agencies and outfits is staggering. Its growing ability to surveil and spy on a global scale, including on its own citizens, puts the totalitarian states of the twentieth century to shame. That the various parts of the national security state can act in just about any fashion without fear of accountability in a court of law is by now too obvious to belabor. As wealth has traveled upwards in American society in ways not seen since the first Gilded Age, so taxpayer dollars have migrated into the national security state in an almost plutocratic fashion. New reports regularly surface about the further activities of parts of that state. In recent weeks, for instance, we learned from Jeremy Scahill and Josh Begley of the Intercept that the CIA has spent years trying to break the encryption on Apple iPhones and iPads; it has, that is, been aggressively seeking to attack an all-American corporation (even if significant parts of its production process are actually in China). Meanwhile, Devlin Barrett of the Wall Street Journal reported that the CIA, an agency barred from domestic spying operations of any sort, has been helping the U.S. Marshals Service (part of the Justice Department) create an airborne digital dragnet on American cell phones. Planes flying out of five U.S. cities carry a form of technology that "mimics a cellphone tower." This technology, developed and tested in distant American war zones and now brought to "the homeland," is just part of the ongoing militarization of the country from its borders to its police forces. And there’s hardly been a week since Edward Snowden first released crucial NSA documents in June 2013 when such “advances” haven’t been in the news. News also regularly bubbles up about the further expansion, reorganization, and upgrading of parts of the intelligence world, the sorts of reports that have become the barely noticed background hum of our lives. Recently, for instance, Director John Brennan announced a major reorganization of the CIA meant to break down the classic separation between spies and analysts at the Agency, while creating a new Directorate of Digital Innovation responsible for, among other things, cyberwarfare and cyberespionage. At about the same time, according to the New York Times, the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, an obscure State Department agency, was given a new and expansive role in coordinating “all the existing attempts at countermessaging [against online propaganda by terror outfits like the Islamic State] by much larger federal departments, including the Pentagon, Homeland Security and intelligence agencies.” Advertisement: This sort of thing is par for the course in an era in which the national security state has only grown stronger, endlessly elaborating, duplicating, and overlapping the various parts of its increasingly labyrinthine structure. And keep in mind that, in a structure that has fought hardto keep what it's doing cloaked in secrecy, there is so much more that we don’t know. Still, we should know enough to realize that this ongoing process reflects something new in our American world (even if no one cares to notice). 5. The Demobilization of the American People In The Age of Acquiescence, a new book about America’s two Gilded Ages, Steve Fraser asks why it was that, in the nineteenth century, another period of plutocratic excesses, concentration of wealth and inequality, buying of politicians, and attempts to demobilize the public, Americans took to the streets with such determination and in remarkable numbers over long periods of time to protest their treatment, and stayed there even when the brute power of the state was called out against them. In our own moment, Fraser wonders, why has the silence of the public in the face of similar developments been so striking? After all, a grim new American system is arising before our eyes. Everything we once learned in the civics textbooks of our childhoods about how our government works now seems askew, while the growth of poverty, the flatlining of wages, the rise of the .01%, the collapse of labor, and the militarization of society are all evident. The process of demobilizing the public certainly began with the military. It was initially a response to the disruptive and rebellious draftees of the Vietnam-era. In 1973, at the stroke of a presidential pen, the citizen’s army was declared no more, the raising of new recruits was turned over to advertising agencies (a preview of the privatization of the state to come), and the public was sent home, never again to meddle in military affairs. Since 2001, that form of demobilization has been etched in stone and transformed into a way of life in the name of the “safety” and “security” of the public. Since then, “we the people” have made ourselves felt in only three disparate ways: from the left in the Occupy movement, which, with its slogans about the 1% and the 99%, put the issue of growing economic inequality on the map of American consciousness; from the right, in the Tea Party movement, a complex expression of discontent backed and at least partially funded by right-wing operatives and billionaires, and aimed at the de-legitimization of the “nanny state”; and the recent round of post-Ferguson protests spurred at least in part by the militarization of the police in black and brown communities around the country. The Birth of a New System Otherwise, a moment of increasing extremity has also been a moment of -- to use Fraser’s word -- “acquiescence.” Someday, we’ll assumedly understand far better how this all came to be. In the meantime, let me be as clear as I can be about something that seems murky indeed: this period doesn’t represent a version, no matter how perverse or extreme, of politics as usual; nor is the 2016 campaign an election as usual; nor are we experiencing Washington as usual. Put together our 1% elections, the privatization of our government, the de-legitimization of Congress and the presidency, as well as the empowerment of the national security state and the U.S. military, and add in the demobilization of the American public (in the name of protecting us from terrorism), and you have something like a new ballgame. While significant planning has been involved in all of this, there may be no ruling pattern or design. Much of it may be happening in a purely seat-of-the-pants fashion. In response, there has been no urge to officially declare that something new is afoot, let alone convene a new constitutional convention. Still, don’t for a second think that the American political system isn’t being rewritten on the run by interested parties in Congress, our present crop of billionaires, corporate interests, lobbyists, the Pentagon, and the officials of the national security state. Out of the chaos of this prolonged moment and inside the shell of the old system, a new culture, a new kind of politics, a new kind of governance is being born right before our eyes. Call it what you want. But call it something. Stop pretending it’s not happening.

www.salon.com

left

8AnzuMk478xHQsx6

test

Rdwf7Pg85Qf3xuLo

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/31/barney_frank_drops_a_bombshell_how_a_shocking_anecdote_explains_the_financial_crisis/

Barney Frank drops a bombshell: How a shocking anecdote explains the financial crisis

2015-03-31

David Dayen

Barney Frank has a new autobiography out . He ’ s long been one of the nation ’ s most quotable politicians . And Washington lives in perpetual longing for intra-party conflict . So why has a critical revelation from Frank ’ s book , one that implicates the most powerful Democrat in the nation , been entirely expunged from the record ? The media has thus far focused on Frank ’ s wrestling with being a closeted gay congressman , or his comment that Joe Biden “ can ’ t keep his mouth shut or his hands to himself. ” But nobody has focused on Frank ’ s allegation that Barack Obama refused to extract foreclosure relief from the nation ’ s largest banks , as a condition for their receipt of hundreds of billions of dollars in bailout money . The anecdote comes on page 295 of `` Frank , '' a title that the former chair of the House Financial Services Committee holds true to throughout the book . The TARP legislation included specific instructions to use a section of the funds to prevent foreclosures . Without that language , TARP would not have passed ; Democratic lawmakers who helped defeat TARP on its first vote cited the foreclosure mitigation piece as key to their eventual reconsideration . TARP was doled out in two tranches of $ 350 billion each . The Bush administration , still in charge during TARP ’ s passage in October 2008 , used none of the first tranche on mortgage relief , nor did Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson use any leverage over firms receiving the money to persuade them to lower mortgage balances and prevent foreclosures . Frank made his anger clear over this ignoring of Congress ’ intentions at a hearing with Paulson that November . Paulson argued in his defense , “ the imminent threat of financial collapse required him to focus single-mindedly on the immediate survival of financial institutions , no matter how worthy other goals were . ” Whether or not you believe that sky-is-falling narrative , Frank kept pushing for action on foreclosures , which by the end of 2008 threatened one in 10 homes in America . With the first tranche of TARP funds running out by the end of the year , Frank writes , “ Paulson agreed to include homeowner relief in his upcoming request for a second tranche of TARP funding . But there was one condition : He would only do it if the President-elect asked him to . ” Frank goes on to explain that Obama rejected the request , saying “ we have only one president at a time. ” Frank writes , “ my frustrated response was that he had overstated the number of presidents currently on duty , ” which equally angered both the outgoing and incoming officeholders . Obama ’ s unwillingness to take responsibility before holding full authority doesn ’ t match other decisions made at that time . We know from David Axelrod ’ s book that the Obama transition did urge the Bush administration to provide TARP loans to GM and Chrysler to keep them in business . So it was OK to help auto companies prior to Inauguration Day , just not homeowners . In the end , the Obama transition wrote a letter promising to get to the foreclosure relief later , if Congress would only pass the second tranche of TARP funds . Congress fulfilled its obligation , and the Administration didn ’ t . The promised foreclosure mitigation efforts failed to help , and in many cases abjectly hurt homeowners . This is not a new charge from Frank : he first leveled it in May 2012 in an interview with New York magazine . Nobody in the Obama Administration has ever denied the anecdote , but of course hardly anybody bothered to publicize it , save for a couple financial blogs . I suppose those reviewing `` Frank '' can offer an excuse about this being “ old news , ” but that claims suffers from the “ tree falling in the forest ” syndrome : if a revelation is made in public , and no journalist ever elevates it , did it make a sound ? The political media ’ s allergy to policy is a clear culprit here . Jamie Kirchick ’ s blanket statement in his review of `` Frank '' that “ readers ’ eyes will glaze over ” at the recounting of the financial crisis is a typical attitude . But millions of people suffered needlessly for Wall Street ’ s sins ; they ’ d perhaps be interested in understanding why . That ’ s the main reason why the significance of Obama ’ s decision can not be overstated . The fact that we waited six years to get some semblance of a decent economic recovery traces back directly to the failure to alleviate the foreclosure crisis . Here was a moment , right near the beginning , when both public money and leverage could have been employed to stop foreclosures . Instead of demanding homeowner help when financial institutions relied on massive government support , the Administration passed , instead prioritizing nursing banks back to health and then asking them to give homeowners a break , which the banks predictably declined . There were no structural or legislative barriers to this proposition . One man , Barack Obama , could tell another man , Henry Paulson , to tighten the screws on banks to write down loans , and something would have happened . Would it have been successful ? Would it have saved tens or hundreds of billions in damage to homeowners ? Even trillions ? Or would Paulson and his predecessors found a way to wriggle out of the commitment again ? We know the alternative failed , so it ’ s tantalizing to think about this road not taken . This still matters because , as City University of New York professor Alan White explained brilliantly over the weekend , the foreclosure crisis isn ’ t really over . Though 6 million homes have been lost to foreclosure since 2007 , another 1 million remain in the pipeline , many of them legacy loans originated during the housing bubble . If you properly compare the situation to a time before the widespread issuance of subprime mortgages , we ’ re still well above normal levels of foreclosure starts . In addition , over one in six homes remain underwater , where the mortgage is bigger than the value of the home , a dangerous situation if we hit another economic downturn . And up to 4 million homes face interest rate resets from temporary modifications , along with nontraditional mortgages where the rate is scheduled to go up . Home equity lines of credit are also nearing their 10-year limits , requiring borrowers to pay down principal balances . Some Americans have been waiting over five years in foreclosure limbo , which sounds great ( no payments ! ) until you understand the stress and anxiety associated with not knowing if you will get thrown out on the street at any time , something highly correlated with sickness and even suicides . In baseball terms , we ’ re in the seventh or eighth inning of the crisis . And Barney Frank detailed how the president-elect had the opportunity to call the game and fix the problem much earlier , which he turned down . You ’ d think someone would have noticed .

Barney Frank has a new autobiography out. He’s long been one of the nation’s most quotable politicians. And Washington lives in perpetual longing for intra-party conflict. So why has a critical revelation from Frank’s book, one that implicates the most powerful Democrat in the nation, been entirely expunged from the record? The media has thus far focused on Frank’s wrestling with being a closeted gay congressman, or his comment that Joe Biden “can’t keep his mouth shut or his hands to himself.” But nobody has focused on Frank’s allegation that Barack Obama refused to extract foreclosure relief from the nation’s largest banks, as a condition for their receipt of hundreds of billions of dollars in bailout money. Advertisement: The anecdote comes on page 295 of "Frank," a title that the former chair of the House Financial Services Committee holds true to throughout the book. The TARP legislation included specific instructions to use a section of the funds to prevent foreclosures. Without that language, TARP would not have passed; Democratic lawmakers who helped defeat TARP on its first vote cited the foreclosure mitigation piece as key to their eventual reconsideration. TARP was doled out in two tranches of $350 billion each. The Bush administration, still in charge during TARP’s passage in October 2008, used none of the first tranche on mortgage relief, nor did Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson use any leverage over firms receiving the money to persuade them to lower mortgage balances and prevent foreclosures. Frank made his anger clear over this ignoring of Congress’ intentions at a hearing with Paulson that November. Paulson argued in his defense, “the imminent threat of financial collapse required him to focus single-mindedly on the immediate survival of financial institutions, no matter how worthy other goals were.” Whether or not you believe that sky-is-falling narrative, Frank kept pushing for action on foreclosures, which by the end of 2008 threatened one in 10 homes in America. With the first tranche of TARP funds running out by the end of the year, Frank writes, “Paulson agreed to include homeowner relief in his upcoming request for a second tranche of TARP funding. But there was one condition: He would only do it if the President-elect asked him to.” Advertisement: Frank goes on to explain that Obama rejected the request, saying “we have only one president at a time.” Frank writes, “my frustrated response was that he had overstated the number of presidents currently on duty,” which equally angered both the outgoing and incoming officeholders. Obama’s unwillingness to take responsibility before holding full authority doesn’t match other decisions made at that time. We know from David Axelrod’s book that the Obama transition did urge the Bush administration to provide TARP loans to GM and Chrysler to keep them in business. So it was OK to help auto companies prior to Inauguration Day, just not homeowners. In the end, the Obama transition wrote a letter promising to get to the foreclosure relief later, if Congress would only pass the second tranche of TARP funds. Congress fulfilled its obligation, and the Administration didn’t. The promised foreclosure mitigation efforts failed to help, and in many cases abjectly hurt homeowners. Advertisement: This is not a new charge from Frank: he first leveled it in May 2012 in an interview with New York magazine. Nobody in the Obama Administration has ever denied the anecdote, but of course hardly anybody bothered to publicize it, save for a couple financial blogs. I suppose those reviewing "Frank" can offer an excuse about this being “old news,” but that claims suffers from the “tree falling in the forest” syndrome: if a revelation is made in public, and no journalist ever elevates it, did it make a sound? The political media’s allergy to policy is a clear culprit here. Jamie Kirchick’s blanket statement in his review of "Frank" that “readers’ eyes will glaze over” at the recounting of the financial crisis is a typical attitude. But millions of people suffered needlessly for Wall Street’s sins; they’d perhaps be interested in understanding why. Advertisement: That’s the main reason why the significance of Obama’s decision cannot be overstated. The fact that we waited six years to get some semblance of a decent economic recovery traces back directly to the failure to alleviate the foreclosure crisis. Here was a moment, right near the beginning, when both public money and leverage could have been employed to stop foreclosures. Instead of demanding homeowner help when financial institutions relied on massive government support, the Administration passed, instead prioritizing nursing banks back to health and then asking them to give homeowners a break, which the banks predictably declined. There were no structural or legislative barriers to this proposition. One man, Barack Obama, could tell another man, Henry Paulson, to tighten the screws on banks to write down loans, and something would have happened. Would it have been successful? Would it have saved tens or hundreds of billions in damage to homeowners? Even trillions? Or would Paulson and his predecessors found a way to wriggle out of the commitment again? We know the alternative failed, so it’s tantalizing to think about this road not taken. This still matters because, as City University of New York professor Alan White explained brilliantly over the weekend, the foreclosure crisis isn’t really over. Though 6 million homes have been lost to foreclosure since 2007, another 1 million remain in the pipeline, many of them legacy loans originated during the housing bubble. If you properly compare the situation to a time before the widespread issuance of subprime mortgages, we’re still well above normal levels of foreclosure starts. Advertisement: In addition, over one in six homes remain underwater, where the mortgage is bigger than the value of the home, a dangerous situation if we hit another economic downturn. And up to 4 million homes face interest rate resets from temporary modifications, along with nontraditional mortgages where the rate is scheduled to go up. Home equity lines of credit are also nearing their 10-year limits, requiring borrowers to pay down principal balances. Some Americans have been waiting over five years in foreclosure limbo, which sounds great (no payments!) until you understand the stress and anxiety associated with not knowing if you will get thrown out on the street at any time, something highly correlated with sickness and even suicides. In baseball terms, we’re in the seventh or eighth inning of the crisis. And Barney Frank detailed how the president-elect had the opportunity to call the game and fix the problem much earlier, which he turned down. You’d think someone would have noticed.

www.salon.com

left

Rdwf7Pg85Qf3xuLo

test

OniZ7OT5GWBZjxUI

race_and_racism

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/25/stop_the_post_racial_fantasy_why_false_optimism_on_race_is_insidious_and_deadly/

"Post-racial America" is a dangerous lie: Why this thinking is naive, insidious and deadly

2014-02-25

Brittney Cooper

Last week , Creshuna Miles , Juror No . 8 in the Michael Dunn trial , gave an interview to CNN about the jury ’ s partial verdict . Although she believes that Michael Dunn is guilty of second-degree murder , a lesser charge for which the jury had the option to convict , she insisted that the case was “ not about race , ” that it never came up . Moreover , she believed Michael Dunn to be essentially “ a good guy , ” who made “ bad choices . ” Startlingly , she also indicated that until Dunn ran down the street chasing Jordan ’ s three friends , she actually believed that Dunn acted in self-defense . Post-racial thinking is insidious not only because it gives lie to the very real and continuing material consequences of racism in this country , but also because it seduces young , optimistic , idealistic black youth into identifying with the very systems and people who would kill them without a second thought -- and then go order a pizza and a take a nap . Part of what Miles ’ impressions of Dunn reveal is that the defense did a far better job of humanizing Dunn for the jury than the prosecution did of humanizing Jordan for the jury . But her impressions also reveal a deep disidentification with the seemingly retrograde racial politics that informed Dunn ’ s fatal engagement with Jordan Davis . Those 20th century-style racial politics take as a given that a group of young black men listening to rap music must be up to no good and that white harm is imminent . Such thinking seems not to fit the cosmopolitan , progressive 21st century narrative of multiracial acceptance that ideological post-racialism pretends to be . I know that jury selection is a strategy . And I know Creshuna Miles was picked because she is a black woman whose political views seem to be able to lay race to the side , even when it is so glaringly obvious . Had Jordan Davis been white , he would still be alive . Maybe Michael Dunn would have yelled at a white Jordan Davis for bumping rap music , but he absolutely would not have perceived such a kid to be a threat or the playing of rap music loud enough to constitute a capital offense . Creshuna Miles came to a right decision , and wanted to convict Michael Dunn of some form of murder . But her fervent belief that the case was “ about justice , ” not “ about race , ” misses a fundamental truth about American society . Justice and injustice in this country are inextricable from racial politics . Racial politics determine everything from who gets arrested to who gets convicted , the harshness of the sentences they ’ ll serve , and the quality of legal representation they ’ ll have . Moreover , Creshuna Miles is not just a black woman . She is a big , dark-skinned black woman , who rocks honey blond highlights in her hair . Her unmistakable , inescapable , culturally ethnic blackness is part of the unspoken but visual narrative of this trial . Just as Michael Dunn came upon a car and visually assessed threat based upon the color of the young men inside , the visuality of Creshuna Miles ’ body absolutely influences how her testimony is understood . In some ways Miles is a perfect foil for Rachel Jeantel . In Jeantel ’ s post-Zimmerman trial interview , she discounted a juror who claimed race hadn ’ t mattered in the trial , telling Piers Morgan , “ Let ’ s be honest . It ’ s racial. ” In this case , Creshuna Miles , just one year older than and visually similar to Rachel , comes along and says just the opposite . In both cases , black America saw the bodies of these two women and cringed . Internalized self-hatred coupled with violent conditions for black men is always a dangerous brew for black women . So I have been less compelled to jump on the `` critique Creshuna '' bandwagon , because so much of it is rooted in the unreasonable expectations that we have for black women to know how to outwit a system that is designed to work against not just black men , but us , too . Still I see Rachel and Creshuna and a certain knowing emerges for me . I know that when you live your life in an unmistakably big black body , of the type that Rachel , Creshuna and I share , a body that is often seen as aggressive and threatening , two types of coping strategies emerge . One is a kind of aggressive embrace of one ’ s own blackness and a refusal to take any shit . That seems like how Rachel rolls . The other relies on a rejection of the truth about race as a form of triumph over the impenetrability of racial discourse . In other words , maybe Creshuna Miles felt more intelligent and progressive , by taking a contrarian position , by not holding the views that people assumed that she , as a black person , would hold . Given her particular kind of black embodiment , Creshuna Miles ’ decision carries great weight in an American populace that deeply wants to believe in the myth of a colorblind system . The problem here – the lie of post-racialism , to be more precise – is that Miles ’ rejection of the racial elements of this case hold more weight precisely because she is a black woman . Essentially , finding the biggest and blackest of black women to say that there was no miscarriage of justice in this case helps assuage any white guilt . I ’ m not angry with Creshuna Miles . But I know her thinking , uninformed as it is , is dangerous . I know the justice system relies on the willing racial performativity of black people who are willing to discount the importance of race in matters such as these . Much like patriarchy requires the complicity and willing participation of women to continue , racism requires the complicity and willing , if unwitting , participation of black and people of color to continue . I ’ m deeply bothered by the fact that she does not seemingly understand the way in which her body was used against her . That she felt compelled as a black woman in the case to come out and insist on all the ways that it wasn ’ t about race suggests how deeply it is about race . Florida ’ s justice system pimped Creshuna Miles for her body type and flawed perspective . Her identification with Dunn is the flip side of the same kind of logic that got Trayvon and Jordan killed . She failed to recognize that she was on the jury and appealing to the media precisely because she reads as everything Dunn is not . She might see the justice system as colorblind , but it absolutely would not see her in the same ways . Everyone sees her color . By the same token , Trayvon , Jordan , Rachel and even Marcus Smart all believed they could engage white people who approached them combatively on equal or similar terms . When Zimmerman confronted and questioned Trayvon , Trayvon talked back and then fought back . When the Zimmerman defense team goaded Rachel Jeantel on the stand , she served up a healthy helping of visible disdain . When Michael Dunn confronted Jordan and his friends , they all verbally resisted his “ instruction ” and command that they turn down the music . These young black folks have not fully reckoned with what it means to occupy a completely different social position than the white people who confronted them and demanded various forms of compliance . One set of social positions has legal protection and the right to armed self-defense . The other social position requires deference and the eschewing of all aggression in order to be believed and protected – and in order to stay among the living . Jordan , Trayvon and Rachel never perfected the fine art of respectable resistance . And because I am deeply resistant to respectability politics on principle , I ’ m not sure they should . But the death and tragedy these young people have endured reminds me of why our ancestors frequently turned to respectable forms of resistance as a form of survival . When I look at Creshuna Miles , it is clear to me that her racial analysis is far more akin to that of her peers than different . All of these young people want to believe that they have the right to assert themselves and their rights and priorities in the same ways that white men retain the prerogative to do . Through the most brutal of lessons , they continue to learn differently . I hope Creshuna Miles learns differently . I remind myself that she is only 21 and that she did vote to convict . But racial innocence won ’ t serve her well . I hope she knows that she was chosen as a juror because of the combination of her black body and her whitewashed racial views , not despite them . And I hope time gently rather than harshly teaches her that post-racialism won ’ t protect her from her own blackness any more than it protected Jordan .

Last week, Creshuna Miles, Juror No. 8 in the Michael Dunn trial, gave an interview to CNN about the jury’s partial verdict. Although she believes that Michael Dunn is guilty of second-degree murder, a lesser charge for which the jury had the option to convict, she insisted that the case was “not about race,” that it never came up. Moreover, she believed Michael Dunn to be essentially “a good guy,” who made “bad choices.” Startlingly, she also indicated that until Dunn ran down the street chasing Jordan’s three friends, she actually believed that Dunn acted in self-defense. Advertisement: Post-racial thinking is insidious not only because it gives lie to the very real and continuing material consequences of racism in this country, but also because it seduces young, optimistic, idealistic black youth into identifying with the very systems and people who would kill them without a second thought -- and then go order a pizza and a take a nap. Part of what Miles’ impressions of Dunn reveal is that the defense did a far better job of humanizing Dunn for the jury than the prosecution did of humanizing Jordan for the jury. But her impressions also reveal a deep disidentification with the seemingly retrograde racial politics that informed Dunn’s fatal engagement with Jordan Davis. Those 20th century-style racial politics take as a given that a group of young black men listening to rap music must be up to no good and that white harm is imminent. Advertisement: Such thinking seems not to fit the cosmopolitan, progressive 21st century narrative of multiracial acceptance that ideological post-racialism pretends to be. I know that jury selection is a strategy. And I know Creshuna Miles was picked because she is a black woman whose political views seem to be able to lay race to the side, even when it is so glaringly obvious. Had Jordan Davis been white, he would still be alive. Maybe Michael Dunn would have yelled at a white Jordan Davis for bumping rap music, but he absolutely would not have perceived such a kid to be a threat or the playing of rap music loud enough to constitute a capital offense. Advertisement: Creshuna Miles came to a right decision, and wanted to convict Michael Dunn of some form of murder. But her fervent belief that the case was “about justice,” not “about race,” misses a fundamental truth about American society. Justice and injustice in this country are inextricable from racial politics. Racial politics determine everything from who gets arrested to who gets convicted, the harshness of the sentences they’ll serve, and the quality of legal representation they’ll have. Moreover, Creshuna Miles is not just a black woman. She is a big, dark-skinned black woman, who rocks honey blond highlights in her hair. Her unmistakable, inescapable, culturally ethnic blackness is part of the unspoken but visual narrative of this trial. Just as Michael Dunn came upon a car and visually assessed threat based upon the color of the young men inside, the visuality of Creshuna Miles’ body absolutely influences how her testimony is understood. Advertisement: In some ways Miles is a perfect foil for Rachel Jeantel. In Jeantel’s post-Zimmerman trial interview, she discounted a juror who claimed race hadn’t mattered in the trial, telling Piers Morgan, “Let’s be honest. It’s racial.” In this case, Creshuna Miles, just one year older than and visually similar to Rachel, comes along and says just the opposite. In both cases, black America saw the bodies of these two women and cringed. Internalized self-hatred coupled with violent conditions for black men is always a dangerous brew for black women. So I have been less compelled to jump on the "critique Creshuna" bandwagon, because so much of it is rooted in the unreasonable expectations that we have for black women to know how to outwit a system that is designed to work against not just black men, but us, too. Still I see Rachel and Creshuna and a certain knowing emerges for me. I know that when you live your life in an unmistakably big black body, of the type that Rachel, Creshuna and I share, a body that is often seen as aggressive and threatening, two types of coping strategies emerge. One is a kind of aggressive embrace of one’s own blackness and a refusal to take any shit. That seems like how Rachel rolls. The other relies on a rejection of the truth about race as a form of triumph over the impenetrability of racial discourse. In other words, maybe Creshuna Miles felt more intelligent and progressive, by taking a contrarian position, by not holding the views that people assumed that she, as a black person, would hold. Given her particular kind of black embodiment, Creshuna Miles’ decision carries great weight in an American populace that deeply wants to believe in the myth of a colorblind system. The problem here – the lie of post-racialism, to be more precise – is that Miles’ rejection of the racial elements of this case hold more weight precisely because she is a black woman. Essentially, finding the biggest and blackest of black women to say that there was no miscarriage of justice in this case helps assuage any white guilt. Advertisement: I’m not angry with Creshuna Miles. But I know her thinking, uninformed as it is, is dangerous. I know the justice system relies on the willing racial performativity of black people who are willing to discount the importance of race in matters such as these. Much like patriarchy requires the complicity and willing participation of women to continue, racism requires the complicity and willing, if unwitting, participation of black and people of color to continue. I’m deeply bothered by the fact that she does not seemingly understand the way in which her body was used against her. That she felt compelled as a black woman in the case to come out and insist on all the ways that it wasn’t about race suggests how deeply it is about race. Florida’s justice system pimped Creshuna Miles for her body type and flawed perspective. Her identification with Dunn is the flip side of the same kind of logic that got Trayvon and Jordan killed. She failed to recognize that she was on the jury and appealing to the media precisely because she reads as everything Dunn is not. She might see the justice system as colorblind, but it absolutely would not see her in the same ways. Everyone sees her color. By the same token, Trayvon, Jordan, Rachel and even Marcus Smart all believed they could engage white people who approached them combatively on equal or similar terms. When Zimmerman confronted and questioned Trayvon, Trayvon talked back and then fought back. When the Zimmerman defense team goaded Rachel Jeantel on the stand, she served up a healthy helping of visible disdain. When Michael Dunn confronted Jordan and his friends, they all verbally resisted his “instruction” and command that they turn down the music. Advertisement: These young black folks have not fully reckoned with what it means to occupy a completely different social position than the white people who confronted them and demanded various forms of compliance. One set of social positions has legal protection and the right to armed self-defense. The other social position requires deference and the eschewing of all aggression in order to be believed and protected – and in order to stay among the living. Jordan, Trayvon and Rachel never perfected the fine art of respectable resistance. And because I am deeply resistant to respectability politics on principle, I’m not sure they should. But the death and tragedy these young people have endured reminds me of why our ancestors frequently turned to respectable forms of resistance as a form of survival. When I look at Creshuna Miles, it is clear to me that her racial analysis is far more akin to that of her peers than different. All of these young people want to believe that they have the right to assert themselves and their rights and priorities in the same ways that white men retain the prerogative to do. Through the most brutal of lessons, they continue to learn differently. I hope Creshuna Miles learns differently. I remind myself that she is only 21 and that she did vote to convict. But racial innocence won’t serve her well. I hope she knows that she was chosen as a juror because of the combination of her black body and her whitewashed racial views, not despite them. And I hope time gently rather than harshly teaches her that post-racialism won’t protect her from her own blackness any more than it protected Jordan.

www.salon.com

left

OniZ7OT5GWBZjxUI

test

vmOC3KX8SMuHFO6s

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/the-sound-of-one-aisle-clapping/

The Sound of One Aisle Clapping

George Neumayr, Jeffrey Lord, Debra J. Saunders, Brian Mcnicoll, Aymenn Al-Tamimi, Jared Whitley

In all of the media ’ s blather about bipartisanship , it never acknowledges the Democratic radicalism that makes any national unity impossible . No sooner had Trump finished the State of the Union Address — a speech that could have been delivered by any Democrat before the radicalism of the 1960s and 1970s seeped into the party — than CNN was throwing a wet blanket on it . “ There will be Democrats offended by the speech , ” intoned Jake Tapper . “ He was selling sweet candy with poison in it , ” chipped in Van Jones . What is the sound of one aisle clapping at the most basic and blameless expressions of nationalism , the nationalism that every functioning country on earth observes ? Americans heard it Tuesday night . The Democrats couldn ’ t clap for the flag or fighting gangs ( that elicited a groan from some of them ) . It couldn ’ t clap for the national anthem , secure borders , religious liberty , even vocational training . It saw poison everywhere , though they did perk up at Trump ’ s mention of second chances for criminals . The Democrats have become the foreigners first party . Notice that one of the two official Democratic responses was in Spanish . The other one was delivered by Rep. Joe Kennedy III , whose digressions about “ transgenderism ” would have even confused his forbears . He too broke into a little Spanish during his response , before endorsing the open borders anarchism of La Raza . He approvingly quoted illegal immigrants who promised to “ tear down ” any future walls . Trump ’ s speech contained few ideological edges . But Tapper , a former Democratic staffer , saw parts of the speech as “ holding up a fist. ” Other commentators , desperate to find something to attack in the speech , pronounced it “ flat ” and questioned its “ cadence. ” They liked that he larded it with a rainbow of “ inspirational stories , ” but turned their noses up at its policy ambitions , even though many of them ( paid family leave and amnesty for Dreamers ) represented substantial concessions to the Democrats . Before the Democrats took their McGovernite turn , they would have agreed with almost everything in Trump ’ s speech and would have stood for much of it . Now it is a party of stale and geriatric radicalism . ( Even Joe Kennedy III sounded like a young old fogey , delivering a speech that could have been written by George McGovern and Bernie Sanders . ) And so the Democrats sulked through much of the speech . They fiddled with their phones and rolled their eyes even at the most banal lines . The black caucus slouched through Trump ’ s tribute to historic levels of black employment . Before the speech , CNN treated the boycotting Democrats gingerly and sympathetically , even raising the question of whether mere attendance constituted “ normalizing ” Trump . It didn ’ t treat those Democrats as extreme but worthy of a serious hearing . When not debating that matter solemnly , CNN indulged in some leering speculation about the Trump marriage . One “ correspondent ” popped up before the speech started to wonder if Melania ’ s white attire was a form of protest against her husband . Much was made of Melania traveling “ separately ” to the speech . That she was hosting a pre-speech reception with Pence ’ s wife didn ’ t suffice as an explanation . “ They are traveling separately on multiple fronts , ” one of the anchors asserted . So much for the media ’ s old rules about the tastelessness of probing presidential families . It is open season on the Trumps . All of the insinuating comments about Melania were couched in faux-respectful language ( she is more popular than her husband , Wolf Blitzer hastened to add , as if that gave a certain dignity to the otherwise gossipy tone of the segment ) , but I doubt she found any of it flattering . But the most forlorn attendee was Joe Manchin , who spent much of the speech standing alone . Afterwards , he noted the rudeness of his fellow Democrats . That didn ’ t go over well at CNN . Van Jones scoffed at Manchin ’ s comment . Anderson Cooper didn ’ t find the rudeness of the Democrats noteworthy either . The best one guest could muster as an explanation for Manchin ’ s comment was that Trump avoided “ red meat ” in the speech . But soon enough they were back to chiding him for “ alienating ” Democrats . Avoiding that is an impossible task , given that the Democrats find their own country ’ s flag alienating . As the postmortem wore on , it began to dawn on CNN ’ s liberal commentariat that its initial reaction to the speech was less positive than that of the channel ’ s own viewers . A CNN instant poll showed that most viewers approved of the speech . But David Axelrod took hope in tomorrow ’ s “ tweets ” and John King wondered about the “ shelf-life ” of Trump ’ s address .

In all of the media’s blather about bipartisanship, it never acknowledges the Democratic radicalism that makes any national unity impossible. No sooner had Trump finished the State of the Union Address — a speech that could have been delivered by any Democrat before the radicalism of the 1960s and 1970s seeped into the party — than CNN was throwing a wet blanket on it. “There will be Democrats offended by the speech,” intoned Jake Tapper. “He was selling sweet candy with poison in it,” chipped in Van Jones. What is the sound of one aisle clapping at the most basic and blameless expressions of nationalism, the nationalism that every functioning country on earth observes? Americans heard it Tuesday night. The Democrats couldn’t clap for the flag or fighting gangs (that elicited a groan from some of them). It couldn’t clap for the national anthem, secure borders, religious liberty, even vocational training. It saw poison everywhere, though they did perk up at Trump’s mention of second chances for criminals. The Democrats have become the foreigners first party. Notice that one of the two official Democratic responses was in Spanish. The other one was delivered by Rep. Joe Kennedy III, whose digressions about “transgenderism” would have even confused his forbears. He too broke into a little Spanish during his response, before endorsing the open borders anarchism of La Raza. He approvingly quoted illegal immigrants who promised to “tear down” any future walls. Trump’s speech contained few ideological edges. But Tapper, a former Democratic staffer, saw parts of the speech as “holding up a fist.” Other commentators, desperate to find something to attack in the speech, pronounced it “flat” and questioned its “cadence.” They liked that he larded it with a rainbow of “inspirational stories,” but turned their noses up at its policy ambitions, even though many of them (paid family leave and amnesty for Dreamers) represented substantial concessions to the Democrats. Before the Democrats took their McGovernite turn, they would have agreed with almost everything in Trump’s speech and would have stood for much of it. Now it is a party of stale and geriatric radicalism. (Even Joe Kennedy III sounded like a young old fogey, delivering a speech that could have been written by George McGovern and Bernie Sanders.) And so the Democrats sulked through much of the speech. They fiddled with their phones and rolled their eyes even at the most banal lines. The black caucus slouched through Trump’s tribute to historic levels of black employment. Before the speech, CNN treated the boycotting Democrats gingerly and sympathetically, even raising the question of whether mere attendance constituted “normalizing” Trump. It didn’t treat those Democrats as extreme but worthy of a serious hearing. When not debating that matter solemnly, CNN indulged in some leering speculation about the Trump marriage. One “correspondent” popped up before the speech started to wonder if Melania’s white attire was a form of protest against her husband. Much was made of Melania traveling “separately” to the speech. That she was hosting a pre-speech reception with Pence’s wife didn’t suffice as an explanation. “They are traveling separately on multiple fronts,” one of the anchors asserted. So much for the media’s old rules about the tastelessness of probing presidential families. It is open season on the Trumps. All of the insinuating comments about Melania were couched in faux-respectful language (she is more popular than her husband, Wolf Blitzer hastened to add, as if that gave a certain dignity to the otherwise gossipy tone of the segment), but I doubt she found any of it flattering. But the most forlorn attendee was Joe Manchin, who spent much of the speech standing alone. Afterwards, he noted the rudeness of his fellow Democrats. That didn’t go over well at CNN. Van Jones scoffed at Manchin’s comment. Anderson Cooper didn’t find the rudeness of the Democrats noteworthy either. The best one guest could muster as an explanation for Manchin’s comment was that Trump avoided “red meat” in the speech. But soon enough they were back to chiding him for “alienating” Democrats. Avoiding that is an impossible task, given that the Democrats find their own country’s flag alienating. As the postmortem wore on, it began to dawn on CNN’s liberal commentariat that its initial reaction to the speech was less positive than that of the channel’s own viewers. A CNN instant poll showed that most viewers approved of the speech. But David Axelrod took hope in tomorrow’s “tweets” and John King wondered about the “shelf-life” of Trump’s address.

www.spectator.org

right

vmOC3KX8SMuHFO6s

test

eUo9wKYxRQDwblLa

politics

Newsmax - News

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/ivankatrumpimpeachmentfamilyleave/2019/12/29/id/947621/

Ivanka Trump Says Impeachment 'Unjust' And 'Partisan'

2019-12-29

Cathy Burke

Presidential adviser and first daughter Ivanka Trump says she ’ s been angry “ at the process ” of impeachment , but that it has been “ energizing ” for her father , President Donald Trump . In an interview with CBS News ’ “ Face The Nation ” aired Sunday , Ivanka Trump decried the partisan nature of the impeachment of her father . “ You can be angry at a process that has been unjust , ” she said . “ Angry at the waste of time . ” “ Today we are focused on delivering wins . We are delivering time after time , ” she declared , adding her father saw his own impeachment “ for what it is , raw partisan politics . ” “ You saw his mood , ” she said of his remarks at a rally afterward in which he marveled that it “ doesn ’ t feel like ” he was impeached . “ There is tremendous energizing… support for impeachment has decreased… not increased , ” she said . “ He sees it for what it is : raw , partisan politics . ” Of the controversy over the president ’ s request that Ukraine investigate corruption , and that he tied military aid to Ukraine to those probes , Ivanka Trump said Americans don ’ t think it ’ s an impeachable offense . “ It is what it is , ” she said . “ More than 50 % of America doesn ’ t think he should have been impeached . the facts are there , ” she said . She also refused to criticize her father ’ s personal lawyer , Rudy Giuliani . “ I know Rudy Giuliani in a very different context , ” calling him “ a real hero in New York ” after 9/11 . “ [ S ] mart and thoughtful… he was a great mayor . '' She said she hopes her efforts on paid family leave one day lead to wider coverage . “ Our goal is to ensure that paid leave is available to all Americans , ” she said . “ The fourth person I hired was pregnant when I hired her , ” she said , adding : “ That 's something I recognize as critically important . But I do think elevating awareness around the benefits to attracting and retaining the best talent this country has to offer . It is in companies ' self-interest to do this . And that 's why we 've seen employers increasingly adopt paid leave. ``

Presidential adviser and first daughter Ivanka Trump says she’s been angry “at the process” of impeachment, but that it has been “energizing” for her father, President Donald Trump. In an interview with CBS News’ “Face The Nation” aired Sunday, Ivanka Trump decried the partisan nature of the impeachment of her father. “You can be angry at a process that has been unjust,” she said. “Angry at the waste of time.” But she said, nevertheless, the issue has been “energizing.” “Today we are focused on delivering wins. We are delivering time after time,” she declared, adding her father saw his own impeachment “for what it is, raw partisan politics.” “You saw his mood,” she said of his remarks at a rally afterward in which he marveled that it “doesn’t feel like” he was impeached. “There is tremendous energizing… support for impeachment has decreased… not increased,” she said. “He sees it for what it is: raw, partisan politics.” Of the controversy over the president’s request that Ukraine investigate corruption, and that he tied military aid to Ukraine to those probes, Ivanka Trump said Americans don’t think it’s an impeachable offense. “It is what it is,” she said. “More than 50% of America doesn’t think he should have been impeached. the facts are there,” she said. She also refused to criticize her father’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. “I know Rudy Giuliani in a very different context,” calling him “a real hero in New York” after 9/11. “[S]mart and thoughtful… he was a great mayor." She said she hopes her efforts on paid family leave one day lead to wider coverage. “Our goal is to ensure that paid leave is available to all Americans,” she said. “The fourth person I hired was pregnant when I hired her,” she said, adding: “That's something I recognize as critically important. But I do think elevating awareness around the benefits to attracting and retaining the best talent this country has to offer. It is in companies' self-interest to do this. And that's why we've seen employers increasingly adopt paid leave. "

www.newsmax.com

right

eUo9wKYxRQDwblLa

test

birYKLd1EH8Q6pc3

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/08/donald-trump-speech-tv-address-border-wall-oval-office

Donald Trump fuels immigration fears in TV address on 'border crisis'

2019-01-08

David Smith

President offers no new solutions to government shutdown in first Oval Office address of his presidency Donald Trump has used the first Oval Office address of his presidency to stoke fears of illegal immigration , repeat dubious claims about his border wall , and offer no new solutions to the partial government shutdown . In the type of made-for-TV-moment he relishes , Trump blamed criminal gangs and “ vast quantities of illegal drugs ” for “ thousands of deaths ” and faulted Democrats for failing to end the shutdown , now in its 19th day . Top congressional Democrats accused him of fearmongering , and using rhetoric “ full of misinformation and even malice ” . “ This is a humanitarian crisis – a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul , ” Trump told primetime viewers on Tuesday night , describing the situation at the border . He argued that the current immigration system allows “ vicious coyotes and ruthless gangs ” to prey on immigrants , especially women and children . The Oval Office has typically been a projection of power used by presidents before him to address the nation at times of crisis or tragedy . In remarks lasting 10 minutes , Trump sought to make the case for a border wall – arguably the central promise of his short political career – and tried to imply the proposal had broad public support . How bad is the US government shutdown and can it be resolved ? Read more “ Law enforcement professionals have requested $ 5.7bn for a physical barrier , ” he said . “ At the request of Democrats , it will be a steel barrier rather than a concrete wall . This barrier is absolutely critical to border security . It ’ s also what our professionals at the border want and need . “ This is just common sense . The border wall would very quickly pay for itself . The cost of illegal drugs exceeds $ 500bn a year , vastly more than the $ 5.7bn we have requested from Congress . The wall will also be paid for indirectly by the great new trade deal we have made with Mexico . ” Factcheckers have poured scorn on Trump ’ s assertion that the trade deal , a successor to Nafta , means that Mexico is paying for the wall . The Mexican government has always refused to do so . And following the address , critics were quick to point out that Democrats are against money for a border wall – whether steel or concrete . Play Video 1:51 What does a government shutdown mean for the US ? - video Nearly three weeks in to the shutdown , Trump did not offer fresh ideas to break the current political impasse and did not declare a national emergency so that he could bypass Congress , as had been speculated . Instead he said : “ The federal government remains shut down for one reason and one reason only : because Democrats will not fund border security . ” Calling on Democrats to pass a spending bill , he added : “ This situation could be solved in a 45-minute meeting . Hopefully we can rise above partisan politics in order to support national security . ” On an extraordinary night for US politics , the House speaker , Nancy Pelosi , and the Senate minority leader , Chuck Schumer , delivered a live rebuttal from the House speaker ’ s balcony hallway . Both adamantly oppose the construction of a wall and have urged Trump to reopen the government while talks continue . Play Video 2:19 Democrats to Trump : 'End this shutdown now ' – video “ Sadly , much of what we have heard from President Trump throughout this senseless shutdown has been full of misinformation and even malice , ” Pelosi said . “ President Trump must stop holding the American people hostage , must stop manufacturing a crisis , and must reopen the government . ” Schumer added : “ We don ’ t govern by temper-tantrum . No president should pound the table and demand he gets his way or else the government shuts down , hurting millions of Americans who are treated as leverage . “ Tonight – and throughout this debate and his presidency – President Trump has appealed to fear , not facts . Division , not unity . ” The New York senator said : “ Most presidents have used Oval Office addresses for noble purposes . This president just used the backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis , stoke fear , and divert attention from the turmoil in his administration . ” The White House countered those points on Wednesday by accusing Democrats of being in denial . “ He ’ s fighting for the protection and the safety of every American citizen , ” the White House press secretary , Sarah Sanders , said . “ If this is the face and the future of the Democrat party I think things are looking really good for Republicans . ” Trump has privately dismissed the address to the nation and his proposed visit to the border this week as pointless , according to the New York Times . In an off-the-record lunch with television anchors on Tuesday , he reportedly said he was talked into both steps by advisers . In the run-up to the address , the White House had been caught in a series of falsehoods . At the weekend , Sanders claimed 4,000 known or suspected terrorists had been apprehended at the southern border . On Monday , Kellyanne Conway , the White House counselor , admitted that this was “ an unfortunate misstatement ” as most of the individuals had been stopped at airports . Meanwhile , Pence was questioned by NBC News on Monday about Trump ’ s claim that some former presidents told him a wall should be built ( all four living presidents have denied it ) . The vice-president replied : “ I know the president has said that that was his impression from previous administrations , previous presidents . ” The president , who has threatened to keep the government closed for months or even years , will attend a Senate Republican lunch meeting on Wednesday , then visit the southern border on Thursday as he continues to wage a public relations offensive . The partial government shutdown is now the second-longest in history , affects more than 800,000 workers , and there is no end in sight . On Tuesday night , immigrants ’ right groups again condemned Trump ’ s message . Lorella Praeli , the deputy political director of the American Civil Liberties Union , said : “ With tonight ’ s speech , President Trump chose to compound the chaos because he can ’ t convince the majority of Americans that their taxpayer dollars should fund his bogus campaign promise ... The president appears to be more focused on procuring his xenophobic symbol than running the government and upholding democratic norms . ”

President offers no new solutions to government shutdown in first Oval Office address of his presidency Donald Trump has used the first Oval Office address of his presidency to stoke fears of illegal immigration, repeat dubious claims about his border wall, and offer no new solutions to the partial government shutdown. In the type of made-for-TV-moment he relishes, Trump blamed criminal gangs and “vast quantities of illegal drugs” for “thousands of deaths” and faulted Democrats for failing to end the shutdown, now in its 19th day. Top congressional Democrats accused him of fearmongering, and using rhetoric “full of misinformation and even malice”. “This is a humanitarian crisis – a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul,” Trump told primetime viewers on Tuesday night, describing the situation at the border. He argued that the current immigration system allows “vicious coyotes and ruthless gangs” to prey on immigrants, especially women and children. The Oval Office has typically been a projection of power used by presidents before him to address the nation at times of crisis or tragedy. In remarks lasting 10 minutes, Trump sought to make the case for a border wall – arguably the central promise of his short political career – and tried to imply the proposal had broad public support. How bad is the US government shutdown and can it be resolved? Read more “Law enforcement professionals have requested $5.7bn for a physical barrier,” he said. “At the request of Democrats, it will be a steel barrier rather than a concrete wall. This barrier is absolutely critical to border security. It’s also what our professionals at the border want and need. “This is just common sense. The border wall would very quickly pay for itself. The cost of illegal drugs exceeds $500bn a year, vastly more than the $5.7bn we have requested from Congress. The wall will also be paid for indirectly by the great new trade deal we have made with Mexico.” Factcheckers have poured scorn on Trump’s assertion that the trade deal, a successor to Nafta, means that Mexico is paying for the wall. The Mexican government has always refused to do so. And following the address, critics were quick to point out that Democrats are against money for a border wall – whether steel or concrete. Play Video 1:51 What does a government shutdown mean for the US? - video Nearly three weeks in to the shutdown, Trump did not offer fresh ideas to break the current political impasse and did not declare a national emergency so that he could bypass Congress, as had been speculated. Instead he said: “The federal government remains shut down for one reason and one reason only: because Democrats will not fund border security.” Calling on Democrats to pass a spending bill, he added: “This situation could be solved in a 45-minute meeting. Hopefully we can rise above partisan politics in order to support national security.” On an extraordinary night for US politics, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, delivered a live rebuttal from the House speaker’s balcony hallway. Both adamantly oppose the construction of a wall and have urged Trump to reopen the government while talks continue. Play Video 2:19 Democrats to Trump: 'End this shutdown now' – video “Sadly, much of what we have heard from President Trump throughout this senseless shutdown has been full of misinformation and even malice,” Pelosi said. “President Trump must stop holding the American people hostage, must stop manufacturing a crisis, and must reopen the government.” Schumer added: “We don’t govern by temper-tantrum. No president should pound the table and demand he gets his way or else the government shuts down, hurting millions of Americans who are treated as leverage. “Tonight – and throughout this debate and his presidency – President Trump has appealed to fear, not facts. Division, not unity.” The New York senator said: “Most presidents have used Oval Office addresses for noble purposes. This president just used the backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis, stoke fear, and divert attention from the turmoil in his administration.” The White House countered those points on Wednesday by accusing Democrats of being in denial. “He’s fighting for the protection and the safety of every American citizen,” the White House press secretary, Sarah Sanders, said. “If this is the face and the future of the Democrat party I think things are looking really good for Republicans.” Trump has privately dismissed the address to the nation and his proposed visit to the border this week as pointless, according to the New York Times. In an off-the-record lunch with television anchors on Tuesday, he reportedly said he was talked into both steps by advisers. In the run-up to the address, the White House had been caught in a series of falsehoods. At the weekend, Sanders claimed 4,000 known or suspected terrorists had been apprehended at the southern border. On Monday, Kellyanne Conway, the White House counselor, admitted that this was “an unfortunate misstatement” as most of the individuals had been stopped at airports. Meanwhile, Pence was questioned by NBC News on Monday about Trump’s claim that some former presidents told him a wall should be built (all four living presidents have denied it). The vice-president replied: “I know the president has said that that was his impression from previous administrations, previous presidents.” The president, who has threatened to keep the government closed for months or even years, will attend a Senate Republican lunch meeting on Wednesday, then visit the southern border on Thursday as he continues to wage a public relations offensive. The partial government shutdown is now the second-longest in history, affects more than 800,000 workers, and there is no end in sight. On Tuesday night, immigrants’ right groups again condemned Trump’s message. Lorella Praeli, the deputy political director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said: “With tonight’s speech, President Trump chose to compound the chaos because he can’t convince the majority of Americans that their taxpayer dollars should fund his bogus campaign promise ... The president appears to be more focused on procuring his xenophobic symbol than running the government and upholding democratic norms.”

www.theguardian.com

left

birYKLd1EH8Q6pc3

test

8M0Fpj66abTspxlx

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-cohen/ex-trump-lawyer-cohen-to-testify-before-u-s-house-oversight-panel-next-week-idUSKCN1QA01G

Ex-Trump lawyer Cohen to testify before U.S. House oversight panel next week

2019-02-21

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - President Donald Trump ’ s former lawyer Michael Cohen will testify in a public hearing before a U.S. congressional committee on Feb. 27 and the panel ’ s chairman said Trump ’ s business practices would be a focus of the testimony . Cohen had originally been scheduled to testify on Feb. 7 but his adviser Lanny Davis said he cancelled because of threats against his family from Trump . “ I am pleased to announce that Michael Cohen ’ s public testimony before the Oversight Committee is back on , despite efforts by some to intimidate his family members and prevent him from appearing , ” House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings said in a statement . Cohen has pleaded guilty to crimes including campaign finance violations during Trump ’ s 2016 election campaign and has cooperated with investigators . Trump called Cohen a “ rat ” in a tweet in December for cooperating with prosecutors . Cohen had been Trump ’ s self-described longtime “ fixer ” and once said he would take a bullet for the New York real estate developer . “ The schedule has now been set . Looking forward to the # American people hearing my story in my voice ! ” Cohen tweeted late on Wednesday , linking to a fundraising effort for his legal fees . The Oversight Committee said in a memo to its members that Cohen would be questioned about Trump ’ s “ debts and payments relating to efforts to influence the 2016 election , ” Trump ’ s compliance with tax and campaign finance laws , and Trump ’ s business practices , among other topics . Davis confirmed in a tweet that Cohen would appear before the Oversight Committee and said Cohen “ will speak about his decade long experiences working for Mr. Trump . ” Cohen will report to federal prison on May 6 after a judge granted him a two-month delay to allow him to recover from a surgical procedure and to prepare for his congressional testimony , according to a court filing on Wednesday . Cohen is also scheduled to testify at a closed hearing of the House Intelligence Committee on Feb. 28 . Cohen last week postponed a scheduled appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee due to medical reasons .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen will testify in a public hearing before a U.S. congressional committee on Feb. 27 and the panel’s chairman said Trump’s business practices would be a focus of the testimony. Cohen had originally been scheduled to testify on Feb. 7 but his adviser Lanny Davis said he cancelled because of threats against his family from Trump. “I am pleased to announce that Michael Cohen’s public testimony before the Oversight Committee is back on, despite efforts by some to intimidate his family members and prevent him from appearing,” House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings said in a statement. Cohen has pleaded guilty to crimes including campaign finance violations during Trump’s 2016 election campaign and has cooperated with investigators. Trump called Cohen a “rat” in a tweet in December for cooperating with prosecutors. Cohen had been Trump’s self-described longtime “fixer” and once said he would take a bullet for the New York real estate developer. “The schedule has now been set. Looking forward to the #American people hearing my story in my voice!” Cohen tweeted late on Wednesday, linking to a fundraising effort for his legal fees. The Oversight Committee said in a memo to its members that Cohen would be questioned about Trump’s “debts and payments relating to efforts to influence the 2016 election,” Trump’s compliance with tax and campaign finance laws, and Trump’s business practices, among other topics. FILE PHOTO: Michael Cohen, U.S. President Donald Trump's former attorney, exits the United States Court house after his sentencing, in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York, U.S., December 12, 2018. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton/File Photo Davis confirmed in a tweet that Cohen would appear before the Oversight Committee and said Cohen “will speak about his decade long experiences working for Mr. Trump.” Cohen will report to federal prison on May 6 after a judge granted him a two-month delay to allow him to recover from a surgical procedure and to prepare for his congressional testimony, according to a court filing on Wednesday. Cohen is also scheduled to testify at a closed hearing of the House Intelligence Committee on Feb. 28. Cohen last week postponed a scheduled appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee due to medical reasons.

www.reuters.com

center

8M0Fpj66abTspxlx

test

GDVAJK0mLbUchbKm

media_bias

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2020/03/16/new-york-times-authors-deceptively-edit-trumps-advice-to-governors-on-medical-ventilators/

New York Times Authors Deceptively Edit Trump’s Advice to Governors on Medical Ventilators

2020-03-16

David Ng

At least eight New York Times authors shared a deceptively edited quote Monday from President Donald Trump ’ s recent call with state governors , creating the false impression that the president is denying federal support for ventilators that are needed in hospitals treating coronavirus patients . In his message , the president recommended that states procure respirators and ventilators because it would be faster — but added that the federal government “ will be backing you . ” The Times journalists omitted the bulk of the president ’ s statement as they shared the story on social media . The misleading , partial quote was also boosted by a CNN correspondent and became the lead headline at the left-wing Huffington Post . Despite growing online backlash to this misinformation , the journalists have yet to delete or retract their comments . The eight journalists tweeted a link to a Times article published Monday that contains President Trump ’ s full statement to state governors in which the president recommended that they shouldn ’ t wait for the federal government to fill the growing demand for respirators needed to treat people with coronavirus . “ Respirators , ventilators , all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves , ” President Trump told the governors during the Monday conference call . “ We will be backing you , but try getting it yourselves . Point of sales , much better , much more direct if you can get it yourself . ” But in the body of their posts , the Times journalists left out most of what the president said . Times national correspondent Julie Bosman tweeted only the first third of the president ’ s statement , leaving out the part where he said the federal government will back the states . Wow . “ Respirators , ventilators , all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves , ” Mr. Trump told the governors during the conference call . via @ jmartNYT https : //t.co/RKZusLK5oY — Julie Bosman ( @ juliebosman ) March 16 , 2020 Bosman , reacting to intense backlash , defended herself by inaccurately claiming that “ the second part of the quote repeats the first part , twice. ” In fact , the second part of the president ’ s statement says that the federal government “ will be backing you [ the states ] . ” because the second part of the quote repeats the first part , twice . — Julie Bosman ( @ juliebosman ) March 16 , 2020 Mara Gay , a member of the Times editorial board , also left out most of what the president said . She also falsely accused the president of telling governors that “ they are on their own. ” In actuality , the president said in his full quote that the federal government “ will be backing you . ” Trump told governors this morning they are on their own : “ Respirators , ventilators , all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves , ” Mr. Trump told the governors during the conference call , a recording of which was shared with The New York Times . https : //t.co/K0sont7MBc — Mara Gay ( @ MaraGay ) March 16 , 2020 Just ten days ago , Gay was involved in another embarrassing episode for corporate media , where she and MSNBC anchor Brian Williams horribly botched basic math to claim that billionaire Michael Bloomberg could have “ given every American a million dollars. ” In reality , the amount he spent amounts to less than $ 2 per person . Other Times journalists who tweeted out only the first part of the president ’ s quote include chief White House correspondent Peter Baker , Northwest reporter Mike Baker , arts reporter Michael Cooper , investigative reporter Sharon LaFraniere , editor Clifford Levy , and contributor Aaron E. Carroll . Trump tells governors not to wait for federal government to look for needed medical equipment on their own . “ Respirators , ventilators , all of the equipment—try getting it yourselves , ” he told them on the call , according to recording obtained by @ jmartNYT https : //t.co/vlOR08SeXK — Peter Baker ( @ peterbakernyt ) March 16 , 2020 NEW : “ Respirators , ventilators , all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves , ” Mr. Trump told governors during a conference call this morning , according to a recording shared with The New York Times.https : //t.co/TjEeqqAysu — Mike Baker ( @ ByMikeBaker ) March 16 , 2020 “ Respirators , ventilators , all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves , ” Mr. Trump told the governors during the conference call , a recording of which was shared with The New York Times https : //t.co/loOEN0LpUa — Michael Cooper ( @ coopnytimes ) March 16 , 2020 Some governors were surprised to get this message from Trump , @ jmart reports : “ Respirators , ventilators , all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves , ” Mr. Trump told the governors during the conference call . https : //t.co/x5T6Oril13 — Sharon LaFraniere ( @ SharonLNYT ) March 16 , 2020 Trump told governors they should not wait for the federal government to fill growing demand for respirators . “ Respirators , ventilators , all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves , ” Mr. Trump said.https : //t.co/A14I2TiTvZ — Cliff Levy ( @ cliffordlevy ) March 16 , 2020 The official Times twitter account also omitted the majority of the president ’ s quote when it pushed out the article on Monday . CNN ’ s Oliver Darcy also shared the incomplete quote and has not addressed the dozens of fact checks in response . Trump to governors : “ Respirators , ventilators , all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves '' https : //t.co/E3Y24vhxot — Oliver Darcy ( @ oliverdarcy ) March 16 , 2020 All of the posts were still up at the time of this writing , despite mounting criticism about their accuracy .

At least eight New York Times authors shared a deceptively edited quote Monday from President Donald Trump’s recent call with state governors, creating the false impression that the president is denying federal support for ventilators that are needed in hospitals treating coronavirus patients. In his message, the president recommended that states procure respirators and ventilators because it would be faster — but added that the federal government “will be backing you.” The Times journalists omitted the bulk of the president’s statement as they shared the story on social media. The misleading, partial quote was also boosted by a CNN correspondent and became the lead headline at the left-wing Huffington Post. Despite growing online backlash to this misinformation, the journalists have yet to delete or retract their comments. The eight journalists tweeted a link to a Times article published Monday that contains President Trump’s full statement to state governors in which the president recommended that they shouldn’t wait for the federal government to fill the growing demand for respirators needed to treat people with coronavirus. “Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves,” President Trump told the governors during the Monday conference call. “We will be backing you, but try getting it yourselves. Point of sales, much better, much more direct if you can get it yourself.” But in the body of their posts, the Times journalists left out most of what the president said. Times national correspondent Julie Bosman tweeted only the first third of the president’s statement, leaving out the part where he said the federal government will back the states. Wow. “Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves,” Mr. Trump told the governors during the conference call. via @jmartNYT https://t.co/RKZusLK5oY — Julie Bosman (@juliebosman) March 16, 2020 Bosman, reacting to intense backlash, defended herself by inaccurately claiming that “the second part of the quote repeats the first part, twice.” In fact, the second part of the president’s statement says that the federal government “will be backing you [the states].” because the second part of the quote repeats the first part, twice. — Julie Bosman (@juliebosman) March 16, 2020 Mara Gay, a member of the Times editorial board, also left out most of what the president said. She also falsely accused the president of telling governors that “they are on their own.” In actuality, the president said in his full quote that the federal government “will be backing you.” Trump told governors this morning they are on their own: “Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves,” Mr. Trump told the governors during the conference call, a recording of which was shared with The New York Times. https://t.co/K0sont7MBc — Mara Gay (@MaraGay) March 16, 2020 Just ten days ago, Gay was involved in another embarrassing episode for corporate media, where she and MSNBC anchor Brian Williams horribly botched basic math to claim that billionaire Michael Bloomberg could have “given every American a million dollars.” In reality, the amount he spent amounts to less than $2 per person. Other Times journalists who tweeted out only the first part of the president’s quote include chief White House correspondent Peter Baker, Northwest reporter Mike Baker, arts reporter Michael Cooper, investigative reporter Sharon LaFraniere, editor Clifford Levy, and contributor Aaron E. Carroll. Trump tells governors not to wait for federal government to look for needed medical equipment on their own. “Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment—try getting it yourselves,” he told them on the call, according to recording obtained by @jmartNYT https://t.co/vlOR08SeXK — Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) March 16, 2020 NEW: “Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves,” Mr. Trump told governors during a conference call this morning, according to a recording shared with The New York Times.https://t.co/TjEeqqAysu — Mike Baker (@ByMikeBaker) March 16, 2020 “Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves,” Mr. Trump told the governors during the conference call, a recording of which was shared with The New York Times https://t.co/loOEN0LpUa — Michael Cooper (@coopnytimes) March 16, 2020 Some governors were surprised to get this message from Trump, @jmart reports: “Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves,” Mr. Trump told the governors during the conference call. https://t.co/x5T6Oril13 — Sharon LaFraniere (@SharonLNYT) March 16, 2020 Trump told governors they should not wait for the federal government to fill growing demand for respirators. “Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves,” Mr. Trump said.https://t.co/A14I2TiTvZ — Cliff Levy (@cliffordlevy) March 16, 2020 The official Times twitter account also omitted the majority of the president’s quote when it pushed out the article on Monday. CNN’s Oliver Darcy also shared the incomplete quote and has not addressed the dozens of fact checks in response. Trump to governors: “Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves" https://t.co/E3Y24vhxot — Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) March 16, 2020 All of the posts were still up at the time of this writing, despite mounting criticism about their accuracy. Follow David Ng on Twitter @HeyItsDavidNg. Have a tip? Contact me at [email protected]

www.breitbart.com

right

GDVAJK0mLbUchbKm

test

9FSCFCd5xn0KHWaN

politics

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/22/hillary-clintons-record-at-state-under-fire-again/?hpt=po_t1

Hillary Clinton's record at State under fire, again

2014-04-22

( CNN ) - The back-and-forth between Republicans and defenders of Hillary Clinton ’ s record as America ’ s top diplomat is flaring anew . On Tuesday , a reporter asked agency spokeswoman Jen Psaki to `` identify one tangible achievement '' from a key project executed under Clinton 's leadership - the first audit of the State Department . That review was aimed at identifying how the agency could become more efficient , accountable and effective at carrying out diplomacy and delivering aid worldwide . `` I am certain that those who were here at the time , who worked hard on that effort , could point out one , '' Psaki responded . That answer drew a sharp response from the Republican National Committee , which said it was another illustration of what the GOP regards as Clinton ’ s lackluster record from her tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to early 2013 . “ It speaks volumes that the State Department is having trouble naming the accomplishments from Secretary Clinton ’ s tenure , '' RNC spokesman Jahan Wilcox said in a statement . `` Americans are quite familiar with Hillary Clinton ’ s role regarding Benghazi and the failed Russia Reset initiative , but they ’ re still scratching their heads on what exactly she accomplished as the secretary of state , ” Wilcox said . Later , the State Department provided a list of seven changes resulting from the 2010 audit . They included the reorganization and creation of undersecretary positions and the establishment of three bureaus aimed at countering terrorism , promoting American energy interests and helping civilian leaders of the agency prevent conflict and violence . “ Hard Choices , ” Clinton 's book about her years at the State Department , goes on sale June 10 , providing her with a chance to tout what she sees as her successes . In the meantime , Republicans continue to try to fill the political vacuum with repeated criticism of her diplomatic record , which polls show is a positive with voters ahead of a potential 2016 White House bid . While Clinton stays relatively mum on the subject , the defense of her record at the State Department is left to her allies and Correct the Record , a spinoff of Democratic super PAC American Bridge . It was founded to deflect Republican attacks that might endanger a Clinton candidacy before she 's even decided whether to run . The group points to a list of 11 achievements on its website . It credits her with restoring America 's leadership and standing in the world , building and maintaining a coalition to enact unprecedented sanctions against Iran , her role in a nuclear missile reduction treaty with Russia and her support for the raid that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden . `` And , yes , you can also find information on her implementation of ( audit ) -inspired reforms , including the integration of women into the secretary of state policy framework and ensuring our economic , energy , and environmental goals serve U.S. national security interests , '' senior adviser Burns Strider told CNN . But without major achievements to point to , like progress on Mideast peace , and U.S.-Russian relations at a post-Cold War low despite her attempt to reset them , arguments for her accomplishments are modest . Even Clinton herself has struggled to clearly articulate concrete examples of her success . `` I really see my role as secretary , and , in fact , leadership in general in a democracy , as a relay race , '' Clinton told an audience at a recent event in New York when she was asked about her triumphs in that job . `` You run the best race you can run , you hand off the baton . ''

6 years ago (CNN) - The back-and-forth between Republicans and defenders of Hillary Clinton’s record as America’s top diplomat is flaring anew. On Tuesday, a reporter asked agency spokeswoman Jen Psaki to "identify one tangible achievement" from a key project executed under Clinton's leadership - the first audit of the State Department. Follow @politicaltickerFollow @brikeilarcnn That review was aimed at identifying how the agency could become more efficient, accountable and effective at carrying out diplomacy and delivering aid worldwide. "I am certain that those who were here at the time, who worked hard on that effort, could point out one," Psaki responded. That answer drew a sharp response from the Republican National Committee, which said it was another illustration of what the GOP regards as Clinton’s lackluster record from her tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to early 2013. “It speaks volumes that the State Department is having trouble naming the accomplishments from Secretary Clinton’s tenure," RNC spokesman Jahan Wilcox said in a statement. "Americans are quite familiar with Hillary Clinton’s role regarding Benghazi and the failed Russia Reset initiative, but they’re still scratching their heads on what exactly she accomplished as the secretary of state,” Wilcox said. Later, the State Department provided a list of seven changes resulting from the 2010 audit. They included the reorganization and creation of undersecretary positions and the establishment of three bureaus aimed at countering terrorism, promoting American energy interests and helping civilian leaders of the agency prevent conflict and violence. “Hard Choices,” Clinton's book about her years at the State Department, goes on sale June 10, providing her with a chance to tout what she sees as her successes. In the meantime, Republicans continue to try to fill the political vacuum with repeated criticism of her diplomatic record, which polls show is a positive with voters ahead of a potential 2016 White House bid. While Clinton stays relatively mum on the subject, the defense of her record at the State Department is left to her allies and Correct the Record, a spinoff of Democratic super PAC American Bridge. It was founded to deflect Republican attacks that might endanger a Clinton candidacy before she's even decided whether to run. The group points to a list of 11 achievements on its website. It credits her with restoring America's leadership and standing in the world, building and maintaining a coalition to enact unprecedented sanctions against Iran, her role in a nuclear missile reduction treaty with Russia and her support for the raid that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. "And, yes, you can also find information on her implementation of (audit)-inspired reforms, including the integration of women into the secretary of state policy framework and ensuring our economic, energy, and environmental goals serve U.S. national security interests," senior adviser Burns Strider told CNN. But without major achievements to point to, like progress on Mideast peace, and U.S.-Russian relations at a post-Cold War low despite her attempt to reset them, arguments for her accomplishments are modest. Even Clinton herself has struggled to clearly articulate concrete examples of her success. "I really see my role as secretary, and, in fact, leadership in general in a democracy, as a relay race," Clinton told an audience at a recent event in New York when she was asked about her triumphs in that job. "You run the best race you can run, you hand off the baton." CNN Foreign Affairs Reporter Elise Labott contributed to this report.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

9FSCFCd5xn0KHWaN

test

QnPH9b4dA2RzqG7R

lgbt_rights

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/06/30/marsha-p-johnson-didnt-start-stonewall-pride-might-not-have-been-trans/

Marsha P. Johnson Probably Didn't Start Stonewall, and Might Not Have Been Trans. Does It Matter?

2020-06-30

Billy Binion, Eugene Volokh, Josh Blackman, Ronald Bailey, John Mcwhorter, Jacob Sullum

Head over to Google today and you 'll see one of its famous doodle sketches in the form of Marsha P. Johnson , the LGBT rights activist , with her signature flower crown , gender-bending ensemble , and wide smile . In recent years , Johnson has been credited as a `` trans woman of color '' who started the Stonewall riots and thus , in some sense , the LGBT rights movement . While it 's undeniable that she was a charismatic central figure in that story , it 's far from clear that she was one of the main instigators at Stonewall . Even more fraught : It 's far from clear she was trans . On one level , it does n't really matter . She was an inspiring person who fought for civil rights despite huge obstacles in her way , and that 's enough to celebrate . But being on the right side of history—as so many activists in the intersectional social justice space believe they are—does n't give you license to rewrite it . In the end , the facts matter , even when they are slightly less convenient for your narrative . In the early morning hours of June 28 , 1969 , New York City police officers descended on the Stonewall Inn to conduct what had become their typical , humiliating , and brutal raids on gay establishments . Patrons were n't having it . Several days of violent demonstrations followed . In popular culture , the Stonewall riots are widely viewed as pivotal . But there 's also a mythic air to the protests . Folkloric tellings and retellings change with each passing year : Who spearheaded the charge against authority ? Who threw that fateful first brick ? Or was it a shot glass ? The answers to those questions largely remain elusive , but in recent years one narrative has taken hold . The claim that it was `` trans women of color '' —especially Johnson—who led the uprising has been repeated uncritically by politicians , pundits , and in the national media . But it is n't difficult to figure out that the Stonewall riots did not begin with Johnson . For one thing , Johnson said so herself . `` I was uptown and I did n't get downtown until about two o'clock . When I got downtown , the place was already on fire , and there was a raid already , '' she told historian Eric Marcus in 1987 . `` The riots had already started . '' Yet in recent years , an alternate narrative has shifted from urban legend to indisputable fact . Johnson was `` one of three individuals '' who first `` incited pushback against police , '' writes Rolling Stone . `` It started when Marsha P. Johnson cried ' I got my civil rights ! ' and threw a shot glass into a mirror , '' says a Forbes contributor , whose piece was selected and promoted as an Editors ' Pick . `` Transgender women of color led the uprising at the Stonewall Inn 51 years ago on Sunday , '' The New York Times claimed , though the paper later ghost-edited that line and appended a correction . What 's more , there 's no evidence Johnson used the term transgender for herself . Though it 's true that the term was not nearly as widespread as it is today , it was n't unheard of . And Johnson—who employed both `` she '' and `` he '' pronouns , and wore both male and female clothing—identified as a drag queen , as well as `` gay '' and as a `` transvestite . '' To conflate those identities with transgenderism trivializes and misappropriates the unique struggles those communities face . Intersectionality—while built around the well-intentioned idea that we should be vigilant and caring toward society 's most vulnerable—can end up encouraging activists to prioritize identity at the expense of the truth . Saying your movement was started by a `` transgender woman of color '' checks a lot of boxes and confers the proper legitimacy on your cause . Exactly how Johnson identified should n't really be the main focus , though present-day activists have placed undue emphasis on it . She was a determined activist for the cause and a founding member of the Gay Liberation Front . In that vein , we could all stand to learn from Johnson , whose chosen middle initial— '' P '' —stood for `` Pay it no mind , '' a common response she 'd give those who 'd inquire about her gender . She begged not to be put into a box . Today 's activists have done the opposite . On a broader level , the retroactive reimagining of history makes it hard to actually learn from the past . `` Stonewall Inn was not a very hospitable place to those who were then referred to as transsexuals or transvestites , '' says James Kirchick , a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution . `` A lot of gay bars were segregated in that way , and a lot of gay bars were racially segregated , maybe not officially or legally , but unofficially certainly . '' Those like Johnson , then , were often rejected by the community they wanted to join . Members of that same community have now co-opted and reimagined Johnson for their own purposes . Put differently , you could say Johnson was likely one step ahead of her peers . But that was because she understood what it was like not to have a seat at the table , much less to be at the head of it . `` In some ways , '' writes journalist Andrew Sullivan at New York , `` it was the rebellion of those with much more to lose that marked a shift in consciousness . '' Perhaps ironically , the left has often led the charge against attempts to change history and decried the effects of such revisionism . When it comes to the debate around Confederate monuments , for instance , many liberal-leaning folks have rightly resisted false portrayals surrounding the circumstances in which those statues were erected . To rewrite the Civil War narrative , they say , is to erase a savage history of human suffering , one that we 're still trying to learn from today . It 's for that same ███ that Johnson 's history—her actual history , to the extent that we can know it—should be told truthfully , and in full .

Head over to Google today and you'll see one of its famous doodle sketches in the form of Marsha P. Johnson, the LGBT rights activist, with her signature flower crown, gender-bending ensemble, and wide smile. In recent years, Johnson has been credited as a "trans woman of color" who started the Stonewall riots and thus, in some sense, the LGBT rights movement. While it's undeniable that she was a charismatic central figure in that story, it's far from clear that she was one of the main instigators at Stonewall. Even more fraught: It's far from clear she was trans. On one level, it doesn't really matter. She was an inspiring person who fought for civil rights despite huge obstacles in her way, and that's enough to celebrate. But being on the right side of history—as so many activists in the intersectional social justice space believe they are—doesn't give you license to rewrite it. In the end, the facts matter, even when they are slightly less convenient for your narrative. In the early morning hours of June 28, 1969, New York City police officers descended on the Stonewall Inn to conduct what had become their typical, humiliating, and brutal raids on gay establishments. Patrons weren't having it. Several days of violent demonstrations followed. In popular culture, the Stonewall riots are widely viewed as pivotal. But there's also a mythic air to the protests. Folkloric tellings and retellings change with each passing year: Who spearheaded the charge against authority? Who threw that fateful first brick? Or was it a shot glass? The answers to those questions largely remain elusive, but in recent years one narrative has taken hold. The claim that it was "trans women of color"—especially Johnson—who led the uprising has been repeated uncritically by politicians, pundits, and in the national media. But it isn't difficult to figure out that the Stonewall riots did not begin with Johnson. For one thing, Johnson said so herself. "I was uptown and I didn't get downtown until about two o'clock. When I got downtown, the place was already on fire, and there was a raid already," she told historian Eric Marcus in 1987. "The riots had already started." Yet in recent years, an alternate narrative has shifted from urban legend to indisputable fact. Johnson was "one of three individuals" who first "incited pushback against police," writes Rolling Stone. "It started when Marsha P. Johnson cried 'I got my civil rights!' and threw a shot glass into a mirror," says a Forbes contributor, whose piece was selected and promoted as an Editors' Pick. "Transgender women of color led the uprising at the Stonewall Inn 51 years ago on Sunday," The New York Times claimed, though the paper later ghost-edited that line and appended a correction. What's more, there's no evidence Johnson used the term transgender for herself. Though it's true that the term was not nearly as widespread as it is today, it wasn't unheard of. And Johnson—who employed both "she" and "he" pronouns, and wore both male and female clothing—identified as a drag queen, as well as "gay" and as a "transvestite." To conflate those identities with transgenderism trivializes and misappropriates the unique struggles those communities face. Intersectionality—while built around the well-intentioned idea that we should be vigilant and caring toward society's most vulnerable—can end up encouraging activists to prioritize identity at the expense of the truth. Saying your movement was started by a "transgender woman of color" checks a lot of boxes and confers the proper legitimacy on your cause. Exactly how Johnson identified shouldn't really be the main focus, though present-day activists have placed undue emphasis on it. She was a determined activist for the cause and a founding member of the Gay Liberation Front. In that vein, we could all stand to learn from Johnson, whose chosen middle initial—"P"—stood for "Pay it no mind," a common response she'd give those who'd inquire about her gender. She begged not to be put into a box. Today's activists have done the opposite. On a broader level, the retroactive reimagining of history makes it hard to actually learn from the past. "Stonewall Inn was not a very hospitable place to those who were then referred to as transsexuals or transvestites," says James Kirchick, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. "A lot of gay bars were segregated in that way, and a lot of gay bars were racially segregated, maybe not officially or legally, but unofficially certainly." Those like Johnson, then, were often rejected by the community they wanted to join. Members of that same community have now co-opted and reimagined Johnson for their own purposes. Put differently, you could say Johnson was likely one step ahead of her peers. But that was because she understood what it was like not to have a seat at the table, much less to be at the head of it. "In some ways," writes journalist Andrew Sullivan at New York, "it was the rebellion of those with much more to lose that marked a shift in consciousness." Perhaps ironically, the left has often led the charge against attempts to change history and decried the effects of such revisionism. When it comes to the debate around Confederate monuments, for instance, many liberal-leaning folks have rightly resisted false portrayals surrounding the circumstances in which those statues were erected. To rewrite the Civil War narrative, they say, is to erase a savage history of human suffering, one that we're still trying to learn from today. It's for that same reason that Johnson's history—her actual history, to the extent that we can know it—should be told truthfully, and in full.

www.reason.com

right

QnPH9b4dA2RzqG7R

test

7y0JiF0qrSzGdzkf

supreme_court

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/scotus-battle-highlights-red-state-democrats-2018-dilemma/story?id=56464755&cid=clicksource_77_2_hero_headlines_headlines_hed

SCOTUS battle highlights red-state Democrats' 2018 dilemma

The retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy immediately set off a rush of political jockeying ahead of what promises to be a lengthy and contentious confirmation battle . The most immediate target for Republicans included a familiar list of names , including North Dakota Democrat Heidi Heitkamp . This week the National Republican Senatorial Committee ( NRSC ) labeled Heitkamp as `` hiding Heidi , '' saying the senator `` is either going to have to vote to support '' President Donald Trump 's nominee for the Supreme Court , Brett Kavanaugh , or `` kiss her Senate seat goodbye . '' Heitkamp , who in 2017 along with three other moderate Democrats voted to confirm Neil Gorusch , Trump 's first nominee for the Supreme Court , has struck a cautious tone in the wake of Kennedy 's retirement , saying she is preparing to `` thoroughly review '' Kavanaugh 's record . The rhetorical battle is familiar , and Republicans are quick to pin similar labels on a particular set of Democrats that are at the center of the battle for control of the U.S. Senate . They are the group of 10 Democratic senators running for re-election in states that Donald Trump won in the 2016 presidential election over Hillary Clinton , and while the states they hail from are all colored by various cultural , economic and political differences , they are nonetheless tied inextricably together as they seek political survival in the coming November midterm election . The list of 10 includes : Heitkamp , Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin , Sherrod Brown of Ohio , Bob Casey of Pennsylvania , Joe Donnelly of Indiana , Joe Manchin of West Virginia , Claire McCaskill of Missouri , Bill Nelson of Florida , Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Jon Tester of Montana . Those six men and four women span a unique swath of Democratic politics , are hyper-aware of their political brand and connection with voters in their home state and have navigated the treacherous and chaotic nature of the Trump presidency in distinct ways . The Supreme Court battle is indicative of the larger dilemma facing these `` Red State Democrats . '' Will personal branding and a focus on bread and butter issues like health care and trade be enough to give them the political room to maneuver around the negative assumptions some voters in their state , many of whom voted for Donald Trump , to win re-election in 2018 . When it comes to the Supreme Court , Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin 's comments that Senate Democrats `` understand it 's an historic decision , '' and `` about more than the next election , '' comments starkly underscore the conundrum these Democrats face . `` Even Sen. Dick Durbin said he was fine with his 2018 colleagues losing re-election just to obstruct President Trump , '' said Katie Martin , the Communications Director of the NRSC , `` The dysfunction within the Democratic Party is on full display with this vote . '' Part of the answer to how Democrats are straddling that difficult line lies in how these senators have voted on various pieces of legislation in the Trump era . According to FiveThirtyEight , Baldwin votes in line with a Trump position just 21.9 percent of the time , the lowest number of the group , while Manchin votes in line with Trump 60.8 percent of the time , the highest . Within that range exist this group of ten Democrats on which the control of the U.S. Senate rests . At a time when the Democratic Party is grappling with a battle between its progressive and establishment wings , these ten Democrats represent a key cross-section of the Democratic Party . Most speak of a desire to work with President Trump when it benefits their state and vociferously oppose him when they believe he acts against their constituents interests . ███ reached out to each of the ten campaigns to ask how they believe the fact that President Trump won their state affects how they 're approaching 2018 . Not all campaigns directly responses to ███ ' request , but a thorough look at each individual reveals important similarities and differences across this pivotal group . It should come as no surprise that of the ten Democrats that align more traditionally with the party 's left flank , all represent states where Trump 's margin of victory was especially tight in 2016 . The Rust Belt was key to Trump 's victory in 2016 , and an average of the margins of victory for Trump in Michigan , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin comes to just 0.8 percent . Ohio , where Trump scored an over 8-point win in 2016 , is a slight exception to that rule , even if he was barely able to crack 50 percent of the total vote in the state . Sens . Baldwin , Brown , Casey and Stabenow have all maintained solidly liberal voting records during the first years of the Trump presidency , opposing most major cabinet and judicial nominees that Trump has put forward , and speaking out strongly against the GOP tax plan and healthcare overhaul . But that is not to say these senators do n't also attempt to seek out common ground with Trump to court certain voter groups they know they will need to form a winning coalition in November . Brown , the gravelly voiced longtime staple in Ohio politics , is quick to point out that he and President Trump strike a similar tune on trade . Brown voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA ) in 1993 , and opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership championed by President Barack Obama , two votes his campaign provides as evidence that he is willing to break with his own party on certain issues . `` Sherrod has led the fight against unfair trade deals that have hurt Ohio ’ s economy and eliminated good-paying American jobs , '' Brown 's campaign Press Secretary Rachel Petri told ███ , `` He 's been consistent that he 'll work with anyone when it 's right for Ohio , but he 'll stand up to either party when their policies hurt workers and families . '' Brown 's rhetoric on tariffs and China 's `` cheating '' is often not that far off from the frustration often vented by Trump on social media . China ’ s cheating has shuttered steel plants across our state , put Ohioans out of work , and distorted global markets . The tariffs are an important step toward enforcing trade laws and making clear the U.S. will not allow China to cheat Americans out of their jobs . — Sherrod Brown ( @ SenSherrodBrown ) July 3 , 2018 It is indeed in states like Ohio , Wisconsin , Pennsylvania and Michigan where a winning coalition of energized Clinton-voters and disillusioned Trump voters could save these incumbents from defeat in 2018 . `` In Wisconsin or Pennsylvania or even Ohio , you probably have to win some Trump voters but you don ’ t necessarily have to win Trump approvers -- a subtle but important difference , '' said Kyle Kondik of the University of Virginia Center for Politics . `` Between Trump ’ s relatively mediocre approval in a lot of these states , and the fact that you do have some legitimate Trump Democrats who are probably going to come home , at least for 2018 , plus all the Clinton voters in the state , that provides a pretty decent base for a number of these senators , '' Kondik added , with the caveat that Manchin , Heitkamp and Tester do not face the same type of political environment in their races . In the Badger State , Baldwin 's hopes largely rest on a unique set of 13 counties that voted for Trump for president in 2016 , Scott Walker for governor in 2014 but broke for both Baldwin and Barack Obama in 2012 . Peppered across the state , these mostly rural counties are where Baldwin hopes to focus her `` Buy American '' message and tap into the same strain of economic populism that enabled Donald Trump to become the first Republican since Ronald Reagan in 1984 . When we rebuild our crumbling water infrastructure , we should use # MadeinAmerica products . @ POTUS says he supports my # BuyAmerica reform and Congressional Republicans need to join us in getting the job done for Wisconsin workers and manufacturers . https : //t.co/7gpWqBRv7g — Sen. Tammy Baldwin ( @ SenatorBaldwin ) July 10 , 2018 Casey , the son of a former governor , is known as a more pro-life member of the Democratic caucus but votes the Trump line just 29.7 percent of the time . But running against the ardently pro-Trump Congressman Lou Barletta this cycle has afforded Casey a degree of room to maneuver politically in a way he likely would not have in a midterm cycle with a relatively unpopular Republican that narrowly won his home state occupying the White House . Earlier this week , Casey came out against Trump 's nominee for the Supreme Court before it was announced that Kavanaugh was the pick . In a statement Casey struck a populist tone , decrying `` corporate America , '' and `` Washington special interests '' he says were behind the process . `` I was elected to represent all Pennsylvanians . I was not elected to genuflect to the hard Right , who are funded by corporate America , '' Casey said . Occupying a relative middle ground within the Democratic caucus are three Senators with varying odds for re-election and some progressive bona fides : Nelson , McCaskill and Tester . While all three are a bit less locked into the Democratic line , they vote with Democrats most of the time . Nelson , McCaskill and Tester all held firm with Democrats on immigration , taxes and the Affordable Care Act . The three Senators voted to roll back the Dodd-Frank Act , a key liberal financial reform , and have voted to confirm some of Trump ’ s cabinet nominees , including Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen . Nelson was one of six Democratic Senators to vote in favor of confirming Gina Haspel as CIA Director , despite Democratic objections to her involvement in CIA “ black sites . ” Nevertheless , all three are not afraid of taking more progressive stands on issues and running on their liberal records . In her race in Missouri , McCaskill has vocally defended the Affordable Care Act and its provision that protects insurers from rejecting coverage to people with pre-existing conditions . Her opponent , Josh Hawley , is participating in a pending lawsuit challenging the provision in his capacity as the state ’ s Attorney General . McCaskill has been emphasizing her ability to work hard for Missouri in the Senate in her campaign , putting out a campaign ad that highlighted the fifty town hall meetings she held with constituents last year . The Senator has also been driving across the state on an RV tour to engage with constituents . McCaskill came under fire for the tour , however , as she ultimately admitted that she had used a private plane during part of her tour . In Montana , Tester sells his lifelong ties to Montana to contrast with his opponent Matt Rosendale , who grew up in Maryland . Tester has also shown a willingness to incorporate progressive rhetoric into his campaign , aligning himself strongly with local unions and defending a woman ’ s right to choose on abortion . Despite his progressive credentials , Tester has packaged his policies in a way that appeals in a Republican-leaning state like Montana . On reproductive health issues , Tester has framed his support for abortion rights as a small-government issue . Montana women deserve equal rights , and I ’ ll stand up to anyone who wants to put government between a woman and her doctor . I ’ m proud to stand with @ PPact & their mission to protect access to basic health care services and rights for Montana women . # mtpol # mtsen pic.twitter.com/CjQ8I6yrO6 — Jon Tester ( @ jontester ) June 29 , 2018 Nelson has been relatively quiet so far in his re-election bid against Republican Governor Rick Scott . Nelson , a former NASA astronaut and fifth-generation Floridian , is vying for his fourth term but has kept a low profile . Nevertheless , Nelson is accumulating campaign money as he is currently sitting on over $ 10 million in funds . Scott is putting pressure on Nelson , however , accumulating record-breaking fundraising hauls . Nelson will likely step up his campaign efforts as the election draws nearer . In the campaigning Nelson has already done , he has relied on his astronaut background as a representation of how he looks beyond political decisions in his role as a Senator , incorporating it into an ad he released in May . `` When I looked back at our planet , '' Nelson says as dramatic music plays over shots of the space shuttle , `` I did n't see political divisions . I saw how we 're all in this together , bound by timeless values we all share . '' These three senators are relatively unlikely to join Republicans in confirming Kavanaugh , as all three voted against Gorsuch ’ s confirmation last year . Nelson has already said publicly before the announcement of Kavanaugh that he expects to vote against a Supreme Court nominee Trump puts out . In this group are three particularly moderate and particularly vulnerable Democrats : Heitkamp , Manchin and Donnelly . These three Democrats are among the most conservative in their caucus , voting with Trump over 50 percent of the time . All three voted to confirm most of Trump ’ s cabinet nominees and even voted for some conservative measures . Heitkamp , Manchin and Donnelly all voted to confirm Justice Neil Gorsuch last year and for the Republican “ sanctuary cities ” immigration bill , while the latter two joined Senate Republicans in favor of a bill that would ban abortion at 20 weeks . Despite these votes straying from the Democratic line , all three held firm in opposing the tax bill Republicans passed last year as well as the Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act . For these three Democrats , the message to voters is that they are independent voices willing to work with anyone who will help put their state first . All three have taken a range of stances that would cater to local voters , with Manchin backing efforts to revive West Virginia ’ s struggling coal industry , and both Heitkamp and Donnelly touting their support for the Farm Bill and opposition to Trump ’ s tariffs in their farm-heavy states . When running as Democrats in states where the national Democratic brand turns off voters , these Senators emphasize their local ties and try to project a personality that voters are attracted to . In North Dakota , Heitkamp ’ s campaign messaging has played to her background as a born-and-bred North Dakotan and a member of a prominent in-state family , something that plays well in an environment where voters look for a candidate who both looks out for local interests and play up their local roots , according to Mark Jendrysik , a political science professor at the University of North Dakota . “ Senator Heitkamp is an interesting phenomenon . She is in many ways a unique individual in state politics . She sold herself as an independent , not beholden to party orthodoxy , ” Jendrysik said . “ North Dakotans are aggressively humble . She really has worked that angle -- not dour , but definitely serious , focused , attached to the soil , grown up here . ” The face-to-face , retail politicking aspect of the race is something that Manchin is also leaning into in his race in West Virginia . Manchin has positioned himself as a both a proud independent and a proud West Virginian in his campaign . “ People here have been screwed by both political parties , ” Manchin proclaimed in an ad launched in April . Turning to his local roots , Manchin added , ” Yes , Washington sucks , but West Virginians don ’ t give up . ” Patrick Hickey , a political science professor at the University of West Virginia , sees Manchin ’ s branding as a double-edged sword . “ People are looking for an authentic personality who is not a politician . It both helps and hurts Manchin in this race . Manchin has built a brand as an independent person . People like him as a person and like this independent brand , but he ’ s a career politician -- but so is his opponent , ” he said . In an effort to leverage Trump ’ s relatively high approval ratings Republican candidates in these states have sought to counter all three by turning social issues , particularly abortion and its ties to the upcoming confirmation vote of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh , into parts of their campaign . Manchin 's opponent , West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey , encouraged his supporters this week to sign a petition urging Manchin to back Kavanaugh 's nomination , referencing President Trump 's 2016 margin of victory in his pitch to supporters . `` West Virginia voters were clear in 2016 when they overwhelmingly elected President Trump by more than 40 points , '' Morrisey said Wednesday , `` They have an opportunity to remind Sen. Manchin to stand with our President and a highly-qualified Supreme Court nominee . '' Mike Braun , challenging Donnelly in Indiana , criticized Donnelly for not immediately announcing his support for Kavanaugh ’ s nomination .

The retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy immediately set off a rush of political jockeying ahead of what promises to be a lengthy and contentious confirmation battle. The most immediate target for Republicans included a familiar list of names, including North Dakota Democrat Heidi Heitkamp. This week the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) labeled Heitkamp as "hiding Heidi," saying the senator "is either going to have to vote to support" President Donald Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, or "kiss her Senate seat goodbye." Heitkamp, who in 2017 along with three other moderate Democrats voted to confirm Neil Gorusch, Trump's first nominee for the Supreme Court, has struck a cautious tone in the wake of Kennedy's retirement, saying she is preparing to "thoroughly review" Kavanaugh's record. The rhetorical battle is familiar, and Republicans are quick to pin similar labels on a particular set of Democrats that are at the center of the battle for control of the U.S. Senate. They are the group of 10 Democratic senators running for re-election in states that Donald Trump won in the 2016 presidential election over Hillary Clinton, and while the states they hail from are all colored by various cultural, economic and political differences, they are nonetheless tied inextricably together as they seek political survival in the coming November midterm election. Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images The list of 10 includes: Heitkamp, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Bill Nelson of Florida, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Jon Tester of Montana. Those six men and four women span a unique swath of Democratic politics, are hyper-aware of their political brand and connection with voters in their home state and have navigated the treacherous and chaotic nature of the Trump presidency in distinct ways. The Supreme Court battle is indicative of the larger dilemma facing these "Red State Democrats." Will personal branding and a focus on bread and butter issues like health care and trade be enough to give them the political room to maneuver around the negative assumptions some voters in their state, many of whom voted for Donald Trump, to win re-election in 2018. When it comes to the Supreme Court, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin's comments that Senate Democrats "understand it's an historic decision," and "about more than the next election," comments starkly underscore the conundrum these Democrats face. "Even Sen. Dick Durbin said he was fine with his 2018 colleagues losing re-election just to obstruct President Trump," said Katie Martin, the Communications Director of the NRSC, "The dysfunction within the Democratic Party is on full display with this vote." Part of the answer to how Democrats are straddling that difficult line lies in how these senators have voted on various pieces of legislation in the Trump era. According to FiveThirtyEight, Baldwin votes in line with a Trump position just 21.9 percent of the time, the lowest number of the group, while Manchin votes in line with Trump 60.8 percent of the time, the highest. Within that range exist this group of ten Democrats on which the control of the U.S. Senate rests. Win McNamee/Getty Images At a time when the Democratic Party is grappling with a battle between its progressive and establishment wings, these ten Democrats represent a key cross-section of the Democratic Party. Most speak of a desire to work with President Trump when it benefits their state and vociferously oppose him when they believe he acts against their constituents interests. ABC News reached out to each of the ten campaigns to ask how they believe the fact that President Trump won their state affects how they're approaching 2018. Not all campaigns directly responses to ABC News' request, but a thorough look at each individual reveals important similarities and differences across this pivotal group. The firm liberals It should come as no surprise that of the ten Democrats that align more traditionally with the party's left flank, all represent states where Trump's margin of victory was especially tight in 2016. The Rust Belt was key to Trump's victory in 2016, and an average of the margins of victory for Trump in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin comes to just 0.8 percent. Ohio, where Trump scored an over 8-point win in 2016, is a slight exception to that rule, even if he was barely able to crack 50 percent of the total vote in the state. Sens. Baldwin, Brown, Casey and Stabenow have all maintained solidly liberal voting records during the first years of the Trump presidency, opposing most major cabinet and judicial nominees that Trump has put forward, and speaking out strongly against the GOP tax plan and healthcare overhaul. But that is not to say these senators don't also attempt to seek out common ground with Trump to court certain voter groups they know they will need to form a winning coalition in November. Brown, the gravelly voiced longtime staple in Ohio politics, is quick to point out that he and President Trump strike a similar tune on trade. Brown voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993, and opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership championed by President Barack Obama, two votes his campaign provides as evidence that he is willing to break with his own party on certain issues. "Sherrod has led the fight against unfair trade deals that have hurt Ohio’s economy and eliminated good-paying American jobs," Brown's campaign Press Secretary Rachel Petri told ABC News, "He's been consistent that he'll work with anyone when it's right for Ohio, but he'll stand up to either party when their policies hurt workers and families." Brown's rhetoric on tariffs and China's "cheating" is often not that far off from the frustration often vented by Trump on social media. China’s cheating has shuttered steel plants across our state, put Ohioans out of work, and distorted global markets. The tariffs are an important step toward enforcing trade laws and making clear the U.S. will not allow China to cheat Americans out of their jobs. — Sherrod Brown (@SenSherrodBrown) July 3, 2018 It is indeed in states like Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan where a winning coalition of energized Clinton-voters and disillusioned Trump voters could save these incumbents from defeat in 2018. David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images "In Wisconsin or Pennsylvania or even Ohio, you probably have to win some Trump voters but you don’t necessarily have to win Trump approvers -- a subtle but important difference," said Kyle Kondik of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. "Between Trump’s relatively mediocre approval in a lot of these states, and the fact that you do have some legitimate Trump Democrats who are probably going to come home, at least for 2018, plus all the Clinton voters in the state, that provides a pretty decent base for a number of these senators," Kondik added, with the caveat that Manchin, Heitkamp and Tester do not face the same type of political environment in their races. In the Badger State, Baldwin's hopes largely rest on a unique set of 13 counties that voted for Trump for president in 2016, Scott Walker for governor in 2014 but broke for both Baldwin and Barack Obama in 2012. Peppered across the state, these mostly rural counties are where Baldwin hopes to focus her "Buy American" message and tap into the same strain of economic populism that enabled Donald Trump to become the first Republican since Ronald Reagan in 1984. When we rebuild our crumbling water infrastructure, we should use #MadeinAmerica products. @POTUS says he supports my #BuyAmerica reform and Congressional Republicans need to join us in getting the job done for Wisconsin workers and manufacturers. https://t.co/7gpWqBRv7g — Sen. Tammy Baldwin (@SenatorBaldwin) July 10, 2018 Casey, the son of a former governor, is known as a more pro-life member of the Democratic caucus but votes the Trump line just 29.7 percent of the time. But running against the ardently pro-Trump Congressman Lou Barletta this cycle has afforded Casey a degree of room to maneuver politically in a way he likely would not have in a midterm cycle with a relatively unpopular Republican that narrowly won his home state occupying the White House. Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images Earlier this week, Casey came out against Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court before it was announced that Kavanaugh was the pick. In a statement Casey struck a populist tone, decrying "corporate America," and "Washington special interests" he says were behind the process. "I was elected to represent all Pennsylvanians. I was not elected to genuflect to the hard Right, who are funded by corporate America," Casey said. The pragmatists Occupying a relative middle ground within the Democratic caucus are three Senators with varying odds for re-election and some progressive bona fides: Nelson, McCaskill and Tester. While all three are a bit less locked into the Democratic line, they vote with Democrats most of the time. Nelson, McCaskill and Tester all held firm with Democrats on immigration, taxes and the Affordable Care Act. Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images The three Senators voted to roll back the Dodd-Frank Act, a key liberal financial reform, and have voted to confirm some of Trump’s cabinet nominees, including Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen. Nelson was one of six Democratic Senators to vote in favor of confirming Gina Haspel as CIA Director, despite Democratic objections to her involvement in CIA “black sites.” Nevertheless, all three are not afraid of taking more progressive stands on issues and running on their liberal records. In her race in Missouri, McCaskill has vocally defended the Affordable Care Act and its provision that protects insurers from rejecting coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Her opponent, Josh Hawley, is participating in a pending lawsuit challenging the provision in his capacity as the state’s Attorney General. Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images McCaskill has been emphasizing her ability to work hard for Missouri in the Senate in her campaign, putting out a campaign ad that highlighted the fifty town hall meetings she held with constituents last year. The Senator has also been driving across the state on an RV tour to engage with constituents. McCaskill came under fire for the tour, however, as she ultimately admitted that she had used a private plane during part of her tour. In Montana, Tester sells his lifelong ties to Montana to contrast with his opponent Matt Rosendale, who grew up in Maryland. Tester has also shown a willingness to incorporate progressive rhetoric into his campaign, aligning himself strongly with local unions and defending a woman’s right to choose on abortion. Despite his progressive credentials, Tester has packaged his policies in a way that appeals in a Republican-leaning state like Montana. On reproductive health issues, Tester has framed his support for abortion rights as a small-government issue. Montana women deserve equal rights, and I’ll stand up to anyone who wants to put government between a woman and her doctor. I’m proud to stand with @PPact & their mission to protect access to basic health care services and rights for Montana women. #mtpol #mtsen pic.twitter.com/CjQ8I6yrO6 — Jon Tester (@jontester) June 29, 2018 Nelson has been relatively quiet so far in his re-election bid against Republican Governor Rick Scott. Nelson, a former NASA astronaut and fifth-generation Floridian, is vying for his fourth term but has kept a low profile. Nevertheless, Nelson is accumulating campaign money as he is currently sitting on over $10 million in funds. Scott is putting pressure on Nelson, however, accumulating record-breaking fundraising hauls. Nelson will likely step up his campaign efforts as the election draws nearer. In the campaigning Nelson has already done, he has relied on his astronaut background as a representation of how he looks beyond political decisions in his role as a Senator, incorporating it into an ad he released in May. "When I looked back at our planet," Nelson says as dramatic music plays over shots of the space shuttle, "I didn't see political divisions. I saw how we're all in this together, bound by timeless values we all share." These three senators are relatively unlikely to join Republicans in confirming Kavanaugh, as all three voted against Gorsuch’s confirmation last year. Nelson has already said publicly before the announcement of Kavanaugh that he expects to vote against a Supreme Court nominee Trump puts out. The true moderates In this group are three particularly moderate and particularly vulnerable Democrats: Heitkamp, Manchin and Donnelly. These three Democrats are among the most conservative in their caucus, voting with Trump over 50 percent of the time. All three voted to confirm most of Trump’s cabinet nominees and even voted for some conservative measures. Heitkamp, Manchin and Donnelly all voted to confirm Justice Neil Gorsuch last year and for the Republican “sanctuary cities” immigration bill, while the latter two joined Senate Republicans in favor of a bill that would ban abortion at 20 weeks. Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images Despite these votes straying from the Democratic line, all three held firm in opposing the tax bill Republicans passed last year as well as the Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. For these three Democrats, the message to voters is that they are independent voices willing to work with anyone who will help put their state first. All three have taken a range of stances that would cater to local voters, with Manchin backing efforts to revive West Virginia’s struggling coal industry, and both Heitkamp and Donnelly touting their support for the Farm Bill and opposition to Trump’s tariffs in their farm-heavy states. When running as Democrats in states where the national Democratic brand turns off voters, these Senators emphasize their local ties and try to project a personality that voters are attracted to. In North Dakota, Heitkamp’s campaign messaging has played to her background as a born-and-bred North Dakotan and a member of a prominent in-state family, something that plays well in an environment where voters look for a candidate who both looks out for local interests and play up their local roots, according to Mark Jendrysik, a political science professor at the University of North Dakota. “Senator Heitkamp is an interesting phenomenon. She is in many ways a unique individual in state politics. She sold herself as an independent, not beholden to party orthodoxy,” Jendrysik said. “North Dakotans are aggressively humble. She really has worked that angle-- not dour, but definitely serious, focused, attached to the soil, grown up here.” Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images The face-to-face, retail politicking aspect of the race is something that Manchin is also leaning into in his race in West Virginia. Manchin has positioned himself as a both a proud independent and a proud West Virginian in his campaign. “People here have been screwed by both political parties,” Manchin proclaimed in an ad launched in April. Turning to his local roots, Manchin added, ”Yes, Washington sucks, but West Virginians don’t give up.” Patrick Hickey, a political science professor at the University of West Virginia, sees Manchin’s branding as a double-edged sword. “People are looking for an authentic personality who is not a politician. It both helps and hurts Manchin in this race. Manchin has built a brand as an independent person. People like him as a person and like this independent brand, but he’s a career politician-- but so is his opponent,” he said. Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images In an effort to leverage Trump’s relatively high approval ratings Republican candidates in these states have sought to counter all three by turning social issues, particularly abortion and its ties to the upcoming confirmation vote of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, into parts of their campaign. Manchin's opponent, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, encouraged his supporters this week to sign a petition urging Manchin to back Kavanaugh's nomination, referencing President Trump's 2016 margin of victory in his pitch to supporters. "West Virginia voters were clear in 2016 when they overwhelmingly elected President Trump by more than 40 points," Morrisey said Wednesday, "They have an opportunity to remind Sen. Manchin to stand with our President and a highly-qualified Supreme Court nominee." Mike Braun, challenging Donnelly in Indiana, criticized Donnelly for not immediately announcing his support for Kavanaugh’s nomination.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

7y0JiF0qrSzGdzkf

test

vGe7P2SCcZJn5QtH

media_bias

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2020/july/ny-times-publishes-lsquo-inaccurate-rsquo-article-calling-churches-lsquo-major-source-rsquo-of-covid-19-cases

NY Times Publishes ‘Inaccurate’ Article Calling Churches ‘Major Source’ of COVID-19 Cases

2020-07-08

ABOVE : Dr. Ed Stetzer , the Billy Graham chair of church , mission , and evangelism at Wheaton College , appeared on Thursday 's afternoon edition of ███ 's Newswatch , to talk about the recent New York Times article claiming Sunday worship services are a `` major source '' of COVID-19 cases . Newswatch is seen weekdays on the ███ News Channel . After finding 40 churches connected to around 650 cases of the coronavirus , The New York Times is calling Sunday worship services “ a major source ” of COVID-19 cases . “ The virus has infiltrated Sunday sermons , meetings of ministers and Christian youth camps in Colorado and Missouri , ” reads the Times piece . “ It has struck churches that reopened cautiously with face masks and social distancing in the pews , as well as some that defied lockdowns and refused to heed new limits on numbers of worshipers . ” The story does , of course , link to legitimate cases — like Calvary Chapel in San Antonio , where around 50 congregants and staffers have come down with mild coronavirus infections , and Kanakuk Kamps in Missouri , which has been hit with more than 80 cases of COVID-19 . The most heartbreaking case included in the Times article is that of Carsyn Davis , a Fort Myers , Florida , high schooler who , suffering from asthma and a rare neurological disorder , passed away after being infected with the coronavirus . The authors of the piece , though , then extrapolate that those anecdotal instances are proof churches are spreading the virus nationwide in disproportionate numbers . Hershael York , dean of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary ’ s School of Theology and pastor of Buck Run Baptist Church in Frankfort , Kentucky , asked , “ How many 1000s of churches are meeting now ? And the [ Times ] finds 650 cases linked to only 40 religious institutions … and that ’ s a ‘ major source ? ’ ” He then asked about the press ’ apparent “ relentless obsession with churches . ” How many 1000 's of churches are meeting now ? And the @ nytimes finds 650 cases linked to only 40 religious institutions . . . and that is a `` major source '' . Let 's put the stats in context , folks ! Why this relentless obsession with churches ? https : //t.co/xYGxVWDa3h — Hershael York ( @ hershaelyork ) July 8 , 2020 Dan Darling , a Christian author and the senior vice president of the National Religious Broadcasters Association , argued the Times article “ completely missed the point that churches voluntarily shut down for months ” and there “ wasn ’ t a ‘ rush to open , ’ ” as pastors “ spent weeks creating complicated phases . ” Ed Stetzer , a church planter and a professor at Wheaton College , pointed out there are three million confirmed COVID-19 cases in the U.S. and criticized the Times piece as “ odd ” for using 650 of those cases to suggest churches are a “ major source ” of viral spread . `` More than 650 cases '' in churches . Out of 3 million . Now , @ NYTimes says churches are a `` major source , '' `` erupting , '' etc.https : //t.co/Z3PwlYy6dR As one who has strongly advocated for churches to take Covid seriously , and whose church is not yet meeting , this article is odd . — Ed Stetzer ( @ edstetzer ) July 8 , 2020 Writer and Baptist preacher Alan Cross similarly rebuked the Times for its article , saying the reporting is “ inaccurate ” and “ makes no sense . ” Inaccurate article from the @ nytimes . Over 3 million known cases and 600 from 40 churches is a “ major source ” ? That makes no sense . https : //t.co/BUx9mODc46 — Alan Cross ( @ AlanLCross ) July 8 , 2020 One pastor who spoke with the Times , Dan Satterwhite of Lighthouse Church in Pendleton , Oregon , told the newspaper the press has spent a disproportionate amount of time focusing on churches , while businesses that have served to spread the coronavirus have not received anywhere near the same kind of scrutiny from the media . “ I think that there is an effort on the part of some to us things like this to try to shut churches down , ” he told the Times , adding that he appreciated President Donald Trump ’ s decision in late May to call churches “ essential . ” The piece from the Times comes not long after California Gov . Gavin Newsom ( D ) signed an executive order prohibiting singing in churches , as doing so could exponentially spread the virus , according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Newsom ’ s order decrees churches “ must therefore discontinue singing and chanting activities and limit indoor attendance to 25 % of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees , whichever is lower . ” Explaining the reasoning behind the decision , the governor ’ s order notes “ singing and chanting negate the risk reduction achieved through six feet of physical distancing . ” The CDC initially issued a warning against singing in March , but deleted the directive in May after facing criticism . Some medical experts and scientists criticized the CDC for removing the warning , arguing singing does , in fact , spread the illness . Then , in June , amid Black Lives Matter protests and riots , the CDC said people participating in events including singing or chanting should wear cloth face masks . Samuel Rodriguez , president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and pastor of New Season Christian Worship Center in Sacramento , wrote in an Instagram post last week : “ I believe Newsom ’ s order regarding singing is completely discriminatory . ” “ How can you permit , not for one day , but for many days , tens of thousands to march in protest without wearing masks and then demand that 100 worshipers refrain from singing ? ” asked Rodriguez , who participated in peaceful demonstrations . “ The coronavirus task force reported in the past 48 hours that one of the primary reasons many states , including California , are experiencing a spike is directly related to the protests and marches ( not church gatherings ) , ” he continued . “ What is next ? What else will the governor demand from the church int he name of COVID-19 ? We are what we tolerate . ” STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FREE ███ NEWS APP Click Here Get the App with Special Alerts on Breaking News and Top Stories We encourage readers who wish to comment on our material to do so through our Facebook , Twitter , YouTube , and Instagram accounts . God bless you and keep you in His truth .

ABOVE: Dr. Ed Stetzer, the Billy Graham chair of church, mission, and evangelism at Wheaton College, appeared on Thursday's afternoon edition of CBN's Newswatch, to talk about the recent New York Times article claiming Sunday worship services are a "major source" of COVID-19 cases. Newswatch is seen weekdays on the CBN News Channel. After finding 40 churches connected to around 650 cases of the coronavirus, The New York Times is calling Sunday worship services “a major source” of COVID-19 cases. “The virus has infiltrated Sunday sermons, meetings of ministers and Christian youth camps in Colorado and Missouri,” reads the Times piece. “It has struck churches that reopened cautiously with face masks and social distancing in the pews, as well as some that defied lockdowns and refused to heed new limits on numbers of worshipers.” The story does, of course, link to legitimate cases — like Calvary Chapel in San Antonio, where around 50 congregants and staffers have come down with mild coronavirus infections, and Kanakuk Kamps in Missouri, which has been hit with more than 80 cases of COVID-19. The most heartbreaking case included in the Times article is that of Carsyn Davis, a Fort Myers, Florida, high schooler who, suffering from asthma and a rare neurological disorder, passed away after being infected with the coronavirus. The authors of the piece, though, then extrapolate that those anecdotal instances are proof churches are spreading the virus nationwide in disproportionate numbers. Hershael York, dean of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary’s School of Theology and pastor of Buck Run Baptist Church in Frankfort, Kentucky, asked, “How many 1000s of churches are meeting now? And the [Times] finds 650 cases linked to only 40 religious institutions … and that’s a ‘major source?’” He then asked about the press’ apparent “relentless obsession with churches.” How many 1000's of churches are meeting now? And the @nytimes finds 650 cases linked to only 40 religious institutions . . . and that is a "major source". Let's put the stats in context, folks! Why this relentless obsession with churches? https://t.co/xYGxVWDa3h — Hershael York (@hershaelyork) July 8, 2020 Dan Darling, a Christian author and the senior vice president of the National Religious Broadcasters Association, argued the Times article “completely missed the point that churches voluntarily shut down for months” and there “wasn’t a ‘rush to open,’” as pastors “spent weeks creating complicated phases.” Ed Stetzer, a church planter and a professor at Wheaton College, pointed out there are three million confirmed COVID-19 cases in the U.S. and criticized the Times piece as “odd” for using 650 of those cases to suggest churches are a “major source” of viral spread. "More than 650 cases" in churches. Out of 3 million. Now, @NYTimes says churches are a "major source," "erupting," etc.https://t.co/Z3PwlYy6dR As one who has strongly advocated for churches to take Covid seriously, and whose church is not yet meeting, this article is odd. — Ed Stetzer (@edstetzer) July 8, 2020 Writer and Baptist preacher Alan Cross similarly rebuked the Times for its article, saying the reporting is “inaccurate” and “makes no sense.” Inaccurate article from the @nytimes. Over 3 million known cases and 600 from 40 churches is a “major source”? That makes no sense. https://t.co/BUx9mODc46 — Alan Cross (@AlanLCross) July 8, 2020 One pastor who spoke with the Times, Dan Satterwhite of Lighthouse Church in Pendleton, Oregon, told the newspaper the press has spent a disproportionate amount of time focusing on churches, while businesses that have served to spread the coronavirus have not received anywhere near the same kind of scrutiny from the media. “I think that there is an effort on the part of some to us things like this to try to shut churches down,” he told the Times, adding that he appreciated President Donald Trump’s decision in late May to call churches “essential.” The piece from the Times comes not long after California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed an executive order prohibiting singing in churches, as doing so could exponentially spread the virus, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Newsom’s order decrees churches “must therefore discontinue singing and chanting activities and limit indoor attendance to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is lower.” Explaining the reasoning behind the decision, the governor’s order notes “singing and chanting negate the risk reduction achieved through six feet of physical distancing.” The CDC initially issued a warning against singing in March, but deleted the directive in May after facing criticism. Some medical experts and scientists criticized the CDC for removing the warning, arguing singing does, in fact, spread the illness. Then, in June, amid Black Lives Matter protests and riots, the CDC said people participating in events including singing or chanting should wear cloth face masks. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and pastor of New Season Christian Worship Center in Sacramento, wrote in an Instagram post last week: “I believe Newsom’s order regarding singing is completely discriminatory.” “How can you permit, not for one day, but for many days, tens of thousands to march in protest without wearing masks and then demand that 100 worshipers refrain from singing?” asked Rodriguez, who participated in peaceful demonstrations. “The coronavirus task force reported in the past 48 hours that one of the primary reasons many states, including California, are experiencing a spike is directly related to the protests and marches (not church gatherings),” he continued. “What is next? What else will the governor demand from the church int he name of COVID-19? We are what we tolerate.” STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FREE CBN NEWS APP Click Here Get the App with Special Alerts on Breaking News and Top Stories We encourage readers who wish to comment on our material to do so through our Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram accounts. God bless you and keep you in His truth.

www1.cbn.com

right

vGe7P2SCcZJn5QtH

test

YMoGnwAz3PSBYg0P

national_defense

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48404141

US to send 1,500 extra troops to Middle East amid tensions

The US is to send 1,500 troops to the Middle East to counter the `` ongoing threat posed by Iranian forces '' , the acting defence secretary says . Congress has been notified about the plans , Patrick Shanahan said in a statement . Fighter jets , drones and other weaponry will also be deployed . President Donald Trump announced the move earlier on Friday . He said the deployment was `` relatively small '' . A top US official has accused Iran directly of attacking oil tankers . Tensions rose this month after shipping in the Gulf of Oman was damaged by a series of mystery explosions . The US has already deployed an aircraft carrier and bomber planes . But only on Thursday , Mr Trump said that he did not think more troops would be needed . `` I do n't think we 're going to need them , '' he told reporters . `` I really do n't . I would certainly send troops if we need them . '' Mr Shanahan said he had `` approved a request from the combatant commander for additional resources '' in the region . He said the move was intended to `` safeguard US forces given the ongoing threat posed by Iranian forces , including the IRGC [ Iran 's Revolutionary Guard Corps ] and its proxies . '' The IRGC is the most elite military unit in Iran . Last month , the US designated it as a foreign terrorist organisation . Mr Shanahan said that `` additional intelligence , surveillance , and reconnaissance aircraft '' would be deployed as well as a team of engineers . He said a fighter aircraft squadron and a Patriot missile-defence system would also be sent . It is `` a prudent defensive measure ... intended to reduce the possibility of future hostilities , '' Mr Shanahan said . Earlier on Friday , President Trump told reporters outside the White House that a `` relatively small '' deployment had been approved . `` We want to have protection in the Middle East , '' he said , adding that the extra troops would be `` mostly protective . '' He appeared to downplay the possibility of tensions escalating further . `` Right now , I do n't think Iran wants to fight and I certainly do n't think they want to fight with us , '' he said . This fresh deployment of troops and hardware has been signalled for a number of days , but it is a much more modest move than many expected . Around 1,500 service personnel are likely to be despatched , significantly down on the 5,000-10,000 that some administration sources had floated . In addition to the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier and B-52 bombers already announced , extra Patriot missile batteries will give the US significant capabilities to counter any threat from the air , be that missiles or aircraft . And the deployment of surveillance planes , both manned and unmanned , will allow a clearer assessment of Iranian activity such as the alleged attacks on commercial tankers recently ( which some have blamed on Tehran ) and any troop movements along the coast . What is still far from clear is whether there is a settled view in Washington about the nature of the increased threat from Iran and what should be done about it . Despite some tough rhetoric , the president has appeared reluctant to become overly entangled in the region , mindful no doubt of his promises to bring troops back from there and not the reverse . Tensions between the US and Iran began rising this month when Washington ended exemptions from sanctions for countries still buying from Iran . The decision was intended to bring Iran 's oil exports to zero , denying the government its main source of revenue . Mr Trump reinstated the sanctions last year after abandoning the landmark nuclear deal that Iran has signed with six nations - the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany . Iran has now announced it it will suspend several commitments under the deal . Four oil tankers were damaged in what the United Arab Emirates ( UAE ) said were sabotage attacks while drone attacks on two oil pumping stations in Saudi Arabia by Yemen 's Houthi rebels - who are supported by Iran - forced the temporary closure of a pipeline . Iran denied it was behind the incidents but Rear Admiral Michael Gilday , director of the US Joint Staff , accused the IRGC of being directly responsible . `` The attack against the shipping in Fujairah [ part of the UAE ] , we attribute it to the IRGC , '' he said on Friday , explaining that limpet mines used in the attacks had been linked directly to the IRGC .

Image copyright AFP Image caption The US deployed an aircraft carrier to the Gulf earlier this month The US is to send 1,500 troops to the Middle East to counter the "ongoing threat posed by Iranian forces", the acting defence secretary says. Congress has been notified about the plans, Patrick Shanahan said in a statement. Fighter jets, drones and other weaponry will also be deployed. President Donald Trump announced the move earlier on Friday. He said the deployment was "relatively small". A top US official has accused Iran directly of attacking oil tankers. Tensions rose this month after shipping in the Gulf of Oman was damaged by a series of mystery explosions. The US has already deployed an aircraft carrier and bomber planes. But only on Thursday, Mr Trump said that he did not think more troops would be needed. "I don't think we're going to need them," he told reporters. "I really don't. I would certainly send troops if we need them." What is the latest US move? Mr Shanahan said he had "approved a request from the combatant commander for additional resources" in the region. He said the move was intended to "safeguard US forces given the ongoing threat posed by Iranian forces, including the IRGC [Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps] and its proxies." The IRGC is the most elite military unit in Iran. Last month, the US designated it as a foreign terrorist organisation. Mr Shanahan said that "additional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft" would be deployed as well as a team of engineers. He said a fighter aircraft squadron and a Patriot missile-defence system would also be sent. It is "a prudent defensive measure... intended to reduce the possibility of future hostilities," Mr Shanahan said. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The BBC’s Paul Adams looks at the recent developments behind the US-Iran tensions Earlier on Friday, President Trump told reporters outside the White House that a "relatively small" deployment had been approved. "We want to have protection in the Middle East," he said, adding that the extra troops would be "mostly protective." He appeared to downplay the possibility of tensions escalating further. "Right now, I don't think Iran wants to fight and I certainly don't think they want to fight with us," he said. Trump's dilemma Gary O'Donoghue, BBC Washington correspondent This fresh deployment of troops and hardware has been signalled for a number of days, but it is a much more modest move than many expected. Around 1,500 service personnel are likely to be despatched, significantly down on the 5,000-10,000 that some administration sources had floated. In addition to the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier and B-52 bombers already announced, extra Patriot missile batteries will give the US significant capabilities to counter any threat from the air, be that missiles or aircraft. And the deployment of surveillance planes, both manned and unmanned, will allow a clearer assessment of Iranian activity such as the alleged attacks on commercial tankers recently (which some have blamed on Tehran) and any troop movements along the coast. What is still far from clear is whether there is a settled view in Washington about the nature of the increased threat from Iran and what should be done about it. Despite some tough rhetoric, the president has appeared reluctant to become overly entangled in the region, mindful no doubt of his promises to bring troops back from there and not the reverse. What is behind the tensions? Tensions between the US and Iran began rising this month when Washington ended exemptions from sanctions for countries still buying from Iran. The decision was intended to bring Iran's oil exports to zero, denying the government its main source of revenue. Mr Trump reinstated the sanctions last year after abandoning the landmark nuclear deal that Iran has signed with six nations - the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany. Iran has now announced it it will suspend several commitments under the deal. Four oil tankers were damaged in what the United Arab Emirates (UAE) said were sabotage attacks while drone attacks on two oil pumping stations in Saudi Arabia by Yemen's Houthi rebels - who are supported by Iran - forced the temporary closure of a pipeline. Iran denied it was behind the incidents but Rear Admiral Michael Gilday, director of the US Joint Staff, accused the IRGC of being directly responsible. "The attack against the shipping in Fujairah [part of the UAE], we attribute it to the IRGC," he said on Friday, explaining that limpet mines used in the attacks had been linked directly to the IRGC.

www.bbc.com

center

YMoGnwAz3PSBYg0P

test

z7UURHdaVcz8eV4I

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/07/yet-another-anonymously-sourced-trump-russia-story-falls-apart/

Yet Another Anonymously Sourced Trump-Russia Story Falls Apart

2017-09-07

Once again , a huge Trump-Russia story that relied upon anonymous sources has fallen apart . NBC News dropped what the network hyped as a “ potential bombshell ” last week . “ Manafort Notes From Russian Meet Contain Cryptic Reference to ‘ Donations , ' ” the original headline read . The story claimed that Manafort ’ s notes from the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with White House aide Jared Kushner , Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer included the word “ donations ” near a reference to the Republican National Committee . NBC began walking back the “ potential bombshell ” almost immediately , issuing a correction the same day noting that the word “ donation ” didn ’ t actually appear in the notes , but quoting one source who said the word “ donor ” was in the notes . But NBC ’ s corrected story still wasn ’ t accurate , according to a new Politico report , which said that the word “ donor ” didn ’ t appear in Manafort ’ s notes . Moreover , Manafort ’ s notes “ are not seen as damaging to the Trump family or campaign officials , ” Politico reported . The outlet cited several sources who have seen Manafort ’ s notes , while NBC relied on “ two sources briefed on the evidence ” to make its claim . Even before Politico fully debunked NBC ’ s reporting , the network ’ s decision to publish the story came under fire . The day after NBC originally published the story , The Washington Post ’ s Erik Wemple criticized the story , which he said “ provides only fodder for innuendo and conspiracy , not for sound conclusions about what happened . ” NBC News ’ botched “ bombshell ” is just the latest anonymously sourced Trump-Russia story to fall apart . ( RELATED : Trump Dossier Firm Worked With Media Outlets Now Giving The Firm A Pass ) CNN was forced to rewrite a story in June that claimed that former FBI Director James Comey ’ s Senate testimony would refute President Trump ’ s assertion that Comey reassured him three times that he was not under investigation . In fact , Comey confirmed Trump ’ s account . Later that month , CNN retracted a story that claimed Trump campaign adviser Anthony Scaramucci was under investigation in relation to Congress ’ Russia probe . The botched story turned into a public relations nightmare for CNN , and three of the network ’ s employees ended up resigning . ( RELATED : Washington Post Publishes False News Story About Russians Hacking Electrical Grid ) A Feb. 14 New York Times story that was widely seen as a bombshell was actually “ almost entirely wrong , ” Comey said during his Senate testimony , adding that “ in the main it was not true. ” That story , too , relied on anonymous sources . “ The challenge , and I ’ m not picking on reporters , about writing stories about classified information is the people talking about it often don ’ t really know what ’ s going on , and those of us that actually know what ’ s going on are not talking about it , ” Comey said .

Once again, a huge Trump-Russia story that relied upon anonymous sources has fallen apart. NBC News dropped what the network hyped as a “potential bombshell” last week. “Manafort Notes From Russian Meet Contain Cryptic Reference to ‘Donations,'” the original headline read. The story claimed that Manafort’s notes from the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with White House aide Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer included the word “donations” near a reference to the Republican National Committee. NBC began walking back the “potential bombshell” almost immediately, issuing a correction the same day noting that the word “donation” didn’t actually appear in the notes, but quoting one source who said the word “donor” was in the notes. But NBC’s corrected story still wasn’t accurate, according to a new Politico report, which said that the word “donor” didn’t appear in Manafort’s notes. Moreover, Manafort’s notes “are not seen as damaging to the Trump family or campaign officials,” Politico reported. The outlet cited several sources who have seen Manafort’s notes, while NBC relied on “two sources briefed on the evidence” to make its claim. Even before Politico fully debunked NBC’s reporting, the network’s decision to publish the story came under fire. The day after NBC originally published the story, The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple criticized the story, which he said “provides only fodder for innuendo and conspiracy, not for sound conclusions about what happened.” NBC News’ botched “bombshell” is just the latest anonymously sourced Trump-Russia story to fall apart. (RELATED: Trump Dossier Firm Worked With Media Outlets Now Giving The Firm A Pass) CNN was forced to rewrite a story in June that claimed that former FBI Director James Comey’s Senate testimony would refute President Trump’s assertion that Comey reassured him three times that he was not under investigation. In fact, Comey confirmed Trump’s account. Later that month, CNN retracted a story that claimed Trump campaign adviser Anthony Scaramucci was under investigation in relation to Congress’ Russia probe. The botched story turned into a public relations nightmare for CNN, and three of the network’s employees ended up resigning. (RELATED: Washington Post Publishes False News Story About Russians Hacking Electrical Grid) A Feb. 14 New York Times story that was widely seen as a bombshell was actually “almost entirely wrong,” Comey said during his Senate testimony, adding that “in the main it was not true.” That story, too, relied on anonymous sources. “The challenge, and I’m not picking on reporters, about writing stories about classified information is the people talking about it often don’t really know what’s going on, and those of us that actually know what’s going on are not talking about it,” Comey said.

www.dailycaller.com

right

z7UURHdaVcz8eV4I

test

UHEfyXfJveo2mCRH

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47098776

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam sorry for racist yearbook photo

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has apologised after his 1984 student yearbook page emerged , showing a photo featuring men in racist costumes . `` I am deeply sorry for the decision I made to appear as I did in this photo and for the hurt that decision caused then and now , '' he said in a statement . Black politicians in Virginia called the image `` disgusting '' and Republicans urged the Democrat to resign . The picture showed a man in blackface and another man in Ku Klux Klan robes . It appeared on a page with other photos of Mr Northam , who was aged about 25 at the time , as well as personal details about him . He did not elaborate on which costume he was wearing , but said he appeared in a photograph that was `` clearly racist and offensive '' . Mr Northam was elected governor of Virginia in November 2017 . Mr Northam 's yearbook page , which came from the paediatric neurologist 's time at Eastern Virginia Medical School , was first published by conservative website Big League Politics . The Virginian-Pilot newspaper tweeted a picture of the page which it said it obtained from the medical school library . An official from the medical school verified the photo and told the Huffington Post it came from a `` student-produced publication '' . The page , which features Mr Northam 's full name and photos of the future doctor and politician , also included a quote from a Willie Nelson song that read : `` There are more old drunks than old doctors in this world so I think I 'll have another beer . '' `` This behaviour is not in keeping with who I am today and the values I have fought for throughout my career in the military , in medicine , and in public service , '' the governor said in a statement after the image was made public . `` But I want to be clear , I understand how this decision shakes Virginians ' faith in that commitment . '' He continued : `` I recognise that it will take time and serious effort to heal the damage this conduct has caused . I am ready to do that important work . `` The first step is to offer my sincerest apology and to state my absolute commitment to living up to the expectations Virginians set for me when they elected me to be their governor . '' Mr Northam later released a video statement via Twitter in which he said he was `` deeply sorry '' for the offence the image had caused . `` I accept responsibility for my past actions and I am ready to do the hard work of regaining your trust , '' he said . Before he was elected governor , Mr Northam served for a decade as a Virginia state legislator . His responsibilities as governor include implementing state laws , restoring voting rights for individuals who have had them withdrawn and issuing pardons . The Virginia Legislative Black Caucus , which comprises African Americans elected to the Virginia General Assembly , said it was `` still processing what we have seen about the governor '' but described the images as `` disgusting , reprehensible and offensive '' . `` These pictures rip off the scabs of an excruciatingly painful history and are a piercing reminder of this nation 's sins . Those who would excuse the pictures are just as culpable , '' it said in a statement . The photo also prompted a swift backlash from conservatives , including Jack Wilson , the chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia , who called on Mr Northam to step down . `` Racism has no place in Virginia , '' he said in a statement . `` These pictures are wholly inappropriate . If Governor Northam appeared in blackface or dressed in a KKK robe , he should resign immediately . '' Calls for his resignation also came from four Democratic candidates for president - Senators Kirsten Gillibrand , Kamala Harris and Cory Booker , and Texan mayor Julian Castro . Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren , who is considering a presidential run in 2020 , also called for Mr Northam to resign . The Ku Klux Klan is one of the oldest and most infamous hate groups in the US , and has targeted African Americans , Jews , Catholics and immigrants , according to the Southern Poverty Law Center , which tracks hate groups . The group has a long history , with KKK membership peaking in the 1920s .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Virginia governor says sorry for racist photo Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has apologised after his 1984 student yearbook page emerged, showing a photo featuring men in racist costumes. "I am deeply sorry for the decision I made to appear as I did in this photo and for the hurt that decision caused then and now," he said in a statement. Black politicians in Virginia called the image "disgusting" and Republicans urged the Democrat to resign. The picture showed a man in blackface and another man in Ku Klux Klan robes. It appeared on a page with other photos of Mr Northam, who was aged about 25 at the time, as well as personal details about him. He did not elaborate on which costume he was wearing, but said he appeared in a photograph that was "clearly racist and offensive". Mr Northam was elected governor of Virginia in November 2017. How has this come about? Mr Northam's yearbook page, which came from the paediatric neurologist's time at Eastern Virginia Medical School, was first published by conservative website Big League Politics. The Virginian-Pilot newspaper tweeted a picture of the page which it said it obtained from the medical school library. An official from the medical school verified the photo and told the Huffington Post it came from a "student-produced publication". The page, which features Mr Northam's full name and photos of the future doctor and politician, also included a quote from a Willie Nelson song that read: "There are more old drunks than old doctors in this world so I think I'll have another beer." What has Northam said? "This behaviour is not in keeping with who I am today and the values I have fought for throughout my career in the military, in medicine, and in public service," the governor said in a statement after the image was made public. "But I want to be clear, I understand how this decision shakes Virginians' faith in that commitment." He continued: "I recognise that it will take time and serious effort to heal the damage this conduct has caused. I am ready to do that important work. "The first step is to offer my sincerest apology and to state my absolute commitment to living up to the expectations Virginians set for me when they elected me to be their governor." Image copyright AFP/Getty Images Image caption Former President Barack Obama campaigned for Mr Northam in 2017 Mr Northam later released a video statement via Twitter in which he said he was "deeply sorry" for the offence the image had caused. "I accept responsibility for my past actions and I am ready to do the hard work of regaining your trust," he said. Before he was elected governor, Mr Northam served for a decade as a Virginia state legislator. His responsibilities as governor include implementing state laws, restoring voting rights for individuals who have had them withdrawn and issuing pardons. What is the reaction? The Virginia Legislative Black Caucus, which comprises African Americans elected to the Virginia General Assembly, said it was "still processing what we have seen about the governor" but described the images as "disgusting, reprehensible and offensive". "These pictures rip off the scabs of an excruciatingly painful history and are a piercing reminder of this nation's sins. Those who would excuse the pictures are just as culpable," it said in a statement. The photo also prompted a swift backlash from conservatives, including Jack Wilson, the chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia, who called on Mr Northam to step down. "Racism has no place in Virginia," he said in a statement. "These pictures are wholly inappropriate. If Governor Northam appeared in blackface or dressed in a KKK robe, he should resign immediately." Calls for his resignation also came from four Democratic candidates for president - Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, and Texan mayor Julian Castro. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is considering a presidential run in 2020, also called for Mr Northam to resign. The Ku Klux Klan is one of the oldest and most infamous hate groups in the US, and has targeted African Americans, Jews, Catholics and immigrants, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups. The group has a long history, with KKK membership peaking in the 1920s.

www.bbc.com

center

UHEfyXfJveo2mCRH

test

sfYdmG5EtTwxNF7M

justice_department

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/25/sources-fox-news-knew-of-phone-records-subpoena-three-years-ago/?hpt=po_c2

Sources: News Corp long aware of Fox News subpoenas

2013-05-25

( CNN ) – The parent company of Fox News was aware years ago that the Justice Department was targeting one of its reporters in a leak investigation , sources said . One law enforcement source said the Justice Department notified a media organization three years ago of a subpoena for detailed telephone records , and a second told CNN that organization was Fox News . After that news broke , a Fox News executive said the Justice Department notified Fox 's parent company News Corporation of the subpoena in May 2010 . But Fox News itself apparently never got the word . The subpoena came as the Justice Department was investigating Stephen Kim , a former State Department worker accused of the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information to James Rosen , a Fox News reporter . It is standard procedure for Justice Department officials to notify news organizations when they subpoena an outlet or its reporters . CNN and other media outlets have previously reported a separate Justice Department query into Rosen 's e-mails . With the approval of Attorney General Eric Holder , Justice officials obtained a warrant from a federal judge to access Rosen 's e-mails . While Fox News is now acknowledging that the Justice Department notified its parent company about the phone records search , that notice apparently did not include anything about the separate search of Rosen 's e-mail . `` In the investigation that led to the indictment of Stephen Kim , the government issued subpoenas for toll records for five phone numbers associated with the media , '' a law enforcement source told CNN . `` Consistent with Department of Justice policies and procedures , the government provided notification of those subpoenas nearly three years ago by certified mail , facsimile and e-mail . '' News Corporation spokesman Nathaniel Brown responded Sunday night in a carefully worded statement . “ While we do n't take issue with the DOJ 's account that they sent a notice to News Corp , we do not have a record of ever having received it , ” Brown said . “ We are looking into this matter . ” In a New York Times article , Lawrence A. Jacobs , a former chief legal officer for News Corporation , said he never saw a notification about the phone records . He left the post in June 2011 . “ I would have remembered getting a fax from the Justice Department , ” Jacobs told the Times in an interview on Sunday . “ These are not the kinds of things that happen every day . ” Fox has said it learned of the warrant for e-mails only recently , and newly released court documents show the government was trying to keep the investigation under seal . The network did not disclose to its viewers that the phone records had been subpoenaed . The government 's notice did not detail the extent of the investigation , in which the government labeled Rosen a possible co-conspirator . An FBI affidavit used to obtain the warrant for Rosen 's e-mails described him as potentially being an `` aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator '' to the crime of disclosing government secrets . The Justice Department has come under scrutiny this month as news broke of two government probes into reporters ' records . Besides the Rosen case , the Associated Press announced the department had dug into the phone records of its reporters , including work , cell , and home lines .

6 years ago Updated Monday 5/27 3:00 a.m. ET (CNN)– The parent company of Fox News was aware years ago that the Justice Department was targeting one of its reporters in a leak investigation, sources said. One law enforcement source said the Justice Department notified a media organization three years ago of a subpoena for detailed telephone records, and a second told CNN that organization was Fox News. After that news broke, a Fox News executive said the Justice Department notified Fox's parent company News Corporation of the subpoena in May 2010. But Fox News itself apparently never got the word. The subpoena came as the Justice Department was investigating Stephen Kim, a former State Department worker accused of the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information to James Rosen, a Fox News reporter. It is standard procedure for Justice Department officials to notify news organizations when they subpoena an outlet or its reporters. MORE: Choice of Holder to lead leak review questioned CNN and other media outlets have previously reported a separate Justice Department query into Rosen's e-mails. With the approval of Attorney General Eric Holder, Justice officials obtained a warrant from a federal judge to access Rosen's e-mails. While Fox News is now acknowledging that the Justice Department notified its parent company about the phone records search, that notice apparently did not include anything about the separate search of Rosen's e-mail. "In the investigation that led to the indictment of Stephen Kim, the government issued subpoenas for toll records for five phone numbers associated with the media," a law enforcement source told CNN. "Consistent with Department of Justice policies and procedures, the government provided notification of those subpoenas nearly three years ago by certified mail, facsimile and e-mail." News Corporation spokesman Nathaniel Brown responded Sunday night in a carefully worded statement. “While we don't take issue with the DOJ's account that they sent a notice to News Corp, we do not have a record of ever having received it,” Brown said. “We are looking into this matter.” In a New York Times article, Lawrence A. Jacobs, a former chief legal officer for News Corporation, said he never saw a notification about the phone records. He left the post in June 2011. “I would have remembered getting a fax from the Justice Department,” Jacobs told the Times in an interview on Sunday. “These are not the kinds of things that happen every day.” Fox has said it learned of the warrant for e-mails only recently, and newly released court documents show the government was trying to keep the investigation under seal. The network did not disclose to its viewers that the phone records had been subpoenaed. The government's notice did not detail the extent of the investigation, in which the government labeled Rosen a possible co-conspirator. An FBI affidavit used to obtain the warrant for Rosen's e-mails described him as potentially being an "aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator" to the crime of disclosing government secrets. The Justice Department has come under scrutiny this month as news broke of two government probes into reporters' records. Besides the Rosen case, the Associated Press announced the department had dug into the phone records of its reporters, including work, cell, and home lines. –CNN's Julie Cannold contributed to this report

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

sfYdmG5EtTwxNF7M

test

BqVQeNj6LURcWqBX

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/14/justice-davis-resigns/

Another Justice Resigns as Lawmakers Impeach the Entire West Virginia Supreme Court

2018-08-14

Justice Robin Jean Davis resigned in disgrace from the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals early Tuesday . Her departure came after the state legislature impeached every member of the state ’ s highest court . Spending scandal is the latest in a long history of ethics questions attending Davis ’ s judicial service . West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Robin Jean Davis announced her resignation early Tuesday , just hours after the state House of Delegates adopted articles of impeachment against every justice serving on the court . Her resignation marks the conclusion of two decades on the bench , sometimes marred by scandal . “ We judges weigh evidence as part of our jobs , ” Davis said at a Tuesday press conference in Charleston , West Virginia . “ Unfortunately , the evidence clearly shows that the preconceived , result-driven mania among the majority party members in the legislature can not result in a just and fair outcome . ” Davis and three of her colleagues were impeached in the state legislature late Monday . Chief Justice Margaret Workman and Justices Allen Loughry and Elizabeth Walker will now stand trial in the state senate . The fifth member of the court , Menis Ketchum , resigned on July 27 . He is expected to plead guilty to two corruption charges in federal court on Aug. 29 . The impeachment articles allege the justices failed to effectively administer the state courts , approved compensation for senior judges in excess of statutory limits , and abused state resources through lavish renovations to their chambers and unauthorized use of state vehicles for personal travel . ( RELATED : West Virginia ’ s Highest Court Shattered By Corruption Indictment ) GOP Gov . Jim Justice will appoint successors to any justice removed from office following the Senate trial . Local media and state auditors discovered the justices cumulatively spent over $ 1 million on furniture and aesthetic upgrades for their state offices — Davis spent some $ 500,000 , according to the impeachment articles , including $ 23,000 for design services and $ 20,000 for a sectional carpet . Davis ’ s profligate spending is just the latest iteration of her long history of ethical quandaries . Beginning in 2002 , The Wall Street Journal reported Davis participated in a case from which her husband , a successful plaintiffs lawyer , stood to benefit financially . A legal ethics expert who taught Davis and her husband at the West Virginia University College of Law said the justice should have recused herself from the matter . ███ News Foundation reported in August 2016 that Davis sold her family ’ s private jet to an attorney named Michael Fuller . Two years after the sale , Fuller defended a $ 95-million judgment before the West Virginia Supreme Court . Despite the possible conflict , Davis wrote an opinion for the court preserving a significant portion of that award . TheDCNF uncovered evidence in March 2017 that a Florida-based corporate entity funneled thousands of dollars to her 2012 reelection campaign through an illegal straw donation scheme at the behest of the same attorney to whom Davis sold her plane . ( RELATED : New Evidence Of Illegal Donations To West Virginia Judge Emerges ) The West Virginia secretary of state opened an investigation , though charges were never brought because the statute of limitations expired . Still , a defiant Davis cast her service as honorable Tuesday , and accused state Republicans of concocting a plot to pack the court with conservatives . “ The people of West Virginia have honored me in three separate elections by placing their confidence in me as a justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals , ” she said . “ I have returned their faith by serving honorably for almost 22 years . ” “ I encourage each of you to watch this legislative process very carefully and to vote in November , ” she added .

Justice Robin Jean Davis resigned in disgrace from the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals early Tuesday. Her departure came after the state legislature impeached every member of the state’s highest court. Spending scandal is the latest in a long history of ethics questions attending Davis’s judicial service. West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Robin Jean Davis announced her resignation early Tuesday, just hours after the state House of Delegates adopted articles of impeachment against every justice serving on the court. Her resignation marks the conclusion of two decades on the bench, sometimes marred by scandal. “We judges weigh evidence as part of our jobs,” Davis said at a Tuesday press conference in Charleston, West Virginia. “Unfortunately, the evidence clearly shows that the preconceived, result-driven mania among the majority party members in the legislature cannot result in a just and fair outcome.” Her departure from the court took effect on Monday. Davis and three of her colleagues were impeached in the state legislature late Monday. Chief Justice Margaret Workman and Justices Allen Loughry and Elizabeth Walker will now stand trial in the state senate. The fifth member of the court, Menis Ketchum, resigned on July 27. He is expected to plead guilty to two corruption charges in federal court on Aug. 29. The impeachment articles allege the justices failed to effectively administer the state courts, approved compensation for senior judges in excess of statutory limits, and abused state resources through lavish renovations to their chambers and unauthorized use of state vehicles for personal travel. (RELATED: West Virginia’s Highest Court Shattered By Corruption Indictment) GOP Gov. Jim Justice will appoint successors to any justice removed from office following the Senate trial. Local media and state auditors discovered the justices cumulatively spent over $1 million on furniture and aesthetic upgrades for their state offices — Davis spent some $500,000, according to the impeachment articles, including $23,000 for design services and $20,000 for a sectional carpet. Davis’s profligate spending is just the latest iteration of her long history of ethical quandaries. Beginning in 2002, The Wall Street Journal reported Davis participated in a case from which her husband, a successful plaintiffs lawyer, stood to benefit financially. A legal ethics expert who taught Davis and her husband at the West Virginia University College of Law said the justice should have recused herself from the matter. The Daily Caller News Foundation reported in August 2016 that Davis sold her family’s private jet to an attorney named Michael Fuller. Two years after the sale, Fuller defended a $95-million judgment before the West Virginia Supreme Court. Despite the possible conflict, Davis wrote an opinion for the court preserving a significant portion of that award. TheDCNF uncovered evidence in March 2017 that a Florida-based corporate entity funneled thousands of dollars to her 2012 reelection campaign through an illegal straw donation scheme at the behest of the same attorney to whom Davis sold her plane. (RELATED: New Evidence Of Illegal Donations To West Virginia Judge Emerges) The West Virginia secretary of state opened an investigation, though charges were never brought because the statute of limitations expired. Still, a defiant Davis cast her service as honorable Tuesday, and accused state Republicans of concocting a plot to pack the court with conservatives. “The people of West Virginia have honored me in three separate elections by placing their confidence in me as a justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals,” she said. “I have returned their faith by serving honorably for almost 22 years.” “I encourage each of you to watch this legislative process very carefully and to vote in November,” she added. Follow Kevin on Twitter Send tips to [email protected]. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

www.dailycaller.com

right

BqVQeNj6LURcWqBX

test

W6KmU6H8mQRlnkrz

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-mattis/trump-tells-mattis-he-is-100-percent-behind-him-after-democrat-jab-idUSKCN1MQ0JX

Trump tells Mattis he is 100 percent behind him after 'Democrat' jab

2018-10-16

Phil Stewart

HO CHI MINH CITY , Vietnam ( ███ ) - U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said President Donald Trump has reassured him of his full support after the Republican president described his Pentagon chief as “ sort of a Democrat ” who could leave the administration . Mattis , speaking to reporters before landing in Vietnam on Tuesday , said he received the reassurance from Trump in a phone call during his nearly 20-hour flight from Washington . “ ( Trump ) said , ‘ I ’ m 100 percent with you ’ , ” Mattis recounted , playing down Trump ’ s remarks to CBS ’ “ 60 Minutes , ” which aired on Sunday . Asked whether he was a Democrat , as Trump suggested , Mattis , disclosed that he had not registered as a Democrat or a Republican . “ I have never registered for any political party , ” said Mattis , a retired Marine general . Mattis sought to portray national defense as an issue above partisan politics . He also pointed to a long military career that taught him to act in a “ proudly apolitical ” manner , in which U.S. servicemembers carry out orders from Republican and Democratic presidents alike . Mattis said he did not talk to Trump about leaving his job and dismissed speculation he was being pushed out . “ I ’ m on his team . We have never talked about me leaving . And as you can see right here , we are on our way ( to Asia ) . We just continue doing our job , ” Mattis said . The remarks represented Mattis ’ first and only response since Trump ’ s assertions to CBS raised questions about whether Mattis might be getting ready to leave his job , perhaps after mid-term U.S. elections next month . Trump told the news program : “ I think he ’ s sort of a Democrat , if you want to know the truth . But General Mattis is a good guy . We get along very well . He may leave . I mean , at some point , everybody leaves . ” Mattis ’ future has become a focus of media speculation , particularly after last month ’ s release of a book by Watergate reporter Bob Woodward that portrayed Mattis privately disparaging Trump to associates . Trump had long been deferential toward Mattis , saying on Sept. 5 his defense chief would remain in his job . Mattis has previously made no secret of the fact that he was not looking to become secretary of defense - or even return to Washington - when Trump was elected . Mattis had stepped down from the military in 2013 and taken a job at Stanford University . He told his Senate confirmation hearing last year he was “ enjoying a full life west of the Rockies ” when the call came about the position . Asked last month about reports he may be leaving , Mattis said : “ I wouldn ’ t take it seriously at all . ” Western officials privately extol Mattis , whose standing among NATO allies has risen as they become increasingly bewildered by Trump ’ s policies on trade and Iran and disoriented by his outreach to Russian President Vladimir Putin . One factor thought to have darkened Mattis ’ prospects is this year ’ s arrival in the White House of Mira Ricardel , who has the powerful post of deputy national security adviser and is believed to dislike Mattis , current and former officials have told ███ . He is also seen as less hawkish on Iran than Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and White House National Security Adviser John Bolton .

HO CHI MINH CITY, Vietnam (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said President Donald Trump has reassured him of his full support after the Republican president described his Pentagon chief as “sort of a Democrat” who could leave the administration. Mattis, speaking to reporters before landing in Vietnam on Tuesday, said he received the reassurance from Trump in a phone call during his nearly 20-hour flight from Washington. “(Trump) said, ‘I’m 100 percent with you’,” Mattis recounted, playing down Trump’s remarks to CBS’ “60 Minutes,” which aired on Sunday. Asked whether he was a Democrat, as Trump suggested, Mattis, disclosed that he had not registered as a Democrat or a Republican. “I have never registered for any political party,” said Mattis, a retired Marine general. Mattis sought to portray national defense as an issue above partisan politics. He also pointed to a long military career that taught him to act in a “proudly apolitical” manner, in which U.S. servicemembers carry out orders from Republican and Democratic presidents alike. Mattis said he did not talk to Trump about leaving his job and dismissed speculation he was being pushed out. “I’m on his team. We have never talked about me leaving. And as you can see right here, we are on our way (to Asia). We just continue doing our job,” Mattis said. The remarks represented Mattis’ first and only response since Trump’s assertions to CBS raised questions about whether Mattis might be getting ready to leave his job, perhaps after mid-term U.S. elections next month. Trump told the news program: “I think he’s sort of a Democrat, if you want to know the truth. But General Mattis is a good guy. We get along very well. He may leave. I mean, at some point, everybody leaves.” Mattis’ future has become a focus of media speculation, particularly after last month’s release of a book by Watergate reporter Bob Woodward that portrayed Mattis privately disparaging Trump to associates. Mattis has strongly denied making any such remarks. Trump had long been deferential toward Mattis, saying on Sept. 5 his defense chief would remain in his job. Mattis has previously made no secret of the fact that he was not looking to become secretary of defense - or even return to Washington - when Trump was elected. Mattis had stepped down from the military in 2013 and taken a job at Stanford University. He told his Senate confirmation hearing last year he was “enjoying a full life west of the Rockies” when the call came about the position. Asked last month about reports he may be leaving, Mattis said: “I wouldn’t take it seriously at all.” FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump walks in with U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis as they arrive to attend the multilateral meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Brussels, Belgium July 11, 2018. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo Western officials privately extol Mattis, whose standing among NATO allies has risen as they become increasingly bewildered by Trump’s policies on trade and Iran and disoriented by his outreach to Russian President Vladimir Putin. One factor thought to have darkened Mattis’ prospects is this year’s arrival in the White House of Mira Ricardel, who has the powerful post of deputy national security adviser and is believed to dislike Mattis, current and former officials have told Reuters. He is also seen as less hawkish on Iran than Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and White House National Security Adviser John Bolton.

www.reuters.com

center

W6KmU6H8mQRlnkrz

test

Ft7bQzUs7r2fDvyN

race_and_racism

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/07/04/slavery-the-declaration-of-independence-and-frederick-douglass-what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july/

Slavery, the Declaration of Independence and Frederick Douglass' "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?"

2020-07-04

Ilya Somin, Charles Oliver, Will Baude, Jonathan H. Adler, Stewart Baker, Eugene Volokh, Ronald Bailey, J.D. Tuccille, Shikha Dalmia, Michael Abramowicz

July 4 is an appropriate time to remember Frederick Douglass ' famous 1852 speech , `` What to the Slave is the Fourth of July ? '' The speech is—for good ███—most famous for its powerful condemnation of slavery , racism , and American hypocrisy . But it also includes passages praising the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers . Both are worth remembering . What , to the American slave , is your 4th of July ? I answer : a day that reveals to him , more than all other days in the year , the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim . To him , your celebration is a sham ; your boasted liberty , an unholy license ; your national greatness , swelling vanity ; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless ; your denunciations of tyrants , brass fronted impudence ; your shouts of liberty and equality , hollow mockery ; your prayers and hymns , your sermons and thanksgivings , with all your religious parade , and solemnity , are , to him , mere bombast , fraud , deception , impiety , and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages . There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices , more shocking and bloody , than are the people of these United States , at this very hour . And there is much more material of the same kind in the speech , ranging from a denunciation of the internal slave trade , to an attack on the then-recent Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 . The key point is that slavery and racism made a mockery of America 's professed ideals of liberty and equality . And , sadly , that legacy is far from fully overcome even today . But Douglass ' speech also includes passages like this one , praising the American Revolution : Fellow Citizens , I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic . The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men . They were great men too — great enough to give fame to a great age . It does not often happen to a nation to raise , at one time , such a number of truly great men . The point from which I am compelled to view them is not , certainly , the most favorable ; and yet I can not contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration . They were statesmen , patriots and heroes , and for the good they did , and the principles they contended for , I will unite with you to honor their memory . They loved their country better than their own private interests ; and , though this is not the highest form of human excellence , all will concede that it is a rare virtue , and that when it is exhibited , it ought to command respect . He who will , intelligently , lay down his life for his country , is a man whom it is not in human nature to despise . Your fathers staked their lives , their fortunes , and their sacred honor , on the cause of their country . In their admiration of liberty , they lost sight of all other interests . They were peace men ; but they preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage . They were quiet men ; but they did not shrink from agitating against oppression . They showed forbearance ; but that they knew its limits . They believed in order ; but not in the order of tyranny . With them , nothing was `` settled '' that was not right . With them , justice , liberty and humanity were `` final ; '' not slavery and oppression . You may well cherish the memory of such men . They were great in their day and generation . Their solid manhood stands out the more as we contrast it with these degenerate times… . Their statesmanship looked beyond the passing moment , and stretched away in strength into the distant future . They seized upon eternal principles , and set a glorious example in their defense . Mark them ! Elsewhere in the speech , he also praises the revolutionaries ' refusal to submit to oppression merely because it was backed by law . This is an obvious reference to the those who , in the 1850s , argued that abolitionists had a duty to submit to the Fugitive Slave Act and other unjust proslavery laws . It is also a rebuke to `` just enforce the law '' arguments backing submission to deeply unjust laws in our own day . Douglass recognized that the American Revolution not only espoused high principles , but had actually made important progress in realizing them—even as he also condemned the failure to realize them more fully , and the hypocrisy of Americans for tolerating the massive injustice of slavery , which so blatantly contradicted those principles . In other writings and speeches , Douglass also praised the antislavery potential of the Constitution ( which , I think , he in some respects overstated ) . His purpose in the Fourth of July Speech , was not to denounce the Founding Fathers , but rather the white Americans of his own time . This raises the question of how we should think about slavery and the American Revolution today . Elsewhere , I have argued that , on balance , the Revolution gave an important boost to the antislavery cause , in both America and Europe—most notably by inspiring the `` First Emancipation '' —the abolition of slavery in the northern states , which was an essential prerequisite to eventual nationwide abolition . I do not , believe , however , that this fact completely exempts the Founders from severe criticism on their record with respect to slavery . Most obviously , they still deserve condemnation for the fact that many of them were slaveowners themselves . People like Thomas Jefferson , George Washington , James Madison , and George Mason all owned slaves throughout most of their lives , even though they well knew it was wrong and a violation of their own principles . Jefferson famously denounced slavery as `` a moral depravity '' and `` the most unremitting despotism . '' Yet he kept right on owning slaves . The same goes for the others , though Washington did finally free his upon his death . It 's hard to avoid the conclusion that they continued to perpetrate a grave injustice because they did not want to suffer the loss of wealth and social status resulting from manumission . This is n't even a matter of `` judging historical figures by modern standards . '' It is a matter of them failing to live up to their own standards . In addition to failing to free their own slaves , most of the Founders also failed to prioritize the abolition of slavery as an institution . They did take some important steps , such as promoting abolition in the northern states , barring the spread of slavery to the `` Old Northwest , '' and eventually banning the importation of new slaves from abroad . But they pretty clearly did not give abolishing the greatest moral evil in the new republic the priority it deserved . Instead , they often prioritized less significant , but politically more advantageous issues . Alexander Hamilton ( who was not a slaveowner ) is often praised for his antislavery attitudes—in some ways justifiably so . But , throughout his political career , he repeatedly subordinated abolition to other priorities . Much the same can be said of most other political leaders of the day . With great power , comes great responsibility . When it comes to slavery , most of the people who wielded great power in revolutionary America and the early republic failed to fully live up to theirs . But the condemnation they deserve for that failure must be balanced against the very real progress they made possible—including on the issue of slavery . In addition , we should remember that we ourselves may not be free of the same types of faults . It is far from unusual for people to set aside principles when they collide with self-interest . How many of us really prioritize doing what is right when doing so requires us to pay a high price ? We like to think that , if we were in Jefferson 's place , we would have freed our slaves and prioritized abolition . But it is far from clear we would actually have the courage and commitment to do so . Modern politicians , too , rarely prioritize the most morally significant issues ahead of those that are most politically advantageous in the short run . Given that slaves could not vote—and neither could many free blacks—it is actually notable that the Founders did as much to curb slavery as they did , even if it was nowhere near as much as they should have done . In sum , Frederick Douglass was right to praise the American Revolution , and right also to condemn the gross injustice and hypocrisy of the nation 's failure to live up to its principles . In thinking about the Founders today , we too should praise the great good they did—which ultimately outweighed the harm . But we should also remember their greatest shortcoming . And we should be wary of too readily assuming that we ourselves would do better if faced with the same kinds of choices . UPDATE : In previous posts , I have written about Douglass ' underappreciated speeches on immigration and how we should remember the Civil War .

July 4 is an appropriate time to remember Frederick Douglass' famous 1852 speech, "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" The speech is—for good reason—most famous for its powerful condemnation of slavery, racism, and American hypocrisy. But it also includes passages praising the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers. Both are worth remembering. Here is, perhaps, the best-known part of the speech: What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour. And there is much more material of the same kind in the speech, ranging from a denunciation of the internal slave trade, to an attack on the then-recent Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The key point is that slavery and racism made a mockery of America's professed ideals of liberty and equality. And, sadly, that legacy is far from fully overcome even today. But Douglass' speech also includes passages like this one, praising the American Revolution: Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men too — great enough to give fame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory. They loved their country better than their own private interests; and, though this is not the highest form of human excellence, all will concede that it is a rare virtue, and that when it is exhibited, it ought to command respect. He who will, intelligently, lay down his life for his country, is a man whom it is not in human nature to despise. Your fathers staked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, on the cause of their country. In their admiration of liberty, they lost sight of all other interests. They were peace men; but they preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage. They were quiet men; but they did not shrink from agitating against oppression. They showed forbearance; but that they knew its limits. They believed in order; but not in the order of tyranny. With them, nothing was "settled" that was not right. With them, justice, liberty and humanity were "final;" not slavery and oppression. You may well cherish the memory of such men. They were great in their day and generation. Their solid manhood stands out the more as we contrast it with these degenerate times…. Their statesmanship looked beyond the passing moment, and stretched away in strength into the distant future. They seized upon eternal principles, and set a glorious example in their defense. Mark them! Elsewhere in the speech, he also praises the revolutionaries' refusal to submit to oppression merely because it was backed by law. This is an obvious reference to the those who, in the 1850s, argued that abolitionists had a duty to submit to the Fugitive Slave Act and other unjust proslavery laws. It is also a rebuke to "just enforce the law" arguments backing submission to deeply unjust laws in our own day. Douglass recognized that the American Revolution not only espoused high principles, but had actually made important progress in realizing them—even as he also condemned the failure to realize them more fully, and the hypocrisy of Americans for tolerating the massive injustice of slavery, which so blatantly contradicted those principles. In other writings and speeches, Douglass also praised the antislavery potential of the Constitution(which, I think, he in some respects overstated). His purpose in the Fourth of July Speech, was not to denounce the Founding Fathers, but rather the white Americans of his own time. This raises the question of how we should think about slavery and the American Revolution today. Elsewhere, I have argued that, on balance, the Revolution gave an important boost to the antislavery cause, in both America and Europe—most notably by inspiring the "First Emancipation"—the abolition of slavery in the northern states, which was an essential prerequisite to eventual nationwide abolition. I do not, believe, however, that this fact completely exempts the Founders from severe criticism on their record with respect to slavery. Most obviously, they still deserve condemnation for the fact that many of them were slaveowners themselves. People like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, and George Mason all owned slaves throughout most of their lives, even though they well knew it was wrong and a violation of their own principles. Jefferson famously denounced slavery as "a moral depravity" and "the most unremitting despotism." Yet he kept right on owning slaves. The same goes for the others, though Washington did finally free his upon his death. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that they continued to perpetrate a grave injustice because they did not want to suffer the loss of wealth and social status resulting from manumission. This isn't even a matter of "judging historical figures by modern standards." It is a matter of them failing to live up to their own standards. In addition to failing to free their own slaves, most of the Founders also failed to prioritize the abolition of slavery as an institution. They did take some important steps, such as promoting abolition in the northern states, barring the spread of slavery to the "Old Northwest," and eventually banning the importation of new slaves from abroad. But they pretty clearly did not give abolishing the greatest moral evil in the new republic the priority it deserved. Instead, they often prioritized less significant, but politically more advantageous issues. Alexander Hamilton (who was not a slaveowner) is often praised for his antislavery attitudes—in some ways justifiably so. But, throughout his political career, he repeatedly subordinated abolition to other priorities. Much the same can be said of most other political leaders of the day. With great power, comes great responsibility. When it comes to slavery, most of the people who wielded great power in revolutionary America and the early republic failed to fully live up to theirs. But the condemnation they deserve for that failure must be balanced against the very real progress they made possible—including on the issue of slavery. In addition, we should remember that we ourselves may not be free of the same types of faults. It is far from unusual for people to set aside principles when they collide with self-interest. How many of us really prioritize doing what is right when doing so requires us to pay a high price? We like to think that, if we were in Jefferson's place, we would have freed our slaves and prioritized abolition. But it is far from clear we would actually have the courage and commitment to do so. Modern politicians, too, rarely prioritize the most morally significant issues ahead of those that are most politically advantageous in the short run. Given that slaves could not vote—and neither could many free blacks—it is actually notable that the Founders did as much to curb slavery as they did, even if it was nowhere near as much as they should have done. In sum, Frederick Douglass was right to praise the American Revolution, and right also to condemn the gross injustice and hypocrisy of the nation's failure to live up to its principles. In thinking about the Founders today, we too should praise the great good they did—which ultimately outweighed the harm. But we should also remember their greatest shortcoming. And we should be wary of too readily assuming that we ourselves would do better if faced with the same kinds of choices. UPDATE: In previous posts, I have written about Douglass' underappreciated speeches on immigration and how we should remember the Civil War.

www.reason.com

right

Ft7bQzUs7r2fDvyN

test

dLNDO0e1ea748nyK

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/october/it-has-been-an-honor-of-a-lifetime-the-powerful-legacy-of-un-ambassador-nikki-haley

'It Has Been an Honor of a Lifetime': The Powerful Legacy of UN Ambassador Nikki Haley

2018-10-10

WASHINGTON – One day after Nikki Haley announced she is resigning as US ambassador to the United Nations , many of her supporters are still reeling from the news . Haley initially told President Donald Trump of her plans to resign about six months ago . But on Tuesday , she made it official , saying she plans to stay at her post until the end of the year . `` I think you have to be selfless enough to know when you need to step aside and allow someone else to do the job , '' she told reporters in the Oval Office Tuesday . `` So thank you , Mr. President . It has been an honor of a lifetime . '' Senators confirmed the former South Carolina governor as US ambassador to the UN on the fourth day of Trump 's presidency by a vote of 96 to 4 . But upon her departure at the end of this year , she will end up serving nearly two years at her post . `` You 've been fantastic , you are my friend and on behalf of the country I want to thank you for a great job , '' President Trump told Haley . Haley becomes the latest in a line of high-profile departures from the White House . The 46-year-old represented the US with a strong voice at the UN , speaking out against rogue nations like North Korea , Russia and Iran . `` We must not be silent . The people of Iran are crying out for freedom . All freedom-loving people must stand with their cause , '' Haley said earlier this year when Iran 's Islamic regime found itself plagued by anti-government protests . She then went on the attack against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for the use of chemical weapons on civilians . `` The monster who is responsible for these attacks has no conscience , not even to be shocked by pictures of dead children , '' she said of the Syrian leader . Haley stood up for those without a voice when the US withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council . `` When a so-called Human Rights Council can not bring itself to address the massive abuses in Venezuela and Iran , and it welcomes the Democratic Republic of Congo as a new member , the council ceases to be worthy of its name , '' she charged . Meanwhile , she also fought for Israel , condemning what she views as the UN `` chronic bias '' against the Jewish state . `` You look at the anti-Israel bias , and the strength and courage that the president showed in moving the embassy – and showing the world we will move our embassy where we want , '' she said . Haley cited her Christian faith as a reason to support Israel , later teaming up with the president 's son-in-law , Jared Kushner , to work toward a peace deal with the Palestinians . `` What I 've done working with him on the Middle East peace plan , it 's so unbelievably well done , '' Haley said of her work with Kushner . Earlier this year , the US ambassador spoke with ███ News Chief Political Analyst David Brody about her impact at the UN . `` Every day I put on body armor because I know there 's going to be a fight , '' she said . `` I 'm just fighting a different thing every day . '' Trump said he will name a successor in the next two weeks . As for what 's next ? Haley made it clear she will not run for president in 2020 but will instead support Trump 's reelection .

WASHINGTON – One day after Nikki Haley announced she is resigning as US ambassador to the United Nations, many of her supporters are still reeling from the news. Haley initially told President Donald Trump of her plans to resign about six months ago. But on Tuesday, she made it official, saying she plans to stay at her post until the end of the year. "I think you have to be selfless enough to know when you need to step aside and allow someone else to do the job," she told reporters in the Oval Office Tuesday. "So thank you, Mr. President. It has been an honor of a lifetime." Senators confirmed the former South Carolina governor as US ambassador to the UN on the fourth day of Trump's presidency by a vote of 96 to 4. But upon her departure at the end of this year, she will end up serving nearly two years at her post. "You've been fantastic, you are my friend and on behalf of the country I want to thank you for a great job," President Trump told Haley. Haley becomes the latest in a line of high-profile departures from the White House. The 46-year-old represented the US with a strong voice at the UN, speaking out against rogue nations like North Korea, Russia and Iran. "We must not be silent. The people of Iran are crying out for freedom. All freedom-loving people must stand with their cause," Haley said earlier this year when Iran's Islamic regime found itself plagued by anti-government protests. She then went on the attack against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for the use of chemical weapons on civilians. "The monster who is responsible for these attacks has no conscience, not even to be shocked by pictures of dead children," she said of the Syrian leader. Haley stood up for those without a voice when the US withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council. "When a so-called Human Rights Council cannot bring itself to address the massive abuses in Venezuela and Iran, and it welcomes the Democratic Republic of Congo as a new member, the council ceases to be worthy of its name," she charged. Meanwhile, she also fought for Israel, condemning what she views as the UN "chronic bias" against the Jewish state. "You look at the anti-Israel bias, and the strength and courage that the president showed in moving the embassy – and showing the world we will move our embassy where we want," she said. Haley cited her Christian faith as a reason to support Israel, later teaming up with the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to work toward a peace deal with the Palestinians. "What I've done working with him on the Middle East peace plan, it's so unbelievably well done," Haley said of her work with Kushner. Earlier this year, the US ambassador spoke with CBN News Chief Political Analyst David Brody about her impact at the UN. "Every day I put on body armor because I know there's going to be a fight," she said. "I'm just fighting a different thing every day." Trump said he will name a successor in the next two weeks. As for what's next? Haley made it clear she will not run for president in 2020 but will instead support Trump's reelection.

www1.cbn.com

right

dLNDO0e1ea748nyK

test

ukB9hsts0U6E2Krd

justice_department

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/30/holder-meeting-more-substance-than-charm/?hpt=po_c1

Holder meeting: More substance than charm?

2013-05-30

Washington ( CNN ) – Embattled Attorney General Eric Holder 's long-time friend Reid Weingarten , the high-powered Washington attorney , came to his defense Thursday telling CNN that off-the-record sessions with media executives were not meant as a mea culpa . `` This is not about Eric Holder giving his defense . This is a policy discussion Eric has been instructed to do by the president . He wants people to sit down and roll up their sleeves , '' Weingarten says . `` This is not a charm offensive . This is substantive . '' Holder invited news organizations to meet with him as part of a review of the Justice Department 's guidelines for leak investigations . The offer of meetings became controversial-due to the department 's insistence the sessions be off-the-record– and some organizations , including CNN , Fox News , The New York Times , the Associated Press and Reuters , refused to attend the sessions citing the restriction in the midst of an ongoing news story . Several news organizations , including the Washington Post , the Wall Street Journal , Politico and ABC News , decided to attend the meetings on Thursday and Friday . ( The Justice Department late in the day Thursday authorized invited organizations to bring their attorneys . ) Holder wo n't comment directly on the matter , but Weingarten spoke out on his behalf . `` We have genuine , legitimate policy issues '' that need to be discussed , he said . `` We need to get at these horrible leaks and protect the First Amendment . '' The controversies stem from leak investigations over classified information regarding North Korea reported by Fox News Reporter James Rosen and a separate investigation about a thwarted airliner bomb plot reported by the Associated Press . As part of these probes , the DOJ obtained journalists phone records as well as , in the case of Fox News , email records . The subpoena for the AP 's phone records as well as the one for the Fox News reporter 's personal emails were kept secret . News organizations and many members of Congress have criticized Holder and the Obama administration for going too far in these investigations , using overly broad criteria-and secrecy–for their searches of the records . Holder 's allies take pains to point out the difficult-and competing– missions the Attorney General is trying to meet . `` It is this agonizing dilemma you have in national security cases…you 're obliged to investigate them aggressively , '' Weingarten says . But he also tells CNN that `` Eric has always been a real First Amendment guy…the question is where do you draw the line . '' Holder has been asked to deliver a report with his recommendations on possible changes by next month .

6 years ago Washington (CNN) – Embattled Attorney General Eric Holder's long-time friend Reid Weingarten, the high-powered Washington attorney, came to his defense Thursday telling CNN that off-the-record sessions with media executives were not meant as a mea culpa. "This is not about Eric Holder giving his defense. This is a policy discussion Eric has been instructed to do by the president. He wants people to sit down and roll up their sleeves," Weingarten says. "This is not a charm offensive. This is substantive." Holder invited news organizations to meet with him as part of a review of the Justice Department's guidelines for leak investigations. The offer of meetings became controversial-due to the department's insistence the sessions be off-the-record– and some organizations, including CNN, Fox News, The New York Times, the Associated Press and Reuters, refused to attend the sessions citing the restriction in the midst of an ongoing news story. Several news organizations, including the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Politico and ABC News, decided to attend the meetings on Thursday and Friday. (The Justice Department late in the day Thursday authorized invited organizations to bring their attorneys.) Holder won't comment directly on the matter, but Weingarten spoke out on his behalf. "We have genuine, legitimate policy issues" that need to be discussed, he said. "We need to get at these horrible leaks and protect the First Amendment." The controversies stem from leak investigations over classified information regarding North Korea reported by Fox News Reporter James Rosen and a separate investigation about a thwarted airliner bomb plot reported by the Associated Press. As part of these probes, the DOJ obtained journalists phone records as well as, in the case of Fox News, email records. The subpoena for the AP's phone records as well as the one for the Fox News reporter's personal emails were kept secret. News organizations and many members of Congress have criticized Holder and the Obama administration for going too far in these investigations, using overly broad criteria-and secrecy–for their searches of the records. Holder's allies take pains to point out the difficult-and competing– missions the Attorney General is trying to meet. "It is this agonizing dilemma you have in national security cases…you're obliged to investigate them aggressively," Weingarten says. But he also tells CNN that "Eric has always been a real First Amendment guy…the question is where do you draw the line." Holder has been asked to deliver a report with his recommendations on possible changes by next month.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

ukB9hsts0U6E2Krd

test

p2m4EZe9WGFYa1nH

media_bias

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/07/10/nbc-news-contributor-battle-coronavirus-negative-antibodies/

NBC News Spent Weeks Reporting On A Contributor’s Journey Battling Coronavirus – But He Never Had It

2020-07-10

NBC News spent weeks documenting its science contributor ’ s battle with COVID-19 , but now he admits that he never tested positive for it . Dr. Joseph Fair , a virologist , believed he had the virus and appeared on air numerous times to discuss his struggle with illness in May and June . On Tuesday , Fair admitted that he tested negative for the virus multiple times but had originally believed he had it regardless . Fair also tested negative upon taking an antibody test . “ My undiagnosed/suspected COVID illness from nearly 2 months ago remains an undiagnosed mystery as a recent antibody test was negative , ” Fair tweeted Tuesday . “ I had myriad COVID symptoms , was hospitalized in a COVID ward & treated for COVID-related co-morbidities , despite testing negative by nasal swab . ” I was severely ill for 2 weeks , 4 days of it in critical condition , resulting in pneumonia , diffuse lung injury & 18lbs of weight loss . My path forward is a 2nd AB test , & follow-up with a pulmonologist & tropical medicine specialist in an effort to diagnose what made me so ill. — Dr. Joseph Fair ( @ curefinder ) July 7 , 2020 I was truly humbled by this experience and again thank you all for the support throughout . — Dr. Joseph Fair ( @ curefinder ) July 7 , 2020 Fair suggested during an interview on the “ Today ” show May 14 that he may have gotten the virus through his eye during a flight . He conducted the interview while in a New Orleans hospital , the Washington Free Beacon reported . ( RELATED : MSNBC Analyst Suggests Using Coronavirus To Prosecute Trump For ‘ Negligent Homicide ’ — Gets An Assist From Former Democratic Candidate ) NBC News originally told viewers about the negative tests , but abandoned that part of the narrative as the story continued , according to Steve Krakauer ’ s “ Fourth Watch ” newsletter . During a June 14 interview with Chuck Todd on “ Meet the Press , ” no one noted that Fair had already tested negative at least five times , according to Krakauer . “ In the end , NBC ’ s viewers were left with two very alarming – and false – impressions , ” Krakauer wrote . “ First , that an expert virologist can take every precaution but can still catch COVID-19 through his eyes . False . Second , that tests can be so untrustworthy that you can have multiple negative tests and still have coronavirus . ” NBC News has not yet updated its May 14 article claiming the virologist got “ coronavirus despite being in good health and taking precautions. ” The network did not immediately respond to a request for comment from ███ . “ This pandemic is scary enough without this false storyline introduced into the news picture , ” Krakauer added .

NBC News spent weeks documenting its science contributor’s battle with COVID-19, but now he admits that he never tested positive for it. Dr. Joseph Fair, a virologist, believed he had the virus and appeared on air numerous times to discuss his struggle with illness in May and June. On Tuesday, Fair admitted that he tested negative for the virus multiple times but had originally believed he had it regardless. Fair also tested negative upon taking an antibody test. “My undiagnosed/suspected COVID illness from nearly 2 months ago remains an undiagnosed mystery as a recent antibody test was negative,” Fair tweeted Tuesday. “I had myriad COVID symptoms, was hospitalized in a COVID ward & treated for COVID-related co-morbidities, despite testing negative by nasal swab.” I was severely ill for 2 weeks, 4 days of it in critical condition, resulting in pneumonia, diffuse lung injury & 18lbs of weight loss. My path forward is a 2nd AB test, & follow-up with a pulmonologist & tropical medicine specialist in an effort to diagnose what made me so ill. — Dr. Joseph Fair (@curefinder) July 7, 2020 I was truly humbled by this experience and again thank you all for the support throughout. — Dr. Joseph Fair (@curefinder) July 7, 2020 Fair suggested during an interview on the “Today” show May 14 that he may have gotten the virus through his eye during a flight. He conducted the interview while in a New Orleans hospital, the Washington Free Beacon reported. (RELATED: MSNBC Analyst Suggests Using Coronavirus To Prosecute Trump For ‘Negligent Homicide’ — Gets An Assist From Former Democratic Candidate) NBC News originally told viewers about the negative tests, but abandoned that part of the narrative as the story continued, according to Steve Krakauer’s “Fourth Watch” newsletter. During a June 14 interview with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press,” no one noted that Fair had already tested negative at least five times, according to Krakauer. “In the end, NBC’s viewers were left with two very alarming – and false – impressions,” Krakauer wrote. “First, that an expert virologist can take every precaution but can still catch COVID-19 through his eyes. False. Second, that tests can be so untrustworthy that you can have multiple negative tests and still have coronavirus.” NBC News has not yet updated its May 14 article claiming the virologist got “coronavirus despite being in good health and taking precautions.” The network did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller. “This pandemic is scary enough without this false storyline introduced into the news picture,” Krakauer added.

www.dailycaller.com

right

p2m4EZe9WGFYa1nH

test

ABQ9fLIIJyRC6m7U

politics

Ben Stein

https://spectator.org/poor-trump-im-joining-the-other-resistance/

OPINION: Poor Trump: I’m Joining The Other Resistance

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

It ’ s a spectacular day here in glorious Beverly Hills . Blue skies . Brilliant sunshine . I was doing my favorite activity in the world for most of the morning : swimming , then lying in bed with my Julie and my JoJo , my glorious German short-haired pointers , while a dry , warm breeze blew through my office . Yes , I have a bed in my office . Julie lay with her head on my stomach and JoJo with her head on my ankles . The dogs started barking . There at the screen door to my office were two women . I am guessing the housekeeper let them in . One was M. , an emaciated woman from Pasadena whom I have known for some years through a 12 step program . She ’ s in her sixties . The other was her daughter , Q. , also emaciated , recently graduated from UC Santa Barbara . They were there to see me and say hello . I reluctantly drew myself up from the dogs and gave them orange juice and listened to them talk about themselves . The gist of their life story , by the way , is this : M. is the daughter of Holocaust survivors . When she was in her late thirties , she had a passionate affair with an Italian man who was teaching poetry at Pomona . She got pregnant . He ducked out . She was going to have an abortion . I , your humble servant , talked her out of it . I agreed to support the baby until she was in college if the mom would not continue Der Führer ’ s dirty work and help the Leader exterminate the Jews . ( Yes , M. is Jewish . ) I have done that and it ’ s cost me enough to buy a home in Malibu . So , you would think the girl would have some respect for human life . Think again . The young woman , Q. , is now out of school for a year . She ’ s been working for an organization that promotes Muslim causes in the U.S. and fights “ Islamophobia. ” Yes , the world has come to this . Yes , again , she ’ s Jewish . She actually got a grant from someone connected with UCSB to do that . Now , her grant is running out and she needs a new job . “ The place I would most like to work is Planned Parenthood , ” she said . “ Why don ’ t you try The American Nazi Party ? ” I suggested to her . She didn ’ t even remotely “ get it. ” She just said maybe if that didn ’ t work she would try Black Lives Matter . She ’ s determined to live and work in Boston , and I am sure she ’ ll succeed . I went back to sleep with the dogs after the two women left on their journey . But the phone rang and rang and rang . Usually , I ignore the phone , but my wife has been in the hospital now with pneumonia for two weeks so I thought I had better see what the call was about . I was planning to go over there to St. John ’ s in an hour anyway , but maybe I had to leave right away . In my pajamas . But , no , it was not the hospital at all . It was my distant cousin , Sandy . She ’ s a woman in her mid-seventies who lives in Miami Beach . She has an impressive résumé : Pembroke for college . Harvard for law school . NYU for business school . Then she married a successful real estate lawyer in South Florida and gave up any of that nonsense about work . I had not talked to her in weeks , so I had been calling her and now she was calling me back from her penthouse in Miami Beach . I was lucky to have caught her , since she spends most of her year traveling to various exotic spots . Just recently , she went to Brazzaville . I still have no idea why . Before that she was in Patagonia . I ’ m frightened to even look on the map to see where that is . The odd thing about these trips is that even though my cousin and her husband are millionaires many times over , and by no means young , when they go on these immensely long trips , they fly coach and stay at modestly priced B & B ’ s . I never quite understood that . I still don ’ t . “ I don ’ t feel at all well , ” she replied glumly . “ I feel achy and exhausted and I think I might have a fever . ” “ No , ” she said . “ I ’ m exhausted from fighting Donald Trump ’ s America . ” “ Wow . I ’ m so sorry . I must be missing something here though , because I don ’ t see how Trump could have affected your life in any way whatsoever at this point . You ’ re still rich . Still live in a beautiful home . Last time I looked , you had a 70-foot sailboat and your son was playing polo all over the country . What ’ s the problem for you personally ? ” To give Sandy the credit she so richly deserves , she laughed . “ Well , it hasn ’ t hit me personally yet , ” she said . “ But I still have to fight it every day . I have to fight the racism . ” “ He was talking about terrorists , ” I said . “ Anyway Muslim is not a race . It ’ s an ideology or a religion . ” She ignored my comment . “ I ’ ve joined a group called ‘ Turn Left. ’ Our goal is to have a Democratic Congress in 2018 . I ’ m working the phones all day telling people in Ohio and Pennsylvania why they should vote Democratic . ” “ The coal miners must love having Sandy Lefkowitz of Miami Beach calling them and telling them how to vote , ” I said . “ Didn ’ t you call people in the coal country in West Virginia during the 2016 campaign to tell them to vote for Hillary ? ” Sandy rushed right by that one , too . “ We ’ re trying to work with the governor here in Florida , too . We want to end mass incarceration of youthful offenders . It ’ s just the latest manifestation of American racism . ” “ Okay , ” I said . “ I like seeing them off the streets . But that ’ s just me . ” “ We meet every week in a Haitian neighborhood near here , ” she went on . “ I have about 20 people in my group . Most of them are really neatly groomed , very thin men , all single . They keep their apartments really clean . They ’ re all white even though they live in an almost all black area . And they all seem to come from money because they have Herman Miller furniture and Frette towels and Royal Copenhagen tea cups . Plus , they never say , ‘ like ’ or ‘ you know. ’ They ’ re very well brought up . ” “ I should hope so . We want our revolutionaries to be well brought up. ” It all reminded me of how in 1967 we at Yale Law School were waited on by waiters in white linen jackets while we ate , preparatory to storming the police barricades for the Black Panther Party . “ Don ’ t do it up too much and intensify the class struggle , ” a Black Pantherette woman said to my wife and me as we left for Christmas vacation in 1969 . But we were not anywhere near as neat and trim as the young men Sandy admired so much . “ The racism , ” Sandy said . “ Trump . Racism . In our little group , we sign all our letters by saying , ‘ Yours in The Resistance. ’ That ’ s how much it means to us . ” “ You ’ re very brave , ” I said to her . “ Intensify the class struggle . ” “ Okay , well , good luck to Justin in his polo matches , ” I said . She hung up . I slumped back in bed with my pooches . “ The RESISTANCE ? ? ? ? ” What are these guys resisting ? There is not the slightest sign of racism from Trump . No repression of any kind . The repression comes from the Trump haters . You ’ re not allowed to say a word in favor of Trump here in West Hollywood where I shop or in Beverly Hills or Malibu , where I live . You have to whisper if you like Trump . Now , that ’ s repression . I met a sweet , attractive woman at the Pavilions in Malibu a few days ago . She smiled and was friendly . Then in horror , she asked , “ You ’ re not the guy who defends Trump on TV are you ? ” “ I often criticize him and often defend him , ” I said . “ It depends on the subject . ” She walked away without saying a word . Right there in Malibu as a young girl walked by carrying a boogie board . The wife of my best friend of some forty years stopped talking to me the night Trump won the election and still won ’ t speak to me . Meanwhile , I just don ’ t quite get it . What has Trump done wrong ? He hasn ’ t repressed anyone . He isn ’ t suppressing free speech . It ’ s the lefto-fascists who are doing that , who are shouting down anyone who disagrees with them . He isn ’ t beating down the Lesbian-Bisexual-Gay-Queer and Transsexuals . They are attacking him and just tonight did a loud , incredibly , unbelievably stupid disturbing of the peace outside Ivanka Trump ’ s house in D.C . The threats to the Constitution come from the Sanctuary Cities secessionists , not from Trump . The whole free society is under attack from the left — not from Trump . And poor Trump . He ’ s trying to keep his promises on the environment — he saw right through that scam , and on terrorism , and on health care , and on defense — and he gets yelled at by people in his own party . If we can ’ t stand up for a Republican who keeps his promises , the future looks bleak indeed . The left . The media . The judiciary . The academy . They ’ ll never allow another free election . Sieg Heil !

Sunday It’s a spectacular day here in glorious Beverly Hills. Blue skies. Brilliant sunshine. I was doing my favorite activity in the world for most of the morning: swimming, then lying in bed with my Julie and my JoJo, my glorious German short-haired pointers, while a dry, warm breeze blew through my office. Yes, I have a bed in my office. Julie lay with her head on my stomach and JoJo with her head on my ankles. Paradise. Listening to Mozart’s Requiem. Glory. The dogs started barking. There at the screen door to my office were two women. I am guessing the housekeeper let them in. One was M., an emaciated woman from Pasadena whom I have known for some years through a 12 step program. She’s in her sixties. The other was her daughter, Q., also emaciated, recently graduated from UC Santa Barbara. They were there to see me and say hello. I reluctantly drew myself up from the dogs and gave them orange juice and listened to them talk about themselves. The gist of their life story, by the way, is this: M. is the daughter of Holocaust survivors. When she was in her late thirties, she had a passionate affair with an Italian man who was teaching poetry at Pomona. She got pregnant. He ducked out. She was going to have an abortion. I, your humble servant, talked her out of it. I agreed to support the baby until she was in college if the mom would not continue Der Führer’s dirty work and help the Leader exterminate the Jews. (Yes, M. is Jewish.) I have done that and it’s cost me enough to buy a home in Malibu. So, you would think the girl would have some respect for human life. Think again. The young woman, Q., is now out of school for a year. She’s been working for an organization that promotes Muslim causes in the U.S. and fights “Islamophobia.” Yes, the world has come to this. Yes, again, she’s Jewish. She actually got a grant from someone connected with UCSB to do that. Now, her grant is running out and she needs a new job. “Where were you thinking of working?” I asked her. “The place I would most like to work is Planned Parenthood,” she said. “Why don’t you try The American Nazi Party?” I suggested to her. She didn’t even remotely “get it.” She just said maybe if that didn’t work she would try Black Lives Matter. She’s determined to live and work in Boston, and I am sure she’ll succeed. I went back to sleep with the dogs after the two women left on their journey. But the phone rang and rang and rang. Usually, I ignore the phone, but my wife has been in the hospital now with pneumonia for two weeks so I thought I had better see what the call was about. I was planning to go over there to St. John’s in an hour anyway, but maybe I had to leave right away. In my pajamas. But, no, it was not the hospital at all. It was my distant cousin, Sandy. She’s a woman in her mid-seventies who lives in Miami Beach. She has an impressive résumé: Pembroke for college. Harvard for law school. NYU for business school. Then she married a successful real estate lawyer in South Florida and gave up any of that nonsense about work. I had not talked to her in weeks, so I had been calling her and now she was calling me back from her penthouse in Miami Beach. I was lucky to have caught her, since she spends most of her year traveling to various exotic spots. Just recently, she went to Brazzaville. I still have no idea why. Before that she was in Patagonia. I’m frightened to even look on the map to see where that is. The odd thing about these trips is that even though my cousin and her husband are millionaires many times over, and by no means young, when they go on these immensely long trips, they fly coach and stay at modestly priced B&B’s. I never quite understood that. I still don’t. “How are you?” I asked her cheerfully. “I don’t feel at all well,” she replied glumly. “I feel achy and exhausted and I think I might have a fever.” “Do you think you have the flu?” “No,” she said. “I’m exhausted from fighting Donald Trump’s America.” “Wow. I’m so sorry. I must be missing something here though, because I don’t see how Trump could have affected your life in any way whatsoever at this point. You’re still rich. Still live in a beautiful home. Last time I looked, you had a 70-foot sailboat and your son was playing polo all over the country. What’s the problem for you personally?” To give Sandy the credit she so richly deserves, she laughed. “Well, it hasn’t hit me personally yet,” she said. “But I still have to fight it every day. I have to fight the racism.” “What racism? I haven’t seen any racism.” “His rants against the Muslims,” she answered. “He was talking about terrorists,” I said. “Anyway Muslim is not a race. It’s an ideology or a religion.” She ignored my comment. “I’ve joined a group called ‘Turn Left.’ Our goal is to have a Democratic Congress in 2018. I’m working the phones all day telling people in Ohio and Pennsylvania why they should vote Democratic.” “The coal miners must love having Sandy Lefkowitz of Miami Beach calling them and telling them how to vote,” I said. “Didn’t you call people in the coal country in West Virginia during the 2016 campaign to tell them to vote for Hillary?” Sandy rushed right by that one, too. “We’re trying to work with the governor here in Florida, too. We want to end mass incarceration of youthful offenders. It’s just the latest manifestation of American racism.” “Okay,” I said. “I like seeing them off the streets. But that’s just me.” “We meet every week in a Haitian neighborhood near here,” she went on. “I have about 20 people in my group. Most of them are really neatly groomed, very thin men, all single. They keep their apartments really clean. They’re all white even though they live in an almost all black area. And they all seem to come from money because they have Herman Miller furniture and Frette towels and Royal Copenhagen tea cups. Plus, they never say, ‘like’ or ‘you know.’ They’re very well brought up.” “I should hope so. We want our revolutionaries to be well brought up.” It all reminded me of how in 1967 we at Yale Law School were waited on by waiters in white linen jackets while we ate, preparatory to storming the police barricades for the Black Panther Party. “Don’t do it up too much and intensify the class struggle,” a Black Pantherette woman said to my wife and me as we left for Christmas vacation in 1969. But we were not anywhere near as neat and trim as the young men Sandy admired so much. “The racism,” Sandy said. “Trump. Racism. In our little group, we sign all our letters by saying, ‘Yours in The Resistance.’ That’s how much it means to us.” “You’re very brave,” I said to her. “Intensify the class struggle.” “Racism,” she said again. “Where is it?” I asked again. “Trump Tower,” she answered. “Okay, well, good luck to Justin in his polo matches,” I said. She hung up. I slumped back in bed with my pooches. “The RESISTANCE????” What are these guys resisting? There is not the slightest sign of racism from Trump. No repression of any kind. The repression comes from the Trump haters. You’re not allowed to say a word in favor of Trump here in West Hollywood where I shop or in Beverly Hills or Malibu, where I live. You have to whisper if you like Trump. Now, that’s repression. I met a sweet, attractive woman at the Pavilions in Malibu a few days ago. She smiled and was friendly. Then in horror, she asked, “You’re not the guy who defends Trump on TV are you?” “I often criticize him and often defend him,” I said. “It depends on the subject.” She walked away without saying a word. Right there in Malibu as a young girl walked by carrying a boogie board. The wife of my best friend of some forty years stopped talking to me the night Trump won the election and still won’t speak to me. Meanwhile, I just don’t quite get it. What has Trump done wrong? He hasn’t repressed anyone. He isn’t suppressing free speech. It’s the lefto-fascists who are doing that, who are shouting down anyone who disagrees with them. He isn’t beating down the Lesbian-Bisexual-Gay-Queer and Transsexuals. They are attacking him and just tonight did a loud, incredibly, unbelievably stupid disturbing of the peace outside Ivanka Trump’s house in D.C. The threats to the Constitution come from the Sanctuary Cities secessionists, not from Trump. The whole free society is under attack from the left — not from Trump. And poor Trump. He’s trying to keep his promises on the environment — he saw right through that scam, and on terrorism, and on health care, and on defense — and he gets yelled at by people in his own party. If we can’t stand up for a Republican who keeps his promises, the future looks bleak indeed. The left. The media. The judiciary. The academy. They’ll never allow another free election. Sieg Heil! Yours in The Other Resistance, Benjy

www.spectator.org

right

ABQ9fLIIJyRC6m7U

test

NocqWIVMF0eQsGBn

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/04/house-gop-unveils-bill-to-avoid-shutdown-lessen-pain-for-defense-programs-from-forced-spending-cuts/

House GOP unveils bill to avoid shutdown, lessen pain for defense programs from forced spending cuts

2013-03-04

Washington ( CNN ) - House Republicans unveiled a government spending bill on Monday that keeps federal agencies funded through the end of September and attempts to remove the specter of a government shutdown . The GOP bill does n't replace the forced spending cuts , but lessens the pain for the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs . These departments , which Republicans traditionally protect in budget fights , would not get extra money or escape the reductions included in so-called `` sequester , '' but under the proposal drafted by House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers , R-Kentucky , they could shift money around to prioritize specific programs . For example , the House `` continuing resolution '' or `` CR '' cuts roughly $ 10 billion from procurement and other areas to beef up the Defense Department 's `` operations and maintenance '' account to ensure funding of military readiness and training programs . In addition to including provisions for defense programs , the bill protects some other agencies from some of the across-the-board budget cuts that took effect on Friday . It keeps FBI and border security staffing at current levels . And in response to the deadly terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi , Libya , last September , the Republican measure increases funding for embassy security by $ 2 billion . It also includes increased money for federal prisons and weather satellite launches . Federal agencies will run out of money on March 27 and the measure introduced Monday keeps funding for most federal programs at last year 's spending levels that were established in the 2011 debt deal , known as the Budget Control Act . But because it factors in reductions from the forced spending cuts , the actual level of federal spending will drop below a trillion , to $ 982 billion . `` The legislation will avoid a government shutdown on March 27 , prioritize DoD and Veterans programs , and allow the Pentagon some leeway to do its best with the funding it has , '' Rogers said in a written statement . Aides in both parties said they expect Democrats will try to amend the House bill to soften the impact of the spending cuts on some domestic programs . While Democrats would n't say which programs their party would include , Sen. Barbara Mikulski , D-Maryland , who chairs the Appropriations Committee , spelled out her priorities in a CNN interview on Friday . `` We need to have programs in there that meet compelling human need : housing , education , health care . But we also have to look at transportation . We want to look at those items that help generate jobs , like transportation , and solve America 's infrastructure problems , '' she said . One top Republican aide cautioned that if Democrats move beyond non-controversial items – such as funding for the Homeland Security Department – they could risk disrupting swift passage of the government funding bill . Rep Nita Lowey , D-New York , the top Democrat on the House spending panel , said she supported the military spending plans , but she was disappointed the bill `` would lock most of the federal government into outdated plans and spending levels . '' Lowey argued that non-defense agencies will be hurt by the bill and urged Senate Democrats to work on a spending bill that protects those programs . `` It has an adverse effect on federal efforts to improve schools , health care , and homeland security ; protect the environment ; and create jobs and grow the economy . I am hopeful the Senate will consider and pass a 2013 funding package that better reflects the needs and priorities of the American people , '' Lowey said in a written statement . Before the legislation was released on Monday , chief White House spokesman Jay Carney declined to say whether the administration would support the House GOP bill , saying the White House wanted to `` see something that is practical and nonpolitical , and consistent with the levels established in the Budget Control Act that both parties agreed to overwhelmingly . '' House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi also would n't say if House Democrats would support the bill when asked about it on Friday , but said it `` will be curious to me if at that level the Republicans can produce the votes to pass it . But certainly we do n't want to have a shutdown of government . '' It 's also unclear whether House GOP conservatives would go along with the proposal . During recent votes on stopgap spending measures , many Republicans have pushed for greater spending cuts or wanted to add restrictions on how funding could be used for government programs . Kansas Republican Rep Tim Huelskamp is again pushing to add language to the bill that would prevent federal agencies from using any of their money to implement the new health care law . But GOP leaders know that including such a provision would be a non-starter for congressional Democrats and the White House and would only increase talks of a government shutdown . The new spending bill also extends the pay freeze in effect for federal employees , as well as Members of Congress . The Obama administration has urged that federal workers receive a small salary increase . The House is expected to begin debate on the spending bill on Wednesday and vote on it on Thursday .

7 years ago Washington (CNN) - House Republicans unveiled a government spending bill on Monday that keeps federal agencies funded through the end of September and attempts to remove the specter of a government shutdown. The GOP bill doesn't replace the forced spending cuts, but lessens the pain for the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs. These departments, which Republicans traditionally protect in budget fights, would not get extra money or escape the reductions included in so-called "sequester," but under the proposal drafted by House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Kentucky, they could shift money around to prioritize specific programs. For example, the House "continuing resolution" or "CR" cuts roughly $10 billion from procurement and other areas to beef up the Defense Department's "operations and maintenance" account to ensure funding of military readiness and training programs. In addition to including provisions for defense programs, the bill protects some other agencies from some of the across-the-board budget cuts that took effect on Friday. It keeps FBI and border security staffing at current levels. And in response to the deadly terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, last September, the Republican measure increases funding for embassy security by $2 billion. It also includes increased money for federal prisons and weather satellite launches. Federal agencies will run out of money on March 27 and the measure introduced Monday keeps funding for most federal programs at last year's spending levels that were established in the 2011 debt deal, known as the Budget Control Act. But because it factors in reductions from the forced spending cuts, the actual level of federal spending will drop below a trillion, to $982 billion. "The legislation will avoid a government shutdown on March 27, prioritize DoD and Veterans programs, and allow the Pentagon some leeway to do its best with the funding it has," Rogers said in a written statement. The measure could face resistance by Senate Democrats. Aides in both parties said they expect Democrats will try to amend the House bill to soften the impact of the spending cuts on some domestic programs. While Democrats wouldn't say which programs their party would include, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Maryland, who chairs the Appropriations Committee, spelled out her priorities in a CNN interview on Friday. "We need to have programs in there that meet compelling human need: housing, education, health care. But we also have to look at transportation. We want to look at those items that help generate jobs, like transportation, and solve America's infrastructure problems," she said. One top Republican aide cautioned that if Democrats move beyond non-controversial items – such as funding for the Homeland Security Department – they could risk disrupting swift passage of the government funding bill. Democrats in the House also expressed concerns. Rep Nita Lowey, D-New York, the top Democrat on the House spending panel, said she supported the military spending plans, but she was disappointed the bill "would lock most of the federal government into outdated plans and spending levels." Lowey argued that non-defense agencies will be hurt by the bill and urged Senate Democrats to work on a spending bill that protects those programs. "It has an adverse effect on federal efforts to improve schools, health care, and homeland security; protect the environment; and create jobs and grow the economy. I am hopeful the Senate will consider and pass a 2013 funding package that better reflects the needs and priorities of the American people," Lowey said in a written statement. Before the legislation was released on Monday, chief White House spokesman Jay Carney declined to say whether the administration would support the House GOP bill, saying the White House wanted to "see something that is practical and nonpolitical, and consistent with the levels established in the Budget Control Act that both parties agreed to overwhelmingly." House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi also wouldn't say if House Democrats would support the bill when asked about it on Friday, but said it "will be curious to me if at that level the Republicans can produce the votes to pass it. But certainly we don't want to have a shutdown of government." It's also unclear whether House GOP conservatives would go along with the proposal. During recent votes on stopgap spending measures, many Republicans have pushed for greater spending cuts or wanted to add restrictions on how funding could be used for government programs. Kansas Republican Rep Tim Huelskamp is again pushing to add language to the bill that would prevent federal agencies from using any of their money to implement the new health care law. But GOP leaders know that including such a provision would be a non-starter for congressional Democrats and the White House and would only increase talks of a government shutdown. The new spending bill also extends the pay freeze in effect for federal employees, as well as Members of Congress. The Obama administration has urged that federal workers receive a small salary increase. The House is expected to begin debate on the spending bill on Wednesday and vote on it on Thursday.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

NocqWIVMF0eQsGBn

test

S5mnpuFQd4it796d

race_and_racism

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/14/the_walter_scott_outrage_nobody_is_talking_about/

The Walter Scott outrage nobody is talking about

2015-04-14

Heather Digparton

The horrific story of the unarmed Walter Scott 's death at the hands of Officer Michael Slager continues to reverberate . Aside from the incontrovertible evidence on the tape that the accused officer shot him in the back as if he were doing target practice , there has since emerged more tape of the traffic stop itself and audio of the officer speaking with his superiors on the phone raising even more questions about his state of mind at the time of the shooting . But as journalists have gone back and studied the officer 's record and found that he was previously investigated for taser abuse . And on even further investigation it was found that this jurisdiction is known as `` Taser town '' : Until the eight shots heard ’ round the world , cops in North Charleston , South Carolina , were primarily distinguished by their zesty use of Tasers . As computed by a local newspaper in 2006 , cops there used Tasers 201 times in an 18-month period , averaging once every 40 hours in one six-month stretch and disproportionately upon African Americans . The Charleston Post & Courier did the tally after the death of a mentally ill man named Kip Black , who was tasered six times on one occasion and nine times on another . Black died immediately after the second jolting , though the coroner set the cause of death as cocaine-fueled “ excited delirium syndrome . ” It 's important to note that Taser International has spent large sums convincing local coroners that this syndrome ( which primarily seems to kill people in police custody ) makes it the victim 's responsibility if they have the bad luck to die from being shot full of electricity with a taser . It 's not just illegal drugs in the system which can allegedly cause it . Adrenaline can as well . So if a person fails to remain calm in face of an arrest and finds the feeling of 50,000 volts going through their system to be stressful they have no one to blame but themselves if they die . Those who have been following the story of Walter Scott understand the significance of the taser . It 's not just that the officer evidently lied about Scott taking his taser , thus somehow justifying his using lethal force , or the fact that he appears to have tried to plant the taser next to the slain man 's body to cover his tracks . The man who filmed the shooting said this : “ I remember the police had control of the situation . He had control of Scott , and Scott was trying just to get away from the Taser . You can hear the sound of the Taser ... before I started recording . I believe he just wanted to get away from the Taser . ” It 's not unusual for people to try to escape from a taser if they can . It is , quite literally , a torture device designed to force compliance with terrible pain . The people of Taser Town , particularly African American men , undoubtedly understand exactly what is going to happen if they find themselves in the custody of a police officer . Here 's one example of how it would likely go down , as reported by The Guardian : Slager is among three patrolmen named in a lawsuit filed by Julius Wilson , who said he was arrested after being stopped in his car in August last year . Wilson is also suing the city of North Charleston , the city police department and police chief Eddie Driggers . Speaking at a press conference on Monday , Wilson described Slager and his colleagues as “ bad , corrupt cops ” . He said : “ The use of excessive force or punishment to torture suspects is not something that should be tolerated by the North Charleston police department. ” [ ... ] Wilson , who has a criminal record , said he was stopped on 25 August because his vehicle had a broken tail light . Scott , 50 , was stopped for the same reason on 5 April before fleeing and being shot dead by Slager . Wilson was stopped by an Officer Edwards , he said , who was joined 10 minutes later by Slager and an officer Clemens despite Wilson calmly “ making small talk and laughing ” . After refusing to step out until he was told why he was being arrested , Wilson claimed , he was forcibly pulled out of his vehicle by Slager and the two other officers . The three then “ forcibly restrained Wilson on his stomach on the pavement face down , ” the lawsuit stated . Despite Wilson “ not moving , nor resisting ” and lying with his hands above his head , the lawsuit claimed , Slager broke a silence among the officers by shouting : “ Watch out ! I ’ m going to tase ! ” He then allegedly “ shot his NCPD-issued taser into Wilson ’ s back ” . The lawsuit alleged Wilson “ writhed in pain from the electric shock ” . It said when Slager warned his colleagues he was about to fire his taser , “ Wilson was cooperating fully ” and allowing the two other officers to place his hands behind his back . Tasers guidelines vary by department and jurisdiction , but generally their use is only considered reasonable when the subject poses a safety threat . Clearly , shooting an unarmed 50-year-old man when he runs from the taser is not one of those cases . The video of the Scott incident shows that Officer Slager is confused on that issue , to say the least . And it 's just as clear , based on that same standard , that nobody could ever claim such force is justified when presented with an unarmed suspect facing down on the ground , with his hands behind his back . Using a taser in that situation is simply a form of unofficial street justice , a little torture at the hands of the authorities to make a point . Tasers are not simply used in place of lethal force , and they 're not always used to force compliance . They are very often used as on-the-spot punishment by police who want to teach citizens a lesson . Take the now notorious California incident that happened to be filmed by a local news station , in which a man on horseback led police on a chase through the desert . When he fell from the horse , police swarmed and he very clearly laid down on his stomach and put his hands behind his back . Then the police beat the hell out of him and tasered him repeatedly . This footage has garnered widespread criticism because of the beating , and for good reason . It 's brutal , primitive behavior . But you wo n't find many people expressing outrage about the electric shocks being administered to this man over and over again . Here 's a typical news report of the incident : In video captured by cameras aboard a helicopter for KNBC , deputies gather around the man after he falls from a horse he was riding to flee from them . The video shows deputies using a stun gun on him and then repeatedly kicking and hitting him . KNBC reported that the man -- identified by authorities as Francis Pusok -- appeared to be kicked 17 times , punched 37 times and hit with a baton four times . Again , if you look at the footage , Pusok was on the ground , face down with his hands behind his back before anyone tasered him or physically assaulted him . And yet the tasering is apparently considered a-ok. At the very least , it is n't mentioned as something that shocks the conscience the way the beating does.Perhaps this is because the searing pain of electro-shock does n't leave much in the way of a mark . But hideously painful it is . Yet for some reason , delivering this particular agony to a suspect is not something people reject when there is no danger to police or bystanders , and the suspect is compliant . But police do it routinely , and are rarely sanctioned for it . Some of this undoubtedly stems from the fact that popular culture has turned tasering into slapstick comedy . Movies and TV shows and countless Youtube videos portray it as a hilarious joke . `` Do n't tase me bro '' became as national catch phrase . But it 's not funny . Tasers can kill people . And regardless of what level of respect and compliance one thinks police are entitled to get from the public , they are not entitled to torture and punish citizens to teach them a lesson . Walter Scott ran from the pain of the taser and he was shot in the back numerous times for doing it . Francis Pusok was compliant and was tasered and beaten repeatedly anyway . It appears that such shootings and beatings , when captured on film anyway , are still considered beyond the pale in America these days . In both cases , officers will have to face some sanction for their behavior . Slager is facing a murder charge . It 's unknown what the California cops will face , but the FBI is investigating , so there may be some federal civil rights charges . It will be very interesting if any of the officers are charged with assault for using the taser . Let 's just say it will be among the vast minority of cases ever brought if they are .

The horrific story of the unarmed Walter Scott's death at the hands of Officer Michael Slager continues to reverberate. Aside from the incontrovertible evidence on the tape that the accused officer shot him in the back as if he were doing target practice, there has since emerged more tape of the traffic stop itself and audio of the officer speaking with his superiors on the phone raising even more questions about his state of mind at the time of the shooting. But as journalists have gone back and studied the officer's record and found that he was previously investigated for taser abuse. And on even further investigation it was found that this jurisdiction is known as "Taser town": Until the eight shots heard ’round the world, cops in North Charleston, South Carolina, were primarily distinguished by their zesty use of Tasers. As computed by a local newspaper in 2006, cops there used Tasers 201 times in an 18-month period, averaging once every 40 hours in one six-month stretch and disproportionately upon African Americans. The Charleston Post & Courier did the tally after the death of a mentally ill man named Kip Black, who was tasered six times on one occasion and nine times on another. Black died immediately after the second jolting, though the coroner set the cause of death as cocaine-fueled “excited delirium syndrome.” It's important to note that Taser International has spent large sums convincing local coroners that this syndrome (which primarily seems to kill people in police custody) makes it the victim's responsibility if they have the bad luck to die from being shot full of electricity with a taser. It's not just illegal drugs in the system which can allegedly cause it. Adrenaline can as well. So if a person fails to remain calm in face of an arrest and finds the feeling of 50,000 volts going through their system to be stressful they have no one to blame but themselves if they die. Advertisement: Those who have been following the story of Walter Scott understand the significance of the taser. It's not just that the officer evidently lied about Scott taking his taser, thus somehow justifying his using lethal force, or the fact that he appears to have tried to plant the taser next to the slain man's body to cover his tracks. The man who filmed the shooting said this: “I remember the police had control of the situation. He had control of Scott, and Scott was trying just to get away from the Taser. You can hear the sound of the Taser ... before I started recording. I believe he just wanted to get away from the Taser.” It's not unusual for people to try to escape from a taser if they can. It is, quite literally, a torture device designed to force compliance with terrible pain. The people of Taser Town, particularly African American men, undoubtedly understand exactly what is going to happen if they find themselves in the custody of a police officer. Here's one example of how it would likely go down, as reported by The Guardian: Slager is among three patrolmen named in a lawsuit filed by Julius Wilson, who said he was arrested after being stopped in his car in August last year. Wilson is also suing the city of North Charleston, the city police department and police chief Eddie Driggers. Speaking at a press conference on Monday, Wilson described Slager and his colleagues as “bad, corrupt cops”. He said: “The use of excessive force or punishment to torture suspects is not something that should be tolerated by the North Charleston police department.”[...] Wilson, who has a criminal record, said he was stopped on 25 August because his vehicle had a broken tail light. Scott, 50, was stopped for the same reason on 5 April before fleeing and being shot dead by Slager. Wilson was stopped by an Officer Edwards, he said, who was joined 10 minutes later by Slager and an officer Clemens despite Wilson calmly “making small talk and laughing”. After refusing to step out until he was told why he was being arrested, Wilson claimed, he was forcibly pulled out of his vehicle by Slager and the two other officers. The three then “forcibly restrained Wilson on his stomach on the pavement face down,” the lawsuit stated. Despite Wilson “not moving, nor resisting” and lying with his hands above his head, the lawsuit claimed, Slager broke a silence among the officers by shouting: “Watch out! I’m going to tase!” He then allegedly “shot his NCPD-issued taser into Wilson’s back”. The lawsuit alleged Wilson “writhed in pain from the electric shock”. It said when Slager warned his colleagues he was about to fire his taser, “Wilson was cooperating fully” and allowing the two other officers to place his hands behind his back. Tasers guidelines vary by department and jurisdiction, but generally their use is only considered reasonable when the subject poses a safety threat. Clearly, shooting an unarmed 50-year-old man when he runs from the taser is not one of those cases. The video of the Scott incident shows that Officer Slager is confused on that issue, to say the least. And it's just as clear, based on that same standard, that nobody could ever claim such force is justified when presented with an unarmed suspect facing down on the ground, with his hands behind his back. Using a taser in that situation is simply a form of unofficial street justice, a little torture at the hands of the authorities to make a point. Tasers are not simply used in place of lethal force, and they're not always used to force compliance. They are very often used as on-the-spot punishment by police who want to teach citizens a lesson. Advertisement: Take the now notorious California incident that happened to be filmed by a local news station, in which a man on horseback led police on a chase through the desert. When he fell from the horse, police swarmed and he very clearly laid down on his stomach and put his hands behind his back. Then the police beat the hell out of him and tasered him repeatedly. This footage has garnered widespread criticism because of the beating, and for good reason. It's brutal, primitive behavior. But you won't find many people expressing outrage about the electric shocks being administered to this man over and over again. Here's a typical news report of the incident: In video captured by cameras aboard a helicopter for KNBC, deputies gather around the man after he falls from a horse he was riding to flee from them. The video shows deputies using a stun gun on him and then repeatedly kicking and hitting him. KNBC reported that the man -- identified by authorities as Francis Pusok -- appeared to be kicked 17 times, punched 37 times and hit with a baton four times. Again, if you look at the footage, Pusok was on the ground, face down with his hands behind his back before anyone tasered him or physically assaulted him. And yet the tasering is apparently considered a-ok. At the very least, it isn't mentioned as something that shocks the conscience the way the beating does.Perhaps this is because the searing pain of electro-shock doesn't leave much in the way of a mark. But hideously painful it is. Yet for some reason, delivering this particular agony to a suspect is not something people reject when there is no danger to police or bystanders, and the suspect is compliant. But police do it routinely, and are rarely sanctioned for it. Advertisement: Some of this undoubtedly stems from the fact that popular culture has turned tasering into slapstick comedy. Movies and TV shows and countless Youtube videos portray it as a hilarious joke. "Don't tase me bro" became as national catch phrase. But it's not funny. Tasers can kill people. And regardless of what level of respect and compliance one thinks police are entitled to get from the public, they are not entitled to torture and punish citizens to teach them a lesson. Walter Scott ran from the pain of the taser and he was shot in the back numerous times for doing it. Francis Pusok was compliant and was tasered and beaten repeatedly anyway. It appears that such shootings and beatings, when captured on film anyway, are still considered beyond the pale in America these days. In both cases, officers will have to face some sanction for their behavior. Slager is facing a murder charge. It's unknown what the California cops will face, but the FBI is investigating, so there may be some federal civil rights charges. It will be very interesting if any of the officers are charged with assault for using the taser. Let's just say it will be among the vast minority of cases ever brought if they are.

www.salon.com

left

S5mnpuFQd4it796d

test

7YffooWCJ5BG6kKG

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/12/obama-dismisses-balancing-budget-for-sake-of-balance/?hpt=po_c1

Obama dismisses balancing budget for 'sake of balance'

2013-03-12

Washington ( CNN ) – The push in Washington over reducing the federal deficit and producing a balanced budget should n't be at the expense of vulnerable Americans , President Barack Obama said in an interview on Tuesday . His comments came the same day Rep. Paul Ryan , the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee , unveiled a plan that aims to balance the budget in 10 years . Obama said his own plan , which the White House said should be out the week of April 8 , would not include that objective . `` My goal is not to chase a balanced budget just for the sake of balance , '' Obama told ABC News . `` My goal is how do we grow the economy , put people back to work , and if we do that we are going to be bringing in more revenue . If we control spending and we have a smart entitlement package , then potentially what you have is balance – but it is not balance on the backs of the poor , the elderly , students who need student loans , families that have disabled kids . That is not the right way to balance our budget . '' In the budget presented Tuesday , Ryan proposes balancing the budget over a decade , finding savings in government spending by eliminating most of Obama 's health care reforms and streamlining the federal tax code . The plan closely mimicked Ryan 's previous budget plans , which have been harshly criticized by Democrats , including Obama . The president was n't any less biting in his assessment of Ryan 's plan Tuesday , saying the cuts included in the budget were indefensible . `` We 're not going to balance the budget in 10 years , '' Obama said . `` If you look at what Paul Ryan does to balance the budget , it means that you have to 'voucherize ' Medicare , you have to slash deeply into programs like Medicaid , you 've essentially got to either tax middle class families a lot higher than you currently are , or you ca n't lower rates the way he 's promised . '' Instead , Obama pointed to measures enacted during the presidency of Bill Clinton – where his interviewer , ABC 's George Stephanopoulos , served as an adviser . `` Balancing the budget depends , in part , how fast you grow . You remember , you were in the Clinton administration . The reason you guys balanced it was a combination of tax hikes , spending cuts - and the economy grew , '' Obama said .

7 years ago Washington (CNN) – The push in Washington over reducing the federal deficit and producing a balanced budget shouldn't be at the expense of vulnerable Americans, President Barack Obama said in an interview on Tuesday. His comments came the same day Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee, unveiled a plan that aims to balance the budget in 10 years. Obama said his own plan, which the White House said should be out the week of April 8, would not include that objective. "My goal is not to chase a balanced budget just for the sake of balance," Obama told ABC News. "My goal is how do we grow the economy, put people back to work, and if we do that we are going to be bringing in more revenue. If we control spending and we have a smart entitlement package, then potentially what you have is balance – but it is not balance on the backs of the poor, the elderly, students who need student loans, families that have disabled kids. That is not the right way to balance our budget." In the budget presented Tuesday, Ryan proposes balancing the budget over a decade, finding savings in government spending by eliminating most of Obama's health care reforms and streamlining the federal tax code. The plan closely mimicked Ryan's previous budget plans, which have been harshly criticized by Democrats, including Obama. The president wasn't any less biting in his assessment of Ryan's plan Tuesday, saying the cuts included in the budget were indefensible. "We're not going to balance the budget in 10 years," Obama said. "If you look at what Paul Ryan does to balance the budget, it means that you have to 'voucherize' Medicare, you have to slash deeply into programs like Medicaid, you've essentially got to either tax middle class families a lot higher than you currently are, or you can't lower rates the way he's promised." Instead, Obama pointed to measures enacted during the presidency of Bill Clinton – where his interviewer, ABC's George Stephanopoulos, served as an adviser. "Balancing the budget depends, in part, how fast you grow. You remember, you were in the Clinton administration. The reason you guys balanced it was a combination of tax hikes, spending cuts - and the economy grew," Obama said.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

7YffooWCJ5BG6kKG

test

XJwlP3ZAn4IQt3LJ

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/15/death_of_the_reagan_revolution_why_the_southern_strategy_is_beginning_to_come_undone/

Death of the Reagan revolution: Why the Southern Strategy is beginning to come undone

2015-10-15

Conor Lynch

About 50 years ago , the Republican party made a conscious decision to become the party of white men . It was a smart strategic move that ushered in an era of neoliberalism and GOP dominance throughout the final decades of the 20th century , though it has always been an odd alliance between poor and working class white Southerners and wealthy business and financial elites . This alliance , widely known as the `` Southern Strategy , '' has remained generally stable for nearly half a century , but today , the cracks are starting to widen , and it is seemingly falling apart . As William Greider pointed out in The Nation earlier this week : “ The party establishment , including business and financial leaders , seems to realize that Republicans need to moderate their outdated posture on social issues . But they can ’ t persuade their own base—especially Republicans in the white South—to change . The longer the GOP holds out , the more likely it is to be damaged by the nation ’ s changing demographics—the swelling impact of Latinos and other immigrants , and the flowering influence of millennials , the 18-to-30-year-olds who are more liberal and tolerant than their elders . ” While the country at large is moving past the social intolerance that has long plagued our political discourse , a significant part of the GOP has refused to budge when it comes to issues like gay marriage , immigration , and reproductive rights . Leading candidates in the GOP primary -- like Donald Trump , Ben Carson , and Carly Fiorina , who are all doing their best to rile up social conservatives -- reveal this stubbornness . However , America ’ s changing demographics -- or as Ann Coulter calls it , the “ browning of America ” -- is the most damning change for the Republican party . The fact that America is becoming more and more diverse , while the GOP is seemingly doubling down on its white identity politics , does not bode well for its future . The Southern Strategy came about during the Civil Rights era , particularly after the President Lyndon Johnson , a Democrat from Texas , signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . “ I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come , ” Johnson presciently said to a White House aide . Richard Nixon was the first Republican candidate to run on the Southern Strategy , with the backing of the nation 's foremost “ Dixiecrat , ” Strom Thurmond , who had sustained the longest filibuster in history in order to delay a vote on the 1957 Civil Rights Act . In 1972 , Nixon swept the historically Democratic South , and , except for a hiccup in the form of Georgia native Jimmy Carter , the region has been a Republican stronghold ever since . But it was Ronald Reagan who was the first truly neoliberal president to ran on the Southern Strategy , using dog-whistle terms like `` welfare queen '' and promoting states rights ’ issues in the deep South , where civil rights demonstrators had been terrorized a decade earlier . The late Republican strategist , Lee Atwater , notoriously described the southern strategy in an off-the-record interview : “ You start out in 1954 by saying , ‘ N * * * er , n * * * er , n * * * er. ’ By 1968 you can ’ t say ‘ n * * * er ’ —that hurts you , backfires . So you say stuff like , uh , forced busing , states ’ rights , and all that stuff , and you ’ re getting so abstract . Now , you ’ re talking about cutting taxes , and all these things you ’ re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is , blacks get hurt worse than whites . ” No wonder the Republican party is so hostile towards immigrants with darker skin . According to a Pew Research Center poll , the most Republican segments of the population are white evangelicals , white southerners , white men with some college or less , and Mormons ( a church that had banned black people up until 1978 ) . However , internal dissension , which has become quite clear with the lingering search for the next House Speaker , is casting in sharp relief a party that is self-destructing before our very eyes . A minority of extremists are holding the GOP hostage , and even Ayn Rand ’ s greatest admirer , Paul Ryan , is now considered too left-wing by certain congressional conservatives . The establishment Republicans , i.e . big business conservatives and neocons , can no longer control the social conservatives , or the right-wing populists -- particularly those from the South -- and the contradictory alliance that helped the GOP dominate for so many years is dissolving . The chief defender of the Republican establishment , David Brooks , has called the Republican party “ ungovernable , ” while 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain has said : “ People do expect us to govern . I think it ’ s a degree of unrest and dissatisfaction amongst our base that we have not seen before . ” For many decades , the business and financial elite of the GOP were able to keep their Southern cohorts in line , but today , a kind of right-wing populism has taken over much of the party . This style of populism has historically been anti-immigrant , anti-elitist , nationalist , and prone to white-supremacist views . It is not a surprise that it has become fashionable again ; we are living in a time of social progress , and America is rapidly becoming more diverse . The enormous increase in inequality and the corruption of Washington have also contributed to the distrust of government and the rise of an authoritarian demagogue like Donald Trump . It is reactionary populism at its core , and it has been waiting to erupt . It is the final battle cry of white males and their declining dominance in American life . Needless to say , at a time when diversity is at an all time high , and the population at large has become more socially progressive ( especially young people ) , this movement does not have the strength to gain any kind of majority , but it could very well be enough to send the Republican party to its grave .

About 50 years ago, the Republican party made a conscious decision to become the party of white men. It was a smart strategic move that ushered in an era of neoliberalism and GOP dominance throughout the final decades of the 20th century, though it has always been an odd alliance between poor and working class white Southerners and wealthy business and financial elites. This alliance, widely known as the "Southern Strategy," has remained generally stable for nearly half a century, but today, the cracks are starting to widen, and it is seemingly falling apart. As William Greider pointed out in The Nation earlier this week: “The party establishment, including business and financial leaders, seems to realize that Republicans need to moderate their outdated posture on social issues. But they can’t persuade their own base—especially Republicans in the white South—to change. The longer the GOP holds out, the more likely it is to be damaged by the nation’s changing demographics—the swelling impact of Latinos and other immigrants, and the flowering influence of millennials, the 18-to-30-year-olds who are more liberal and tolerant than their elders.” While the country at large is moving past the social intolerance that has long plagued our political discourse, a significant part of the GOP has refused to budge when it comes to issues like gay marriage, immigration, and reproductive rights. Leading candidates in the GOP primary -- like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina, who are all doing their best to rile up social conservatives -- reveal this stubbornness. Advertisement: However, America’s changing demographics -- or as Ann Coulter calls it, the “browning of America” -- is the most damning change for the Republican party. The fact that America is becoming more and more diverse, while the GOP is seemingly doubling down on its white identity politics, does not bode well for its future. The Southern Strategy came about during the Civil Rights era, particularly after the President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat from Texas, signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come,” Johnson presciently said to a White House aide. Richard Nixon was the first Republican candidate to run on the Southern Strategy, with the backing of the nation's foremost “Dixiecrat,” Strom Thurmond, who had sustained the longest filibuster in history in order to delay a vote on the 1957 Civil Rights Act. In 1972, Nixon swept the historically Democratic South, and, except for a hiccup in the form of Georgia native Jimmy Carter, the region has been a Republican stronghold ever since. Advertisement: But it was Ronald Reagan who was the first truly neoliberal president to ran on the Southern Strategy, using dog-whistle terms like "welfare queen" and promoting states rights’ issues in the deep South, where civil rights demonstrators had been terrorized a decade earlier. The late Republican strategist, Lee Atwater, notoriously described the southern strategy in an off-the-record interview: “You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘N***er, n***er, n***er.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘n***er’—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.” No wonder the Republican party is so hostile towards immigrants with darker skin. According to a Pew Research Center poll, the most Republican segments of the population are white evangelicals, white southerners, white men with some college or less, and Mormons (a church that had banned black people up until 1978). However, internal dissension, which has become quite clear with the lingering search for the next House Speaker, is casting in sharp relief a party that is self-destructing before our very eyes. A minority of extremists are holding the GOP hostage, and even Ayn Rand’s greatest admirer, Paul Ryan, is now considered too left-wing by certain congressional conservatives. The establishment Republicans, i.e. big business conservatives and neocons, can no longer control the social conservatives, or the right-wing populists -- particularly those from the South -- and the contradictory alliance that helped the GOP dominate for so many years is dissolving. The chief defender of the Republican establishment, David Brooks, has called the Republican party “ungovernable,” while 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain has said: “People do expect us to govern. I think it’s a degree of unrest and dissatisfaction amongst our base that we have not seen before.” Advertisement: For many decades, the business and financial elite of the GOP were able to keep their Southern cohorts in line, but today, a kind of right-wing populism has taken over much of the party. This style of populism has historically been anti-immigrant, anti-elitist, nationalist, and prone to white-supremacist views. It is not a surprise that it has become fashionable again; we are living in a time of social progress, and America is rapidly becoming more diverse. The enormous increase in inequality and the corruption of Washington have also contributed to the distrust of government and the rise of an authoritarian demagogue like Donald Trump. It is reactionary populism at its core, and it has been waiting to erupt. It is the final battle cry of white males and their declining dominance in American life. Needless to say, at a time when diversity is at an all time high, and the population at large has become more socially progressive (especially young people), this movement does not have the strength to gain any kind of majority, but it could very well be enough to send the Republican party to its grave.

www.salon.com

left

XJwlP3ZAn4IQt3LJ

test

gKAmThSMZmAXDKDF

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://www.apnews.com/5385ac720ba744be963a9fae91a289f6

Fort Worth chief: ‘absolutely no excuse’ for woman’s killing

2019-10-16

Jake Bleiberg, Jill Bleed

A bullet hole from the police officer 's shot is seen in the rear window of Atatiana Jefferson 's home on E. Allen Ave in Fort Worth , Texas , Tuesday , Oct. 15 , 2019 . Jefferson , a black woman , was shot by a white police officer early Saturday , Oct. 12 . ( Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News via AP ) A bullet hole from the police officer 's shot is seen in the rear window of Atatiana Jefferson 's home on E. Allen Ave in Fort Worth , Texas , Tuesday , Oct. 15 , 2019 . Jefferson , a black woman , was shot by a white police officer early Saturday , Oct. 12 . ( Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News via AP ) FORT WORTH , Texas ( AP ) — The furor Tuesday over the killing of a black woman by a white Fort Worth officer became increasingly about a gun pointed at a bedroom window . But the police chief and activists said the focus was on the wrong gun . Officer Aaron Dean was arrested on a murder charge Monday in the slaying of Atatiana Jefferson . Police released an arrest warrant Tuesday quoting the victim ’ s 8-year-old nephew as saying Jefferson had pulled out a gun after hearing suspicious noises behind her house . Black politicians and others criticized the police and the media for bringing up Jefferson ’ s weapon , angrily accusing the department of trying to deflect blame onto an innocent victim . “ The Fort Worth Police Department is going about the task of providing a defense for this officer , ” said Lee Merritt , an attorney for the Jefferson family . Interim Police Chief Ed Kraus himself declared there was “ absolutely no excuse ” for the killing and said Jefferson behaved as any Texas homeowner would have on hearing a prowler . It wasn ’ t clear from the warrant whether Dean even saw her weapon through the glass . The killing early Saturday shocked people across the U.S. and led many black people to wonder once more whether they are no longer safe from police in their homes . Earlier this month , a white former Dallas officer was convicted of murder and sentenced to 10 years in prison for killing a black neighbor in his own apartment . She said she mistook his place for hers and thought he was an intruder . Dean , 34 , resigned and was arrested Monday for firing a single bullet through a windowpane while investigating a neighbor ’ s report about the front door being left open at Jefferson ’ s home . Jefferson was staying up late , playing video games with her nephew . Police bodycam video showed Dean making his way around the side of the house into the backyard in the darkness and opening fire a split second after shouting at the 28-year-old Jefferson to show her hands . He did not identify himself as a police officer . In the arrest warrant , Jefferson ’ s nephew said his aunt had taken a gun from her purse and pointed it at the window . Over the weekend , the Police Department also stirred anger by releasing images of the gun inside the home . State Rep. Harold Dutton , a black Democrat from Houston , blamed the media in part . “ Why would you publicize that Ms. Jefferson had a gun in her home ? ” he asked . “ I ’ m sure the police told you that . But that was her Second Amendment right , and equally as important , it had nothing to do with the incident for which we are here about . Too often , you , the media , have been complicit in throwing dirt on the victim while ignoring the real culprit , current law enforcement . ” State Rep. Nicole Collier , a black Democrat from Fort Worth , likewise complained about the tendency to focus on things that could exonerate police officers , “ like showing marijuana or showing a handgun when people are rightfully in their own home . ” After the deadly shooting last year in Dallas , police reported finding marijuana in the dead man ’ s apartment in what was decried by some as an attempt to smear the victim . In the Fort Worth case , the arrest warrant notes that the other officer at the scene told authorities she could see only Jefferson ’ s face through the window when Dean fired . Dean ’ s own bodycam video showed that the view through the glass was obstructed by the reflection from his flashlight . Merritt questioned whether Dean saw a gun at all , noting that the window was covered by blinds , it was dark outside , and Dean never said “ gun ” before firing , as officers are trained to do . “ Why do people keep weapons in their homes ? Well , maybe , when there ’ s someone prowling around in the back at 2 a.m. in the morning , you may need to arm yourself , ” Merritt said . “ It is only appropriate that Miss Jefferson would have a weapon in that situation . ” “ Atatiana was in her own home , caring for her 8-year-old nephew . She was a victim , ” she said . Dean resigned without talking to internal affairs investigators , and what he saw and why he opened fire remained unclear . His attorney did not immediately return messages for comment . The police chief did not directly address the nephew ’ s account of the gun at a news briefing Tuesday . Police spokesman Sgt . Chris Daniels said the information was included in court papers , so a judge would have a clear understanding of the facts of the case . “ Leaving out pertinent information could be seen as misleading ; Judges DO NOT like that , ” Daniels said in an email . Dean was held on $ 200,000 bond and released after posting bail less than four hours after his arrest . The police chief said he would have been fired if he hadn ’ t quit first . Police also referred the case to the FBI for possible federal civil rights charges . Apparently close to tears , Kraus pleaded with the city of nearly 900,000 not to allow the killing to reflect badly on the entire department . “ The officers are hurting , ” he said . “ They try hard every day to try to make this city better. ” He added : “ I likened it to a bunch of ants building an ant hill , and then somebody comes with a hose and washes it away . And they just have to start from scratch . ” Merritt said Fort Worth needs to change its “ brutal culture of policing , ” and Price , the mayor , has called for a top-to-bottom review of the department . Dozens of people crowded Fort Worth ’ s City Council chamber and hundreds more shouted outside to call for justice for Jefferson . The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports about 60 people signed up to speak to the council at its Tuesday night meeting . Once the chamber ’ s capacity was reached , about 200 others who could not make it inside shouted bitter protests outside City Hall to Fort Worth police and political leaders . Of the nine officer-involved shootings so far this year in Fort Worth , five targeted African Americans and six resulted in death , according to department data . Nearly two-thirds of the department ’ s 1,100 officers are white , just over 20 % are Hispanic , and about 10 % are black . The city is about 40 % white , 35 % Hispanic and 19 % black .

A bullet hole from the police officer's shot is seen in the rear window of Atatiana Jefferson's home on E. Allen Ave in Fort Worth, Texas, Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2019. Jefferson, a black woman, was shot by a white police officer early Saturday, Oct. 12. (Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News via AP) A bullet hole from the police officer's shot is seen in the rear window of Atatiana Jefferson's home on E. Allen Ave in Fort Worth, Texas, Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2019. Jefferson, a black woman, was shot by a white police officer early Saturday, Oct. 12. (Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News via AP) FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — The furor Tuesday over the killing of a black woman by a white Fort Worth officer became increasingly about a gun pointed at a bedroom window. But the police chief and activists said the focus was on the wrong gun. Officer Aaron Dean was arrested on a murder charge Monday in the slaying of Atatiana Jefferson. Police released an arrest warrant Tuesday quoting the victim’s 8-year-old nephew as saying Jefferson had pulled out a gun after hearing suspicious noises behind her house. Full Coverage: Shot in home Black politicians and others criticized the police and the media for bringing up Jefferson’s weapon, angrily accusing the department of trying to deflect blame onto an innocent victim. “The Fort Worth Police Department is going about the task of providing a defense for this officer,” said Lee Merritt, an attorney for the Jefferson family. Interim Police Chief Ed Kraus himself declared there was “absolutely no excuse” for the killing and said Jefferson behaved as any Texas homeowner would have on hearing a prowler. It wasn’t clear from the warrant whether Dean even saw her weapon through the glass. The killing early Saturday shocked people across the U.S. and led many black people to wonder once more whether they are no longer safe from police in their homes. Earlier this month, a white former Dallas officer was convicted of murder and sentenced to 10 years in prison for killing a black neighbor in his own apartment. She said she mistook his place for hers and thought he was an intruder. Dean, 34, resigned and was arrested Monday for firing a single bullet through a windowpane while investigating a neighbor’s report about the front door being left open at Jefferson’s home. Jefferson was staying up late, playing video games with her nephew. Police bodycam video showed Dean making his way around the side of the house into the backyard in the darkness and opening fire a split second after shouting at the 28-year-old Jefferson to show her hands. He did not identify himself as a police officer. In the arrest warrant, Jefferson’s nephew said his aunt had taken a gun from her purse and pointed it at the window. Over the weekend, the Police Department also stirred anger by releasing images of the gun inside the home. State Rep. Harold Dutton, a black Democrat from Houston, blamed the media in part. “Why would you publicize that Ms. Jefferson had a gun in her home?” he asked. “I’m sure the police told you that. But that was her Second Amendment right, and equally as important, it had nothing to do with the incident for which we are here about. Too often, you, the media, have been complicit in throwing dirt on the victim while ignoring the real culprit, current law enforcement.” State Rep. Nicole Collier, a black Democrat from Fort Worth, likewise complained about the tendency to focus on things that could exonerate police officers, “like showing marijuana or showing a handgun when people are rightfully in their own home.” After the deadly shooting last year in Dallas, police reported finding marijuana in the dead man’s apartment in what was decried by some as an attempt to smear the victim. Full Coverage: Mistaken apartment shooting In the Fort Worth case, the arrest warrant notes that the other officer at the scene told authorities she could see only Jefferson’s face through the window when Dean fired. Dean’s own bodycam video showed that the view through the glass was obstructed by the reflection from his flashlight. Merritt questioned whether Dean saw a gun at all, noting that the window was covered by blinds, it was dark outside, and Dean never said “gun” before firing, as officers are trained to do. “Why do people keep weapons in their homes? Well, maybe, when there’s someone prowling around in the back at 2 a.m. in the morning, you may need to arm yourself,” Merritt said. “It is only appropriate that Miss Jefferson would have a weapon in that situation.” The gun was “irrelevant,” Mayor Betsy Price said Monday. “Atatiana was in her own home, caring for her 8-year-old nephew. She was a victim,” she said. Dean resigned without talking to internal affairs investigators, and what he saw and why he opened fire remained unclear. His attorney did not immediately return messages for comment. The police chief did not directly address the nephew’s account of the gun at a news briefing Tuesday. Police spokesman Sgt. Chris Daniels said the information was included in court papers, so a judge would have a clear understanding of the facts of the case. “Leaving out pertinent information could be seen as misleading; Judges DO NOT like that,” Daniels said in an email. Dean was held on $200,000 bond and released after posting bail less than four hours after his arrest. The police chief said he would have been fired if he hadn’t quit first. Police also referred the case to the FBI for possible federal civil rights charges. Apparently close to tears, Kraus pleaded with the city of nearly 900,000 not to allow the killing to reflect badly on the entire department. “The officers are hurting,” he said. “They try hard every day to try to make this city better.” He added: “I likened it to a bunch of ants building an ant hill, and then somebody comes with a hose and washes it away. And they just have to start from scratch.” Merritt said Fort Worth needs to change its “brutal culture of policing,” and Price, the mayor, has called for a top-to-bottom review of the department. Dozens of people crowded Fort Worth’s City Council chamber and hundreds more shouted outside to call for justice for Jefferson. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports about 60 people signed up to speak to the council at its Tuesday night meeting. Once the chamber’s capacity was reached, about 200 others who could not make it inside shouted bitter protests outside City Hall to Fort Worth police and political leaders. Of the nine officer-involved shootings so far this year in Fort Worth, five targeted African Americans and six resulted in death, according to department data. Nearly two-thirds of the department’s 1,100 officers are white, just over 20% are Hispanic, and about 10% are black. The city is about 40% white, 35% Hispanic and 19% black. ___ Bleed reported from Little Rock, Arkansas. ___ Associated Press writers Nomaan Merchant in Houston contributed to this report. ___ For the latest updates: https://www.apnews.com/a32bdcddae4849dd8bbbdf9956367b95

www.apnews.com

center

gKAmThSMZmAXDKDF

test

7tdua3C9mICFXFtO

politics

Guest Writer - Left

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/09/the-real-threat-to-americ_partner/

OPINION: The real threat to American sovereignty: Citizens United and global money influencing our politics

2016-08-09

Robert Reich

“ Without a border , we just don ’ t have a country , “ Donald Trump says repeatedly . For him , the biggest threats to American sovereignty are three-dimensional items that cross our borders , such as unwanted imports and undocumented immigrants . He ’ s wrong . The biggest threats to American sovereignty are invisible digital dollars wired into U.S. election campaigns from abroad . Yet Trump seems to welcome foreign influence over our democracy . Sovereignty is mainly about a government ’ s capacity to govern . A government not fully accountable to its citizens won ’ t pass laws that benefit and protect those citizens — not just laws about trade and immigration but about national security , the environment , labor standards , the economy and all else . To state it another way : Without a functioning democracy , we just don ’ t have a country . Trump ’ s recent public request that hackers connected to the Russian government sabotage his opponent Hillary Clinton is the tip of a Trumpian iceberg of foreign influence . He ’ s also been actively soliciting campaign funds from officials of foreign governments — in the United Kingdom , Iceland , Australia and elsewhere . Terri Butler , a member of the Australian parliament member , was surprised to receive fundraising solicitations from Trump at her official government email address , asking her to make a “ generous contribution ” to the Trump campaign . Bob Blackman , a member of Britain ’ s House of Commons , who has also received fundraising requests from the Trump campaign , says `` I did not sign up , these are sent unsolicited . ” Another member of the U.K. parliament , Peter Bottomley , has received three such solicitations . `` Neither [ Trump ’ s ] sons nor anyone else has answered my questions about how they acquired my email nor why they were asking for financial support that I suppose to be illegal for [ Trump ] to accept , ” he says , In Iceland , Katrin Jakobsdottir , chair of the Left-Green Movement , a democratic socialist party , has “ no idea '' how she got on Trump ’ s fundraising list . Someone should let Trump know it ’ s illegal for candidates for federal office to solicit foreign money , regardless of whether the donations ever materialize . In addition , foreign individuals , corporations and governments are barred from either giving money directly to U.S. candidates or spending on advertising to influence U.S. elections . Why hasn ’ t Trump been held accountable ? Because the Federal Election Commission , charged with enforcing the law , is gridlocked by its Republican appointees . So we ’ re left with a presidential candidate screaming about threats to American sovereignty from trade and immigration , who ’ s simultaneously urging officials of foreign governments to compromise American sovereignty . The hypocrisy doesn ’ t end there . Leading Trump supporters like Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions , a senior member of the Senate Judiciary committee , is quick to blame global American corporations for disregarding American borders . “ There just seems to be this view , particularly in much of our business community — they ’ ve already transitioned to a trans-national status , ” Sessions says . “ They just see the world differently . Borders are just impediments to them . ” Yes , but the only way Americans have a fighting chance of getting trade deals that are in our interest — or , for that matter , any other kind of legislation that helps the vast majority — is by restricting the flow of global corporate money into American politics . Yet Sessions is one of the staunchest defenders of the Supreme Court ’ s Citizens United ruling , which held that corporations are people under the First Amendment and can therefore contribute to election campaigns . ( He ’ s even favorably compared Citizens United to Brown v. Board of Education . ) Not incidentally , Citizens United opened a back door for global corporations to influence American elections . Just last week the Intercept reported on two Chinese citizens living in Singapore who own a U.S.-based firm called American Pacific International Capital , on whose board Neil Bush ( Jeb ’ s brother ) serves . Last year , the corporation donated $ 1.3 million to the Jeb Bush super PAC . There ’ s reason to believe a lot more foreign money is being funneled into American election campaigns , either through tax-exempt entities that don ’ t have to reveal the identities of their donors , or via super PACs . So far in the 2016 election there has been a surge of contributions to super PACs by so-called “ ghost corporations ” whose ownership remains unknown . The underlying problem is even larger , because almost all large publicly-traded American companies have some foreign ownership . The Treasury Department estimates that about a quarter of the total market value of public U.S. corporations is owned by foreign nationals . So whenever these corporations make campaign donations they in effect funnel some of their foreign shareholders ’ assets into American politics . That wouldn ’ t matter so much if these global corporations cared about America . But they don ’ t . They care only about their global bottom lines . As an Apple executive told The New York Times , “ We don ’ t have an obligation to solve America ’ s problems . ” Donald Trump is right to worry about American sovereignty . But the real threat to our sovereignty isn ’ t imports or immigrants . It ’ s global money influencing our politics . Protecting our democracy requires two steps that Trump and his leading supporters oppose : First , enforce our laws against soliciting or receiving foreign money in our election campaigns .

This originally appeared on Robert Reich's blog. “Without a border, we just don’t have a country,“ Donald Trump says repeatedly. For him, the biggest threats to American sovereignty are three-dimensional items that cross our borders, such as unwanted imports and undocumented immigrants. Advertisement: He’s wrong. The biggest threats to American sovereignty are invisible digital dollars wired into U.S. election campaigns from abroad. Yet Trump seems to welcome foreign influence over our democracy. Sovereignty is mainly about a government’s capacity to govern. A government not fully accountable to its citizens won’t pass laws that benefit and protect those citizens — not just laws about trade and immigration but about national security, the environment, labor standards, the economy and all else. Advertisement: To state it another way: Without a functioning democracy, we just don’t have a country. Trump’s recent public request that hackers connected to the Russian government sabotage his opponent Hillary Clinton is the tip of a Trumpian iceberg of foreign influence. He’s also been actively soliciting campaign funds from officials of foreign governments — in the United Kingdom, Iceland, Australia and elsewhere. Advertisement: Terri Butler, a member of the Australian parliament member, was surprised to receive fundraising solicitations from Trump at her official government email address, asking her to make a “generous contribution” to the Trump campaign. Bob Blackman, a member of Britain’s House of Commons, who has also received fundraising requests from the Trump campaign, says "I did not sign up, these are sent unsolicited.” Advertisement: Another member of the U.K. parliament, Peter Bottomley, has received three such solicitations. "Neither [Trump’s] sons nor anyone else has answered my questions about how they acquired my email nor why they were asking for financial support that I suppose to be illegal for [Trump] to accept,” he says, In Iceland, Katrin Jakobsdottir, chair of the Left-Green Movement, a democratic socialist party, has “no idea" how she got on Trump’s fundraising list. Someone should let Trump know it’s illegal for candidates for federal office to solicit foreign money, regardless of whether the donations ever materialize. In addition, foreign individuals, corporations and governments are barred from either giving money directly to U.S. candidates or spending on advertising to influence U.S. elections. Advertisement: Why hasn’t Trump been held accountable? Because the Federal Election Commission, charged with enforcing the law, is gridlocked by its Republican appointees. So we’re left with a presidential candidate screaming about threats to American sovereignty from trade and immigration, who’s simultaneously urging officials of foreign governments to compromise American sovereignty. The hypocrisy doesn’t end there. Leading Trump supporters like Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, a senior member of the Senate Judiciary committee, is quick to blame global American corporations for disregarding American borders. Advertisement: “There just seems to be this view, particularly in much of our business community — they’ve already transitioned to a trans-national status,” Sessions says. “They just see the world differently. Borders are just impediments to them.” Yes, but the only way Americans have a fighting chance of getting trade deals that are in our interest — or, for that matter, any other kind of legislation that helps the vast majority — is by restricting the flow of global corporate money into American politics. Yet Sessions is one of the staunchest defenders of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which held that corporations are people under the First Amendment and can therefore contribute to election campaigns. (He’s even favorably compared Citizens United to Brown v. Board of Education.) Not incidentally, Citizens United opened a back door for global corporations to influence American elections. Advertisement: Just last week the Intercept reported on two Chinese citizens living in Singapore who own a U.S.-based firm called American Pacific International Capital, on whose board Neil Bush (Jeb’s brother) serves. Last year, the corporation donated $1.3 million to the Jeb Bush super PAC. There’s reason to believe a lot more foreign money is being funneled into American election campaigns, either through tax-exempt entities that don’t have to reveal the identities of their donors, or via super PACs. So far in the 2016 election there has been a surge of contributions to super PACs by so-called “ghost corporations” whose ownership remains unknown. The underlying problem is even larger, because almost all large publicly-traded American companies have some foreign ownership. The Treasury Department estimates that about a quarter of the total market value of public U.S. corporations is owned by foreign nationals. So whenever these corporations make campaign donations they in effect funnel some of their foreign shareholders’ assets into American politics. Advertisement: That wouldn’t matter so much if these global corporations cared about America. But they don’t. They care only about their global bottom lines. As an Apple executive told The New York Times, “We don’t have an obligation to solve America’s problems.” Donald Trump is right to worry about American sovereignty. But the real threat to our sovereignty isn’t imports or immigrants. It’s global money influencing our politics. Protecting our democracy requires two steps that Trump and his leading supporters oppose: First, enforce our laws against soliciting or receiving foreign money in our election campaigns. Second, reverse Citizens United.

www.salon.com

left

7tdua3C9mICFXFtO

test

Ewb0sitRSapngFJJ

labor

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/1d187742ff0d4a44bf235fd00c665fb7

US added robust 273K jobs in February before virus escalated

2020-03-06

Christopher Rugaber

FILE - In this Nov. 2 , 2017 , photo , a recruiter in the shale gas industry , left , speaks with an attendee of a job fair in Cheswick , Pa . Hiring in the United States jumped in February 2020 as employers added a robust 273,000 jobs , evidence that the economy was in strong shape before the coronavirus began to sweep through the nation . ( AP Photo/Keith Srakocic , File ) FILE - In this Nov. 2 , 2017 , photo , a recruiter in the shale gas industry , left , speaks with an attendee of a job fair in Cheswick , Pa . Hiring in the United States jumped in February 2020 as employers added a robust 273,000 jobs , evidence that the economy was in strong shape before the coronavirus began to sweep through the nation . ( AP Photo/Keith Srakocic , File ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — Hiring in the United States jumped in February as employers added 273,000 positions , evidence that the job market was in strong shape before the coronavirus began to sweep through the nation . The Labor Department said Friday that the unemployment rate fell to 3.5 % last month , matching a 50-year low , down from 3.6 % in January . The monthly job gain comes from a survey of payrolls done in the second week of February , predating the viral outbreak . Still , many economists were encouraged by the message that the jobs report sent about the economy ’ s health before the disease . “ The U.S. economy clearly approached the COVID-19 shock with a head of steam , which is good news , ” said Neil Dutta , an economist at investment strategy firm Renaissance Macro Research . “ You want to be in a position of strength when a crisis hits . ” So far , there are few signs that the job market has been affected by the disease , but most economists expect hiring to slow in the coming months . Businesses are restricting business travel , factories are facing supply disruptions from manufacturing shutdowns in China and some Americans are delaying vacations . “ The outbreak will likely lead ( businesses ) to postpone some hiring plans or even shed jobs if the situation worsens , ” said Lydia Boussour , senior U.S. economist at Oxford Economics . Wage growth slowed slightly in February , rising 3 % compared with a year earlier , down from a 3.1 % year-over-year average gain in January . Paychecks have grown at a 3 % pace or higher for more than a year and a half but have slowed since reaching 3.5 % last summer . The government on Friday also upgraded its estimate of job growth in December and January by a combined 85,000 more than it had previously reported . Over the past three months , U.S. employers have added 243,000 jobs — the best quarterly pace since September 2016 . Unseasonably warm weather in February likely boosted hiring in the construction industry , which added 42,000 jobs , and hotels and restaurants , which gained nearly 50,000 . Manufacturing added 15,000 , reversing a sharp loss in January . The gain may not be replicated in the coming months because of supply chain disruptions in China . Last month ’ s totals include 7,000 temporary Census jobs that were created to help compile the 2020 count . Tom Gimbel , CEO of the LaSalle Network , a Chicago-based employment agency , said that so far , his clients haven ’ t cut back on hiring . Nor are they canceling job interviews , he said , as some did in the run-up to past recessions . “ Some clients got a little nervous and moved to video interviews , but job candidates were still willing to come in face to face , ” he said . If employers were to start slashing jobs as a consequence of the virus , it could significantly escalate the economic damage . For that reason , a range of job market barometers will provide some of the most vital signals about how the economy is withstanding the virus ’ impact . Widespread layoffs can transform slowdowns in just one or two sectors — the travel industry , say , or manufacturing — into a full-blown downturn for the overall economy . When workers lose jobs and pay , they typically cut spending . Their friends and relatives who are still employed grow anxious about their own jobs and wary of spending freely , a cycle that can trigger further job cuts . So long as monthly job gains remain above 100,000 or so , the unemployment rate should stay low and the economy may be able to avoid a downturn . If the monthly pace were to sink below that level for a sustained period , joblessness would likely rise . Before the viral outbreak struck China , the economy was expanding at a steady pace . Annual growth was 2.1 % in the final three months of last year . A pickup in housing sales has supported growth , with ultra-low mortgage rates helping more buyers afford a purchase . And consumer spending , fueled by solid pay increases , has lifted online retailers , restaurants , and the broader economy . The timeliest gauge of layoffs is the government ’ s weekly report on applications for unemployment benefits . People who are laid off are eligible for the aid . The latest data , issued Thursday , was reassuring : It showed that the number of people seeking unemployment benefits dropped 3,000 to 216,000 in the week that ended Feb. 29 . That is roughly the same as the average over the past month and is a very low level historically . Other job market gauges are also still unaffected . The jobs website Indeed ’ s data shows that companies have yet to cut their job postings , according to Tara Sinclair , an economist at the company , evidence that they are still willing to hire . Should coronavirus worries start to depress consumer and business confidence , a broader pullback in spending and hiring could then weaken the economy . So far , that evidence is mixed . A consumer confidence survey by survey research company Morning Consult has already shown clear declines . But a separate survey of small businesses by the National Federation for Independent Business found that about one-fifth of small companies in February planned to add jobs , unchanged from the previous month . A survey of the Fed ’ s business contacts released Wednesday , known as the Beige Book , found that half the bank ’ s 12 districts were reporting consequences from the coronavirus . The Philadelphia Federal Reserve reported fewer tourist groups from China and said many of the city ’ s Asian restaurants and shops had reported declining foot traffic because of unfounded fears over the virus .

FILE - In this Nov. 2, 2017, photo, a recruiter in the shale gas industry, left, speaks with an attendee of a job fair in Cheswick, Pa. Hiring in the United States jumped in February 2020 as employers added a robust 273,000 jobs, evidence that the economy was in strong shape before the coronavirus began to sweep through the nation.(AP Photo/Keith Srakocic, File) FILE - In this Nov. 2, 2017, photo, a recruiter in the shale gas industry, left, speaks with an attendee of a job fair in Cheswick, Pa. Hiring in the United States jumped in February 2020 as employers added a robust 273,000 jobs, evidence that the economy was in strong shape before the coronavirus began to sweep through the nation.(AP Photo/Keith Srakocic, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — Hiring in the United States jumped in February as employers added 273,000 positions, evidence that the job market was in strong shape before the coronavirus began to sweep through the nation. The Labor Department said Friday that the unemployment rate fell to 3.5% last month, matching a 50-year low, down from 3.6% in January. The monthly job gain comes from a survey of payrolls done in the second week of February, predating the viral outbreak. Still, many economists were encouraged by the message that the jobs report sent about the economy’s health before the disease. “The U.S. economy clearly approached the COVID-19 shock with a head of steam, which is good news,” said Neil Dutta, an economist at investment strategy firm Renaissance Macro Research. “You want to be in a position of strength when a crisis hits.” So far, there are few signs that the job market has been affected by the disease, but most economists expect hiring to slow in the coming months. Businesses are restricting business travel , factories are facing supply disruptions from manufacturing shutdowns in China and some Americans are delaying vacations. “The outbreak will likely lead (businesses) to postpone some hiring plans or even shed jobs if the situation worsens,” said Lydia Boussour, senior U.S. economist at Oxford Economics. Wage growth slowed slightly in February, rising 3% compared with a year earlier, down from a 3.1% year-over-year average gain in January. Paychecks have grown at a 3% pace or higher for more than a year and a half but have slowed since reaching 3.5% last summer. The government on Friday also upgraded its estimate of job growth in December and January by a combined 85,000 more than it had previously reported. Over the past three months, U.S. employers have added 243,000 jobs — the best quarterly pace since September 2016. Unseasonably warm weather in February likely boosted hiring in the construction industry, which added 42,000 jobs, and hotels and restaurants, which gained nearly 50,000. Manufacturing added 15,000, reversing a sharp loss in January. The gain may not be replicated in the coming months because of supply chain disruptions in China. Last month’s totals include 7,000 temporary Census jobs that were created to help compile the 2020 count. Tom Gimbel, CEO of the LaSalle Network, a Chicago-based employment agency, said that so far, his clients haven’t cut back on hiring. Nor are they canceling job interviews, he said, as some did in the run-up to past recessions. “Some clients got a little nervous and moved to video interviews, but job candidates were still willing to come in face to face,” he said. If employers were to start slashing jobs as a consequence of the virus, it could significantly escalate the economic damage. For that reason, a range of job market barometers will provide some of the most vital signals about how the economy is withstanding the virus’ impact. Widespread layoffs can transform slowdowns in just one or two sectors — the travel industry, say, or manufacturing — into a full-blown downturn for the overall economy. When workers lose jobs and pay, they typically cut spending. Their friends and relatives who are still employed grow anxious about their own jobs and wary of spending freely, a cycle that can trigger further job cuts. So long as monthly job gains remain above 100,000 or so, the unemployment rate should stay low and the economy may be able to avoid a downturn. If the monthly pace were to sink below that level for a sustained period, joblessness would likely rise. Before the viral outbreak struck China, the economy was expanding at a steady pace. Annual growth was 2.1% in the final three months of last year. A pickup in housing sales has supported growth, with ultra-low mortgage rates helping more buyers afford a purchase. And consumer spending, fueled by solid pay increases, has lifted online retailers, restaurants, and the broader economy. The timeliest gauge of layoffs is the government’s weekly report on applications for unemployment benefits . People who are laid off are eligible for the aid. The latest data, issued Thursday, was reassuring: It showed that the number of people seeking unemployment benefits dropped 3,000 to 216,000 in the week that ended Feb. 29. That is roughly the same as the average over the past month and is a very low level historically. Other job market gauges are also still unaffected. The jobs website Indeed’s data shows that companies have yet to cut their job postings, according to Tara Sinclair, an economist at the company, evidence that they are still willing to hire. Should coronavirus worries start to depress consumer and business confidence, a broader pullback in spending and hiring could then weaken the economy. So far, that evidence is mixed. A consumer confidence survey by survey research company Morning Consult has already shown clear declines. But a separate survey of small businesses by the National Federation for Independent Business found that about one-fifth of small companies in February planned to add jobs, unchanged from the previous month. A survey of the Fed’s business contacts released Wednesday, known as the Beige Book , found that half the bank’s 12 districts were reporting consequences from the coronavirus. The Philadelphia Federal Reserve reported fewer tourist groups from China and said many of the city’s Asian restaurants and shops had reported declining foot traffic because of unfounded fears over the virus.

www.apnews.com

center

Ewb0sitRSapngFJJ

test

9A8jyFVRXl1OX0u5

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/prosecutors-to-wrap-up-manafort-case-may-soon-go-to-jury-idUSKBN1KY109

Prosecutors to wrap up Manafort case, may soon go to jury

2018-08-14

Nathan Layne

ALEXANDRIA , Va. ( ███ ) - U.S. prosecutors on Monday rested their case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort after 10 days of testimony alleging how he evaded taxes and defrauded banks , with the defense set to decide on Tuesday if it will call any witnesses . As its final witness on Monday , the prosecution recalled a Treasury Department agent who testified that Manafort ’ s consulting companies did not disclose their foreign bank accounts , as is required by law , in addition to him failing to do so personally . “ The government rests , ” U.S. prosecutor Greg Andres said after the agent completed her testimony . Judge T.S . Ellis said he would talk to Manafort on Tuesday about whether he wanted to take the stand , something that legal experts say is highly unlikely . Manafort ’ s lawyers will also tell the court on Tuesday whether they plan to call any witnesses . If the defense rests , closing statements would be next , after which the 12-person jury will begin deliberations . Manafort is being tried on 18 counts , which include tax and bank fraud charges , as well the failure to disclose foreign bank accounts . If found guilty on all charges , he could face eight to 10 years in prison , according to sentencing expert Justin Paperny . The trial is the first courtroom test for U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller , who indicted Manafort in October 2017 as part of his probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election . Manafort ’ s lawyers on Monday asked for the charges to be thrown out , claiming that the prosecution failed to show the necessary willfulness to break the law . Dan Goldman , a former federal prosecutor who attended the proceedings , called the action by Manafort ’ s lawyers “ pro-forma ” , adding , “ very rarely are they successful . ” During the trial , more than two dozen witnesses took the stand and portrayed Manafort , 69 , as a lavish spender with little regard for the law . As a political consultant for pro-Kremlin politicians in the Ukraine , Manafort earned some $ 60 million between 2010 and 2014 . Stashing the money in 31 offshore bank accounts , he skirted taxes by wiring it directly to vendors to snap up real estate and luxury goods , the witnesses said . The trappings of Manafort ’ s lifestyle dominated media headlines throughout the trial : there was half a million dollars worth of antique rugs , $ 750,000 spent on landscaping for his $ 13 million Bridgehampton mansion , and more than $ 1 million for clothing , including a $ 15,000 jacket made of ostrich skin . Ellis closed the courtroom at the end of the day to hear arguments on a sealed motion that was filed earlier in the day . While the contents of the motion are unknown , the development comes after an unexplained delay in the trial and unusually detailed instructions by Ellis to the jurors on Friday , in which he pressed them not to talk to anyone about the case . The judge ’ s comments sparked speculation by legal experts and courtroom observers that the delay could be related to some form of juror misconduct . Ellis resumed testimony mid-afternoon on Friday with no changes to the jury . “ The fact that the judge resumed proceedings but gave a strong admonishment to the jury tells me that a juror issue arose but that level of misconduct was not significant enough to warrant a mistrial , ” said jury consultant Alexandra Rudolph . The prosecution also called James Brennan to the stand on Monday . Brenann is an executive at Federal Savings Bank , which extended $ 16 million in loans to Manafort on his Hamptons estate and a Brooklyn brownstone house in late 2016 and early 2017 . Brennan said bank president Javier Ubarri made an initial decision to reject a $ 9.5 million loan on Manafort ’ s Hamptons estate , but bank chief executive Steve Calk overruled it . “ It closed because Mr. Calk wanted it to close , ” Brennan said about the loan . On Friday , another Federal employee testified that Calk personally approved loans to Manafort while seeking Manafort ’ s help getting a job in President Donald Trump ’ s campaign and his cabinet . Federal Savings Bank has not returned calls seeking comment , and has said it will make no comment during Manafort ’ s trial . Brennan , asked about whether the bank made money from lending to Manafort , said the bank has written off the loans and “ took a hit ” of $ 11.8 million .

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - U.S. prosecutors on Monday rested their case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort after 10 days of testimony alleging how he evaded taxes and defrauded banks, with the defense set to decide on Tuesday if it will call any witnesses. As its final witness on Monday, the prosecution recalled a Treasury Department agent who testified that Manafort’s consulting companies did not disclose their foreign bank accounts, as is required by law, in addition to him failing to do so personally. “The government rests,” U.S. prosecutor Greg Andres said after the agent completed her testimony. Judge T.S. Ellis said he would talk to Manafort on Tuesday about whether he wanted to take the stand, something that legal experts say is highly unlikely. Manafort’s lawyers will also tell the court on Tuesday whether they plan to call any witnesses. If the defense rests, closing statements would be next, after which the 12-person jury will begin deliberations. Manafort is being tried on 18 counts, which include tax and bank fraud charges, as well the failure to disclose foreign bank accounts. If found guilty on all charges, he could face eight to 10 years in prison, according to sentencing expert Justin Paperny. The trial is the first courtroom test for U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who indicted Manafort in October 2017 as part of his probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. Manafort’s lawyers on Monday asked for the charges to be thrown out, claiming that the prosecution failed to show the necessary willfulness to break the law. Dan Goldman, a former federal prosecutor who attended the proceedings, called the action by Manafort’s lawyers “pro-forma”, adding, “very rarely are they successful.” During the trial, more than two dozen witnesses took the stand and portrayed Manafort, 69, as a lavish spender with little regard for the law. As a political consultant for pro-Kremlin politicians in the Ukraine, Manafort earned some $60 million between 2010 and 2014. Stashing the money in 31 offshore bank accounts, he skirted taxes by wiring it directly to vendors to snap up real estate and luxury goods, the witnesses said. The trappings of Manafort’s lifestyle dominated media headlines throughout the trial: there was half a million dollars worth of antique rugs, $750,000 spent on landscaping for his $13 million Bridgehampton mansion, and more than $1 million for clothing, including a $15,000 jacket made of ostrich skin. SEALED MOTION Ellis closed the courtroom at the end of the day to hear arguments on a sealed motion that was filed earlier in the day. While the contents of the motion are unknown, the development comes after an unexplained delay in the trial and unusually detailed instructions by Ellis to the jurors on Friday, in which he pressed them not to talk to anyone about the case. The judge’s comments sparked speculation by legal experts and courtroom observers that the delay could be related to some form of juror misconduct. Ellis resumed testimony mid-afternoon on Friday with no changes to the jury. “The fact that the judge resumed proceedings but gave a strong admonishment to the jury tells me that a juror issue arose but that level of misconduct was not significant enough to warrant a mistrial,” said jury consultant Alexandra Rudolph. The prosecution also called James Brennan to the stand on Monday. Brenann is an executive at Federal Savings Bank, which extended $16 million in loans to Manafort on his Hamptons estate and a Brooklyn brownstone house in late 2016 and early 2017. Brennan said bank president Javier Ubarri made an initial decision to reject a $9.5 million loan on Manafort’s Hamptons estate, but bank chief executive Steve Calk overruled it. “It closed because Mr. Calk wanted it to close,” Brennan said about the loan. FILE PHOTO: Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort arrives for arraignment on a third superseding indictment against him by Special Counsel Robert Mueller on charges of witness tampering, at U.S. District Court in Washington, U.S., June 15, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo On Friday, another Federal employee testified that Calk personally approved loans to Manafort while seeking Manafort’s help getting a job in President Donald Trump’s campaign and his cabinet. Federal Savings Bank has not returned calls seeking comment, and has said it will make no comment during Manafort’s trial. Brennan, asked about whether the bank made money from lending to Manafort, said the bank has written off the loans and “took a hit” of $11.8 million.

www.reuters.com

center

9A8jyFVRXl1OX0u5

test

zdN51jOF3nlqdfRJ

race_and_racism

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-police-immunity-scotus/

For cops who kill, special Supreme Court protection

2020-05-08

Aldaba ’ s lament has become an increasingly common one . Even as the proliferation of police body cameras and bystander cellphone video has turned a national spotlight on extreme police tactics , qualified immunity , under the careful stewardship of the Supreme Court , is making it easier for officers to kill or injure civilians with impunity . The Supreme Court ’ s role is evident in how the federal appeals courts , which take their cue from the high court , treat qualified immunity . In an unprecedented analysis of appellate court records , ███ found that since 2005 , the courts have shown an increasing tendency to grant immunity in excessive force cases – rulings that the district courts below them must follow . The trend has accelerated in recent years . It is even more pronounced in cases like Leija ’ s – when civilians were unarmed in their encounters with police , and when courts concluded that the facts could convince a jury that police actually did use excessive force . ███ found among the cases it analyzed more than three dozen in which qualified immunity protected officers whose actions had been deemed unlawful . Outside of Dallas , Texas , five officers fired 17 shots at a bicyclist who was 100 yards away , killing him , in a case of mistaken identity . In Heber City , Utah , an officer threw to the ground an unarmed man he had pulled over for a cracked windshield , leaving the man with brain damage . In Prince George 's County , Maryland , an officer shot a man in a mental health crisis who was stabbing himself and trying to slit his own throat . The increasing frequency of such cases has prompted a growing chorus of criticism from lawyers , legal scholars , civil rights groups , politicians and even judges that qualified immunity , as applied , is unjust . Spanning the political spectrum , this broad coalition says the doctrine has become a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights . The high court has indicated it is aware of the mounting criticism of its treatment of qualified immunity . After letting multiple appeals backed by the doctrine ’ s critics pile up , the justices are scheduled to discuss privately as soon as May 15 which , if any , of 11 such cases they could hear later this year . Justice Sonia Sotomayor , one of the court ’ s most liberal members , and Clarence Thomas , its most conservative , have in recent opinions sharply criticized qualified immunity and the court ’ s role in expanding it . In a dissent to a 2018 ruling , Sotomayor , joined by fellow liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , wrote that the majority ’ s decision favoring the cops tells police that “ they can shoot first and think later , and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished . ” In that case , Kisela v. Hughes , the justices threw out a lower court ’ s ruling that denied immunity to a Tucson , Arizona , cop who shot a mentally ill woman four times as she walked down her driveway while holding a large kitchen knife . A year earlier , Sotomayor in another dissent called out her fellow justices for a “ disturbing trend ” of favoring police . “ We have not hesitated to summarily reverse courts for wrongly denying officers the protection of qualified immunity , ” Sotomayor wrote , citing several recent rulings . “ But we rarely intervene where courts wrongly afford officers the benefit of qualified immunity . ” Sotomayor was responding to the majority ’ s decision not to hear an appeal brought by Ricardo Salazar-Limon , who was unarmed when a Houston police officer shot him in the back , leaving him paralyzed . A lower court had granted the officer immunity . The ███ analysis supports Sotomayor ’ s assertion that the Supreme Court has built qualified immunity into an often insurmountable police defense by intervening in cases mostly to favor the police . Over the past 15 years , the high court took up 12 appeals of qualified immunity decisions from police , but only three from plaintiffs , even though plaintiffs asked the court to review nearly as many cases as police did . The court ’ s acceptance rate for police appeals seeking immunity was three times its average acceptance rate for all appeals . For plaintiffs ’ appeals , the acceptance rate was slightly below the court ’ s average . In the cases it accepts , the court nearly always decides in favor of police . The high court has also put its thumb on the scale by repeatedly tweaking the process . It has allowed police to request immunity before all evidence has been presented . And if police are denied immunity , they can appeal immediately – an option unavailable to most other litigants , who typically must wait until after a final judgment to appeal . “ You get the impression that the officers are always supposed to win and the plaintiffs are supposed to lose , ” University of Chicago law professor William Baude said . In his research , Baude has found that qualified immunity , as a doctrine , enjoys what he calls “ privileged status ” on the Supreme Court , which extends to cases the court decides without even hearing arguments – a relatively rare occurrence . In such cases , the court disproportionately reversed lower courts ’ denials of immunity . All nine current justices declined to be interviewed for this article . They have offered few explanations of the court ’ s stance on qualified immunity beyond writing in opinions that the doctrine balances individuals ’ rights with the need to free officials from the time-consuming and costly burden of unnecessary litigation . The main challenge for plaintiffs in excessive force cases is to show that police behavior violated a “ clearly established ” precedent . The Supreme Court has continually reinforced a narrow definition of “ clearly established , ” requiring lower courts to accept as precedent only cases that have detailed circumstances very similar to the case they are weighing . “ We have repeatedly told courts not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality , ” the court wrote in a November 2015 opinion , repeating its language from an earlier ruling . In that 2015 opinion , the justices reversed a lower court decision and granted immunity to Texas State Trooper Chadrin Mullenix , who had stopped a high-speed chase by shooting at a vehicle from an overpass , killing the driver . Critics of qualified immunity say the high court ’ s guidance has created a ludicrously narrow standard . Even some judges feel constrained . In a 2018 decision , James Browning , a judge in federal district court in New Mexico , said he was ruling “ with reluctance ” in favor of an officer who had slammed an unarmed man to the floor in his own home while he was yelling at the police . The force the cop used , Browning ruled , was excessive . But the officer had to be granted immunity , he said , because of subtle differences with the earlier case Browning had considered as a possible “ clearly established ” precedent . Those differences included the distance between the men and the officers and what the men were yelling . Even the locations of the respective incidents could be a factor , the judge noted , the earlier case having occurred in a Target parking lot . In his ruling , Browning criticized the high court ’ s approach because “ a court can almost always manufacture a factual distinction ” between the case it is reviewing and an earlier case . In February , the federal appeals court in Cincinnati , Ohio , granted immunity to an officer who shot and wounded a 14-year-old boy in the shoulder after the boy dropped a BB gun and raised his hands . The court rejected as a precedent a 2011 case in which an officer shot and killed a man as he began lowering a shotgun . The difference between the incidents was too great , the court determined , because the boy had first drawn the BB gun from his waistband before dropping it . In other recent cases , courts have sided with police because of the difference between subduing a woman for walking away from an officer , and subduing a woman for refusing to end a phone call ; between shooting at a dog and instead hitting a child , and shooting at a truck and hitting a passenger ; and between unleashing a police dog to bite a motionless suspect in a bushy ravine , and unleashing a police dog to bite a compliant suspect in a canal in the woods . The Supreme Court in 2009 raised the bar even higher for plaintiffs to overcome qualified immunity . In Pearson v. Callahan , it gave judges the option to simply ignore the question of whether a cop used excessive force and instead focus solely on whether the conduct was clearly established as unlawful . In the decade since then , the ███ analysis found , appeals courts have increasingly ignored the question of excessive force . In such cases , when the court declines to establish whether police used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment , it avoids setting a clearly established precedent for future cases , even for the most egregious acts of police violence . In effect , the same conduct can repeatedly go unpunished . Plaintiffs in excessive force cases against police have had a harder time getting past qualified immunity since a 2009 Supreme Court decision allowing lower courts to weigh only whether the force used is established in precedent as unlawful . The case of Khari Illidge shows this perverse dynamic at work . One cool spring evening in 2013 , sheriff ’ s deputies in Phenix City , Alabama , a suburb of Columbus , Georgia , responded to a trespassing call . They found Illidge wandering along a quiet , tree-lined road . The 25-year-old was naked , covered in scratches and behaving erratically . In the encounter , the deputies shocked Illidge six times with a stun gun before he fell to the ground . As he lay face-down , one deputy shocked him 13 more times as two others struggled to handcuff his wrists , according to their testimony . They then shackled his ankles with leg irons and fastened them to his handcuffs – an extreme form of restraint , known as a hogtie , that many police departments across the country have banned . A 385-pound officer then kneeled on Illidge ’ s upper back until he went limp . Illidge was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital . The autopsy report lists cardiac arrest as the cause of death . “ They treated him like an animal , ” Gladis Callwood , Illidge ’ s mother , said . “ Or maybe even worse . ” Callwood sued the police , alleging excessive force . The cops claimed qualified immunity . They said they did what was necessary to subdue an aggressive man who resisted arrest and who , according to a friend who had seen him earlier , had probably taken LSD . A toxicology report found no traces of the drug in his blood . “ You have to make split-second decisions , ” Ray Smith , one of the deputies who had shocked and hogtied Illidge , told ███ . Hesitation can be deadly , he said . Judge W. Harold Albritton in federal district court in Montgomery , Alabama , sided with the cops . In his ruling , the judge said there was no precedent establishing that the officers ’ treatment of Illidge was unlawful . The Atlanta-based 11th U.S . Circuit Court of Appeals agreed – even though it had heard a case involving hogtying in Florida in 2009 . In that earlier case , Donald George Lewis died after West Palm Beach cops hogtied him on the side of the road where they had found him disoriented and stumbling through traffic . But the appeals court in that earlier case granted immunity without addressing whether the force police used was excessive . As a result , the court didn ’ t establish a precedent that could apply in subsequent cases – including Callwood ’ s . By allowing judges to consider only the question of clearly established law in excessive force cases , the Supreme Court created a closed loop in which “ the case law gets frozen , ” said lawyer Matt Farmer , who represented Lewis ’ s family . In October 2018 , the Supreme Court declined to review Callwood ’ s case . Her lawsuit , like Aldaba ’ s , was dead . Police have difficult , high-risk jobs . Few would dispute that . Qualified immunity is essential , proponents say , because police need latitude to make split-second decisions in situations that could put lives , including their own , at risk . “ It is very easy to second-guess the decision making of a police officer when you are sitting at a desk , ” said Chris Balch , an Atlanta-based lawyer who represents police departments in civil rights cases . Larry James , general counsel of the National Fraternal Order of Police , said the trend in appeals courts to favor immunity reflects the high volume of meritless lawsuits civil rights lawyers file . “ Plaintiffs ’ lawyers sue everyone under the sun , irrespective of the facts , ” he said . Even so , as the ███ analysis found , appellate courts have ruled in favor of plaintiffs , denying cops immunity , in 43 percent of cases in recent years . As opponents of qualified immunity point out , denial of immunity doesn ’ t automatically mean cops will be held liable for alleged excessive force . When such cases go to trial , juries may side with police after weighing the facts of a case . Also , local governments or their insurers , not the cops themselves , typically bear the financial burden of litigation , settlements or jury awards . The U.S. government does not maintain comprehensive data on civilians killed or seriously injured by police . According to media organizations and police-accountability groups that compile numbers from police reports , news accounts and other sources , the number of deaths alone is about 1,000 a year . A handful of those incidents draw national attention to police tactics – for example , the 2014 death of Eric Garner after New York City police put him in a lethal chokehold . In such high-profile cases , qualified immunity rarely comes into play . Instead , police departments , often under heavy political pressure and facing public protests , typically offer big dollar settlements to victims or their survivors . The cops may also face disciplinary action or criminal charges . In the far more numerous incidents of alleged excessive force that don ’ t make national headlines , police departments are under less pressure to settle , and officers are even less likely to be prosecuted or otherwise disciplined . In those cases , federal civil rights lawsuits provide the obvious avenue for holding cops accountable . The United States first allowed citizens to sue government officials for civil rights violations in a law passed in 1871 . These so-called Section 1983 lawsuits were intended to give citizens a path to justice when state and local authorities in the post-Civil War era turned a blind eye to – or even participated in – acts of racist violence by groups like the Ku Klux Klan . Nearly a century later , the Supreme Court introduced qualified immunity , articulating the doctrine in a 1967 ruling to limit Section 1983 lawsuits . The court reasoned that police should not face liability for enforcing the law in good faith . The court refined the doctrine in 1982 to include the “ clearly established ” test . Today , after decades of Supreme Court tweaks to how excessive force cases are judged , plaintiffs ’ lawyers say the deck is unfairly stacked against their clients . “ Why are there so many police shootings ? ” said Dale Galipo , a prominent California civil rights attorney . “ I would say one of the reasons is there ’ s no accountability , there ’ s no deterrent . ” Several lawyers told ███ they decline to take cases they think may have merit in large part due to the high barrier of qualified immunity . “ I have turned down dozens of police misconduct cases and have routinely referred the potential plaintiffs to qualified immunity as a major problem , ” said Victor Glasberg , a civil rights lawyer in Virginia . The American Association for Justice , the plaintiff bar ’ s main lobbying group and a backer of efforts to curb qualified immunity , knows that its “ members would like to pursue cases where people are treated unjustly , ” said Jeffrey White , the group ’ s senior associate general counsel . But , he added , lawyers must think carefully when “ the chances of obtaining justice are tilted heavily towards defendants . ” Johnny Leija spent his life in small towns in the dry , flat farming and oil country on both sides of the Oklahoma-Texas border , quitting school after junior high to take a series of temporary construction jobs . He was gentle and fiercely loyal to his family , friends and relatives told ███ . They recounted the time Leija ended up with a broken leg after sticking up for his sister in a fight with her abusive boyfriend . In his early 20s , he spent a year in Marshall County jail for marijuana possession . After that , his family said , he never indulged in anything harder than the occasional Bud Light . Leija moved to Madill in early 2011 with his girlfriend , Olivia Flores , and the four children they were raising – one of their own and three by Flores from an earlier relationship . He soon got a job welding and painting horse trailers , but money was tight . Leija , Flores and the children were sleeping on the floor of their still-unfurnished house . In late March , when Leija started complaining about pain in his chest and torso , Flores had to pawn a radio to buy medicine . On the morning of March 24 , 2011 , after Leija spent most of the night vomiting , he and Flores headed to the emergency room at Integris Marshall County Medical Center , now called AllianceHealth Madill . Details of what happened over the next 12 hours come from a review of hundreds of pages of medical , police and court records and interviews with people involved . When first examined , Leija was agreeable and alert , but his blood oxygen levels were dangerously low . He was put on oxygen and given antibiotics through an intravenous line . He soon seemed on the mend and was admitted to a room down the hall . Flores left midafternoon to pick up the children from school . Soon after , Leija ’ s breathing became labored . His blood-oxygen level plunged again . He became distressed and aggressive . The doctor on call , John Conley , prescribed over the phone an anti-anxiety pill . Leija refused it , claiming that the hospital staff was trying to poison him . “ I am Superman , ” he yelled . “ I am God ! ” He somehow cut the IV line and told a nurse that he needed to leave . Conley , again by phone , told nurses to give Leija an injection to calm him . The hospital had no security staff , so a nurse called the police to help restrain Leija for the shot . Conley arrived minutes later , finding Leija in the bathroom still insisting he had to leave the hospital . Madill Police Officer Brandon Pickens and Marshall County Deputy Sheriffs Steve Atnip and Steve Beebe were eating dinner at La Grande , a Tex-Mex joint on a highway north of Madill , when they got the call about an unruly patient at the hospital . They had little information when they arrived . Beebe thought Leija , dressed in a white T-shirt and pajama bottoms , was a visitor , not a patient . According to the officers ’ accounts , Leija pulled the gauze from his IV site and yelled , “ This is my blood ! ” as it dripped on the floor . The officers ordered Leija to his knees . He did not comply . Beebe aimed his Stinger stun gun at Leija and fired , hitting Leija in the chest . It had little effect . Leija “ hollered out , shook a bit , ” a nurse later testified . Beebe , Pickens and Atnip then grabbed Leija , 5 foot 8 and 230 pounds , and pushed him against a wall , where Beebe pressed the Stinger against Leija ’ s back and shocked him again . The four toppled onto the lobby floor with a thud . Pickens and Atnip were holding Leija face down and Beebe was trying to handcuff him when he grunted and stopped moving . Clear fluid poured from his mouth and pooled on the floor around his head . Conley and staff spent 40 minutes trying to revive Leija . At 7:29 p.m. , he was pronounced dead , a Stinger dart still stuck in his chest . Marc Harrison , a forensic pathologist with the Oklahoma Chief Medical Examiner ’ s Office , testified in a sworn deposition that Leija ’ s manner of death was “ natural , ” but that “ it would be reasonable to assume ” that two shocks with a stun gun and Leija ’ s physical struggle with police would have “ required an elevated need for oxygen. ” Through the medical examiner ’ s office , Harrison said he stands by his opinion . When Aldaba ’ s lawsuit against the officers landed in federal court in Muskogee , Oklahoma , the officers ’ lawyers quickly asked that the case be thrown out on the grounds of qualified immunity . It was “ abundantly clear ” that the force used on Leija was not excessive , the police lawyers argued . Further , they said , no established precedent put the officers on notice that they would violate Leija ’ s rights “ by attempting to subdue an individual so that medical staff could properly treat him . ” Judge Frank Seay disagreed . He noted that officers ’ accounts differed from each other about the extent of the threat Leija posed and what the officers knew about his medical condition . For instance , the two sheriff deputies said Leija was “ slinging blood ” and had challenged them to fight , but officer Pickens did not make those claims . And while all three officers said Leija was bleeding heavily , two nurses present testified that he wasn ’ t . “ Leija was a hospital patient . He was not armed in any fashion . While it is alleged that he was using his blood as a weapon , there is no evidence that any blood spattered on any of the officers , ” Seay said in his April 5 , 2013 , ruling . The case against the three officers could now move forward . Beebe , the deputy who twice shocked Leija , said in an interview that his biggest regret about the fatal encounter was not having more details on Leija and his medical condition . “ Maybe we could have done things different if we had that information , ” Beebe said . “ The last thing you want to do is end up with somebody dying. ” He added : “ I ’ m sad for the family . We all live in the same community . ” Beebe also serves as pastor at a Southern Baptist church in a nearby town – a role that he said has helped him understand the need to de-escalate stressful situations . In the encounter with Leija , however , he and the other officers “ did the right thing ” to protect themselves and the people in the hospital , he said . “ I think we need to be held accountable , ” Beebe said . “ But when we go out , sometimes we have to use force…We shouldn ’ t have to worry about being sued every time . ” Pickens , now a firefighter in Madill , directed questions to his police superiors . City Manager James Fullingim , who was police chief at the time of Leija ’ s death , said immunity is important for officers to perform their jobs . “ The officers absolutely did not do anything wrong , ” he said . Atnip died in a motorcycle accident in 2015 . Conley , the doctor who treated Leija , declined to comment . The police took their case to the 10th U.S . Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver , Colorado . That court was no less stern in denying the officers ’ appeal , faulting their decision to “ Tase and wrestle to the ground a hospital patient whose mental disturbance was the result of his serious and deteriorating medical condition. ” Leija did not commit any crime , the court said , and he posed a threat only to himself , passively resisting the officers . “ The situation the police officers faced in this case called for conflict resolution and de-escalation , not confrontation and Tasers , ” the court said . The officers then petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case . Their appeal arrived just as the justices were weighing the case of Texas State Trooper Mullenix , the cop who shot and killed a fleeing driver from an overpass . The lower courts had denied Mullenix immunity , saying it was unclear how much of a risk the driver had posed . But on Nov. 9 , 2015 , the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts . Ignoring whether the force used was illegal , the justices focused on whether Mullenix ’ s actions had been clearly established as illegal . It concluded that none of the three car-chase cases it had previously decided were similar enough . The same day , the justices ordered the 10th Circuit to use the Mullenix ruling as a guide in reconsidering whether qualified immunity should apply in Aldaba ’ s case . Aldaba ’ s lawyer , Jeremy Beaver , pointed out to the appellate panel a handful of “ strikingly similar ” rulings from the 10th Circuit going back nearly 20 years that provided “ ample warning ” to the police that their actions were unlawful . Case law since 2001 , Beaver noted , required police to consider a person ’ s diminished mental health or capacity when determining what force to use . A 2007 case denounced the beating and Tasing of an unarmed , nonviolent person who was not fleeing . So did a similar case from 2010 . “ Mr . Leija had a clearly established right to be free from Tasering and tackling while he was a hospital patient who had committed no crimes , was unarmed , was not a threat to the officers or the public , and was mentally and physically compromised , ” Beaver argued in court papers . That wasn ’ t enough . The revised appeals court decision , written by Judge Gregory Phillips , dismissed Beaver ’ s arguments because the “ offered cases differ too much from this one . ” Phillips said the cases Beaver cited involved force to detain people for “ non-medical ” reasons and did not involve hospital personnel “ standing by observing ” the incident . “ We have found no case presenting a similar situation , ” the judge wrote . Phillips did not respond to a request for comment . The outcome , Beaver said , highlights the painful paradox of qualified immunity . Aldaba “ had to live with the fact that at every stage , every judge that reviewed the case determined that there were constitutional violations that had occurred , ” he said . “ Despite that , she still couldn ’ t have a trial . ”

Effective barrier Aldaba’s lament has become an increasingly common one. Even as the proliferation of police body cameras and bystander cellphone video has turned a national spotlight on extreme police tactics, qualified immunity, under the careful stewardship of the Supreme Court, is making it easier for officers to kill or injure civilians with impunity. The Supreme Court’s role is evident in how the federal appeals courts, which take their cue from the high court, treat qualified immunity. In an unprecedented analysis of appellate court records, Reuters found that since 2005, the courts have shown an increasing tendency to grant immunity in excessive force cases – rulings that the district courts below them must follow. The trend has accelerated in recent years. It is even more pronounced in cases like Leija’s – when civilians were unarmed in their encounters with police, and when courts concluded that the facts could convince a jury that police actually did use excessive force. In excessive force cases against police, the courts ... Reuters found among the cases it analyzed more than three dozen in which qualified immunity protected officers whose actions had been deemed unlawful. Outside of Dallas, Texas, five officers fired 17 shots at a bicyclist who was 100 yards away, killing him, in a case of mistaken identity. In Heber City, Utah, an officer threw to the ground an unarmed man he had pulled over for a cracked windshield, leaving the man with brain damage. In Prince George's County, Maryland, an officer shot a man in a mental health crisis who was stabbing himself and trying to slit his own throat. The increasing frequency of such cases has prompted a growing chorus of criticism from lawyers, legal scholars, civil rights groups, politicians and even judges that qualified immunity, as applied, is unjust. Spanning the political spectrum, this broad coalition says the doctrine has become a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights. The high court has indicated it is aware of the mounting criticism of its treatment of qualified immunity. After letting multiple appeals backed by the doctrine’s critics pile up, the justices are scheduled to discuss privately as soon as May 15 which, if any, of 11 such cases they could hear later this year. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the court’s most liberal members, and Clarence Thomas, its most conservative, have in recent opinions sharply criticized qualified immunity and the court’s role in expanding it. In a dissent to a 2018 ruling, Sotomayor, joined by fellow liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote that the majority’s decision favoring the cops tells police that “they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished.” In that case, Kisela v. Hughes, the justices threw out a lower court’s ruling that denied immunity to a Tucson, Arizona, cop who shot a mentally ill woman four times as she walked down her driveway while holding a large kitchen knife. A year earlier, Sotomayor in another dissent called out her fellow justices for a “disturbing trend” of favoring police. “We have not hesitated to summarily reverse courts for wrongly denying officers the protection of qualified immunity,” Sotomayor wrote, citing several recent rulings. “But we rarely intervene where courts wrongly afford officers the benefit of qualified immunity.” Sotomayor was responding to the majority’s decision not to hear an appeal brought by Ricardo Salazar-Limon, who was unarmed when a Houston police officer shot him in the back, leaving him paralyzed. A lower court had granted the officer immunity. The Reuters analysis supports Sotomayor’s assertion that the Supreme Court has built qualified immunity into an often insurmountable police defense by intervening in cases mostly to favor the police. Over the past 15 years, the high court took up 12 appeals of qualified immunity decisions from police, but only three from plaintiffs, even though plaintiffs asked the court to review nearly as many cases as police did. The court’s acceptance rate for police appeals seeking immunity was three times its average acceptance rate for all appeals. For plaintiffs’ appeals, the acceptance rate was slightly below the court’s average. In the cases it accepts, the court nearly always decides in favor of police. The high court has also put its thumb on the scale by repeatedly tweaking the process. It has allowed police to request immunity before all evidence has been presented. And if police are denied immunity, they can appeal immediately – an option unavailable to most other litigants, who typically must wait until after a final judgment to appeal. “You get the impression that the officers are always supposed to win and the plaintiffs are supposed to lose,” University of Chicago law professor William Baude said. In his research, Baude has found that qualified immunity, as a doctrine, enjoys what he calls “privileged status” on the Supreme Court, which extends to cases the court decides without even hearing arguments – a relatively rare occurrence. In such cases, the court disproportionately reversed lower courts’ denials of immunity. All nine current justices declined to be interviewed for this article. They have offered few explanations of the court’s stance on qualified immunity beyond writing in opinions that the doctrine balances individuals’ rights with the need to free officials from the time-consuming and costly burden of unnecessary litigation. Defining ‘clearly established’ The main challenge for plaintiffs in excessive force cases is to show that police behavior violated a “clearly established” precedent. The Supreme Court has continually reinforced a narrow definition of “clearly established,” requiring lower courts to accept as precedent only cases that have detailed circumstances very similar to the case they are weighing. “We have repeatedly told courts not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality,” the court wrote in a November 2015 opinion, repeating its language from an earlier ruling. In that 2015 opinion, the justices reversed a lower court decision and granted immunity to Texas State Trooper Chadrin Mullenix, who had stopped a high-speed chase by shooting at a vehicle from an overpass, killing the driver. Critics of qualified immunity say the high court’s guidance has created a ludicrously narrow standard. Even some judges feel constrained. In a 2018 decision, James Browning, a judge in federal district court in New Mexico, said he was ruling “with reluctance” in favor of an officer who had slammed an unarmed man to the floor in his own home while he was yelling at the police. The force the cop used, Browning ruled, was excessive. But the officer had to be granted immunity, he said, because of subtle differences with the earlier case Browning had considered as a possible “clearly established” precedent. Those differences included the distance between the men and the officers and what the men were yelling. Even the locations of the respective incidents could be a factor, the judge noted, the earlier case having occurred in a Target parking lot. In his ruling, Browning criticized the high court’s approach because “a court can almost always manufacture a factual distinction” between the case it is reviewing and an earlier case. In February, the federal appeals court in Cincinnati, Ohio, granted immunity to an officer who shot and wounded a 14-year-old boy in the shoulder after the boy dropped a BB gun and raised his hands. The court rejected as a precedent a 2011 case in which an officer shot and killed a man as he began lowering a shotgun. The difference between the incidents was too great, the court determined, because the boy had first drawn the BB gun from his waistband before dropping it. In other recent cases, courts have sided with police because of the difference between subduing a woman for walking away from an officer, and subduing a woman for refusing to end a phone call; between shooting at a dog and instead hitting a child, and shooting at a truck and hitting a passenger; and between unleashing a police dog to bite a motionless suspect in a bushy ravine, and unleashing a police dog to bite a compliant suspect in a canal in the woods. The Supreme Court in 2009 raised the bar even higher for plaintiffs to overcome qualified immunity. In Pearson v. Callahan, it gave judges the option to simply ignore the question of whether a cop used excessive force and instead focus solely on whether the conduct was clearly established as unlawful. In the decade since then, the Reuters analysis found, appeals courts have increasingly ignored the question of excessive force. In such cases, when the court declines to establish whether police used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, it avoids setting a clearly established precedent for future cases, even for the most egregious acts of police violence. In effect, the same conduct can repeatedly go unpunished. Plaintiffs in excessive force cases against police have had a harder time getting past qualified immunity since a 2009 Supreme Court decision allowing lower courts to weigh only whether the force used is established in precedent as unlawful. The case of Khari Illidge shows this perverse dynamic at work. One cool spring evening in 2013, sheriff’s deputies in Phenix City, Alabama, a suburb of Columbus, Georgia, responded to a trespassing call. They found Illidge wandering along a quiet, tree-lined road. The 25-year-old was naked, covered in scratches and behaving erratically. In the encounter, the deputies shocked Illidge six times with a stun gun before he fell to the ground. As he lay face-down, one deputy shocked him 13 more times as two others struggled to handcuff his wrists, according to their testimony. They then shackled his ankles with leg irons and fastened them to his handcuffs – an extreme form of restraint, known as a hogtie, that many police departments across the country have banned. A 385-pound officer then kneeled on Illidge’s upper back until he went limp. Illidge was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. The autopsy report lists cardiac arrest as the cause of death. “They treated him like an animal,” Gladis Callwood, Illidge’s mother, said. “Or maybe even worse.” Callwood sued the police, alleging excessive force. The cops claimed qualified immunity. They said they did what was necessary to subdue an aggressive man who resisted arrest and who, according to a friend who had seen him earlier, had probably taken LSD. A toxicology report found no traces of the drug in his blood. “You have to make split-second decisions,” Ray Smith, one of the deputies who had shocked and hogtied Illidge, told Reuters. Hesitation can be deadly, he said. Judge W. Harold Albritton in federal district court in Montgomery, Alabama, sided with the cops. In his ruling, the judge said there was no precedent establishing that the officers’ treatment of Illidge was unlawful. The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed – even though it had heard a case involving hogtying in Florida in 2009. In that earlier case, Donald George Lewis died after West Palm Beach cops hogtied him on the side of the road where they had found him disoriented and stumbling through traffic. But the appeals court in that earlier case granted immunity without addressing whether the force police used was excessive. As a result, the court didn’t establish a precedent that could apply in subsequent cases – including Callwood’s. By allowing judges to consider only the question of clearly established law in excessive force cases, the Supreme Court created a closed loop in which “the case law gets frozen,” said lawyer Matt Farmer, who represented Lewis’s family. In October 2018, the Supreme Court declined to review Callwood’s case. Her lawsuit, like Aldaba’s, was dead. High-profile outliers Police have difficult, high-risk jobs. Few would dispute that. Qualified immunity is essential, proponents say, because police need latitude to make split-second decisions in situations that could put lives, including their own, at risk. “It is very easy to second-guess the decision making of a police officer when you are sitting at a desk,” said Chris Balch, an Atlanta-based lawyer who represents police departments in civil rights cases. Larry James, general counsel of the National Fraternal Order of Police, said the trend in appeals courts to favor immunity reflects the high volume of meritless lawsuits civil rights lawyers file. “Plaintiffs’ lawyers sue everyone under the sun, irrespective of the facts,” he said. Even so, as the Reuters analysis found, appellate courts have ruled in favor of plaintiffs, denying cops immunity, in 43 percent of cases in recent years. As opponents of qualified immunity point out, denial of immunity doesn’t automatically mean cops will be held liable for alleged excessive force. When such cases go to trial, juries may side with police after weighing the facts of a case. Also, local governments or their insurers, not the cops themselves, typically bear the financial burden of litigation, settlements or jury awards. The U.S. government does not maintain comprehensive data on civilians killed or seriously injured by police. According to media organizations and police-accountability groups that compile numbers from police reports, news accounts and other sources, the number of deaths alone is about 1,000 a year. A handful of those incidents draw national attention to police tactics – for example, the 2014 death of Eric Garner after New York City police put him in a lethal chokehold. In such high-profile cases, qualified immunity rarely comes into play. Instead, police departments, often under heavy political pressure and facing public protests, typically offer big dollar settlements to victims or their survivors. The cops may also face disciplinary action or criminal charges. In the far more numerous incidents of alleged excessive force that don’t make national headlines, police departments are under less pressure to settle, and officers are even less likely to be prosecuted or otherwise disciplined. In those cases, federal civil rights lawsuits provide the obvious avenue for holding cops accountable. The United States first allowed citizens to sue government officials for civil rights violations in a law passed in 1871. These so-called Section 1983 lawsuits were intended to give citizens a path to justice when state and local authorities in the post-Civil War era turned a blind eye to – or even participated in – acts of racist violence by groups like the Ku Klux Klan. Nearly a century later, the Supreme Court introduced qualified immunity, articulating the doctrine in a 1967 ruling to limit Section 1983 lawsuits. The court reasoned that police should not face liability for enforcing the law in good faith. The court refined the doctrine in 1982 to include the “clearly established” test. Today, after decades of Supreme Court tweaks to how excessive force cases are judged, plaintiffs’ lawyers say the deck is unfairly stacked against their clients. “Why are there so many police shootings?” said Dale Galipo, a prominent California civil rights attorney. “I would say one of the reasons is there’s no accountability, there’s no deterrent.” Several lawyers told Reuters they decline to take cases they think may have merit in large part due to the high barrier of qualified immunity. “I have turned down dozens of police misconduct cases and have routinely referred the potential plaintiffs to qualified immunity as a major problem,” said Victor Glasberg, a civil rights lawyer in Virginia. The American Association for Justice, the plaintiff bar’s main lobbying group and a backer of efforts to curb qualified immunity, knows that its “members would like to pursue cases where people are treated unjustly,” said Jeffrey White, the group’s senior associate general counsel. But, he added, lawyers must think carefully when “the chances of obtaining justice are tilted heavily towards defendants.” Gentle and loyal Johnny Leija spent his life in small towns in the dry, flat farming and oil country on both sides of the Oklahoma-Texas border, quitting school after junior high to take a series of temporary construction jobs. He was gentle and fiercely loyal to his family, friends and relatives told Reuters. They recounted the time Leija ended up with a broken leg after sticking up for his sister in a fight with her abusive boyfriend. In his early 20s, he spent a year in Marshall County jail for marijuana possession. After that, his family said, he never indulged in anything harder than the occasional Bud Light. Leija moved to Madill in early 2011 with his girlfriend, Olivia Flores, and the four children they were raising – one of their own and three by Flores from an earlier relationship. He soon got a job welding and painting horse trailers, but money was tight. Leija, Flores and the children were sleeping on the floor of their still-unfurnished house. In late March, when Leija started complaining about pain in his chest and torso, Flores had to pawn a radio to buy medicine. On the morning of March 24, 2011, after Leija spent most of the night vomiting, he and Flores headed to the emergency room at Integris Marshall County Medical Center, now called AllianceHealth Madill. Details of what happened over the next 12 hours come from a review of hundreds of pages of medical, police and court records and interviews with people involved. When first examined, Leija was agreeable and alert, but his blood oxygen levels were dangerously low. He was put on oxygen and given antibiotics through an intravenous line. He soon seemed on the mend and was admitted to a room down the hall. Flores left midafternoon to pick up the children from school. Soon after, Leija’s breathing became labored. His blood-oxygen level plunged again. He became distressed and aggressive. The doctor on call, John Conley, prescribed over the phone an anti-anxiety pill. Leija refused it, claiming that the hospital staff was trying to poison him. “I am Superman,” he yelled. “I am God!” He somehow cut the IV line and told a nurse that he needed to leave. Conley, again by phone, told nurses to give Leija an injection to calm him. The hospital had no security staff, so a nurse called the police to help restrain Leija for the shot. Conley arrived minutes later, finding Leija in the bathroom still insisting he had to leave the hospital. Madill Police Officer Brandon Pickens and Marshall County Deputy Sheriffs Steve Atnip and Steve Beebe were eating dinner at La Grande, a Tex-Mex joint on a highway north of Madill, when they got the call about an unruly patient at the hospital. They had little information when they arrived. Beebe thought Leija, dressed in a white T-shirt and pajama bottoms, was a visitor, not a patient. According to the officers’ accounts, Leija pulled the gauze from his IV site and yelled, “This is my blood!” as it dripped on the floor. The officers ordered Leija to his knees. He did not comply. Beebe aimed his Stinger stun gun at Leija and fired, hitting Leija in the chest. It had little effect. Leija “hollered out, shook a bit,” a nurse later testified. Beebe, Pickens and Atnip then grabbed Leija, 5 foot 8 and 230 pounds, and pushed him against a wall, where Beebe pressed the Stinger against Leija’s back and shocked him again. The four toppled onto the lobby floor with a thud. Pickens and Atnip were holding Leija face down and Beebe was trying to handcuff him when he grunted and stopped moving. Clear fluid poured from his mouth and pooled on the floor around his head. Conley and staff spent 40 minutes trying to revive Leija. At 7:29 p.m., he was pronounced dead, a Stinger dart still stuck in his chest. Marc Harrison, a forensic pathologist with the Oklahoma Chief Medical Examiner’s Office, testified in a sworn deposition that Leija’s manner of death was “natural,” but that “it would be reasonable to assume” that two shocks with a stun gun and Leija’s physical struggle with police would have “required an elevated need for oxygen.” Through the medical examiner’s office, Harrison said he stands by his opinion. Stern denials When Aldaba’s lawsuit against the officers landed in federal court in Muskogee, Oklahoma, the officers’ lawyers quickly asked that the case be thrown out on the grounds of qualified immunity. It was “abundantly clear” that the force used on Leija was not excessive, the police lawyers argued. Further, they said, no established precedent put the officers on notice that they would violate Leija’s rights “by attempting to subdue an individual so that medical staff could properly treat him.” Judge Frank Seay disagreed. He noted that officers’ accounts differed from each other about the extent of the threat Leija posed and what the officers knew about his medical condition. For instance, the two sheriff deputies said Leija was “slinging blood” and had challenged them to fight, but officer Pickens did not make those claims. And while all three officers said Leija was bleeding heavily, two nurses present testified that he wasn’t. “Leija was a hospital patient. He was not armed in any fashion. While it is alleged that he was using his blood as a weapon, there is no evidence that any blood spattered on any of the officers,” Seay said in his April 5, 2013, ruling. The case against the three officers could now move forward. Beebe, the deputy who twice shocked Leija, said in an interview that his biggest regret about the fatal encounter was not having more details on Leija and his medical condition. “Maybe we could have done things different if we had that information,” Beebe said. “The last thing you want to do is end up with somebody dying.” He added: “I’m sad for the family. We all live in the same community.” Beebe also serves as pastor at a Southern Baptist church in a nearby town – a role that he said has helped him understand the need to de-escalate stressful situations. In the encounter with Leija, however, he and the other officers “did the right thing” to protect themselves and the people in the hospital, he said. “I think we need to be held accountable,” Beebe said. “But when we go out, sometimes we have to use force…We shouldn’t have to worry about being sued every time.” Pickens, now a firefighter in Madill, directed questions to his police superiors. City Manager James Fullingim, who was police chief at the time of Leija’s death, said immunity is important for officers to perform their jobs. “The officers absolutely did not do anything wrong,” he said. Atnip died in a motorcycle accident in 2015. Conley, the doctor who treated Leija, declined to comment. The police took their case to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Colorado. That court was no less stern in denying the officers’ appeal, faulting their decision to “Tase and wrestle to the ground a hospital patient whose mental disturbance was the result of his serious and deteriorating medical condition.” Leija did not commit any crime, the court said, and he posed a threat only to himself, passively resisting the officers. “The situation the police officers faced in this case called for conflict resolution and de-escalation, not confrontation and Tasers,” the court said. The officers then petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case. Their appeal arrived just as the justices were weighing the case of Texas State Trooper Mullenix, the cop who shot and killed a fleeing driver from an overpass. The lower courts had denied Mullenix immunity, saying it was unclear how much of a risk the driver had posed. But on Nov. 9, 2015, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts. Ignoring whether the force used was illegal, the justices focused on whether Mullenix’s actions had been clearly established as illegal. It concluded that none of the three car-chase cases it had previously decided were similar enough. The same day, the justices ordered the 10th Circuit to use the Mullenix ruling as a guide in reconsidering whether qualified immunity should apply in Aldaba’s case. Aldaba’s lawyer, Jeremy Beaver, pointed out to the appellate panel a handful of “strikingly similar” rulings from the 10th Circuit going back nearly 20 years that provided “ample warning” to the police that their actions were unlawful. Case law since 2001, Beaver noted, required police to consider a person’s diminished mental health or capacity when determining what force to use. A 2007 case denounced the beating and Tasing of an unarmed, nonviolent person who was not fleeing. So did a similar case from 2010. “Mr. Leija had a clearly established right to be free from Tasering and tackling while he was a hospital patient who had committed no crimes, was unarmed, was not a threat to the officers or the public, and was mentally and physically compromised,” Beaver argued in court papers. That wasn’t enough. The revised appeals court decision, written by Judge Gregory Phillips, dismissed Beaver’s arguments because the “offered cases differ too much from this one.” Phillips said the cases Beaver cited involved force to detain people for “non-medical” reasons and did not involve hospital personnel “standing by observing” the incident. “We have found no case presenting a similar situation,” the judge wrote. Phillips did not respond to a request for comment. The outcome, Beaver said, highlights the painful paradox of qualified immunity. Aldaba “had to live with the fact that at every stage, every judge that reviewed the case determined that there were constitutional violations that had occurred,” he said. “Despite that, she still couldn’t have a trial.” Shielded By Andrew Chung in Madill, Oklahoma; Lawrence Hurley in Washington, D.C.; Jackie Botts in Los Angeles; and Andrea Januta and Guillermo Gomez in New York Data: Jackie Botts, Andrea Januta and Guillermo Gomez Westlaw research: Kate MacEachern and Matthew Gilson Video: Adam Weisen Visual editors: Feilding Cage and Sarah Slobin Edited by John Blanton and Janet Roberts

www.reuters.com

center

zdN51jOF3nlqdfRJ

test

1Z6n28NdhJhqEwW0

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2019/january/this-is-a-good-faith-effort-shutdown-drags-on-as-trump-proposal-draws-bipartisan-fire

'This Is a Good Faith Effort': Shutdown Drags on as Trump Proposal Draws Bipartisan Fire

2019-01-21

WASHINGTON – As the longest partial government shutdown in history drags on , the Senate will move on a measure this week the White House hopes will bring all sides to the table . Over the weekend , President Donald Trump offered to temporarily extend protections for young immigrants brought to the US illegally as children and those fleeing disaster zones in exchange for his border wall . Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) plans to bring the president 's proposal to a vote Tuesday , despite criticism from both the Left and the Right . Some conservatives say Trump 's offer to help the Dreamers amounts to amnesty . `` Trump proposes amnesty . We voted for Trump and got Jeb ! '' commentator Ann Coulter tweeted . Trump proposes amnesty . We voted for Trump and got Jeb ! — Ann Coulter ( @ AnnCoulter ) January 19 , 2019 Vice President Mike Pence defended the president 's plan allowing for three years of protection for some 700,000 DACA recipients . `` This is not amnesty . There 's no pathway to citizenship , '' Pence told `` Fox News Sunday . '' `` What this is , is a good faith effort . '' - $ 5.7 billion for barriers along parts of the southern border ; - Funding for technology to the protect ports of entry ; `` This is a common-sense compromise both parties should embrace , '' Trump said during his speech Saturday . The vice president calls the measure a bipartisan effort that was based on talks with Democrats . `` What the president presented really is an effort to bring together ideas from both political parties . I think it is an act of statesmanship on the president 's part , '' Pence told CBS ' `` Face the Nation . '' `` He 's the one that got rid of DACA in the first place , '' Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand ( D-NY ) said of President Trump . Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) agreed : `` It was effectively saying , ' I created a problem by taking away protections for Dreamers ; I 'm willing to undo part of the damage , temporarily , that I have inflicted , ' '' he said . While several Republicans say they 're on board with the proposal , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) called the plan dead on arrival . `` @ realDonaldTrump , 800,000 Americans are going without pay . Re-open the government , let workers get their paychecks and then we can discuss how we can come together to protect the border . # EndTheShutdown , '' the California Democrat tweeted Sunday . Democrats plan to counter with $ 1 billion in border funding . They 'll also propose legislation this week that would offer support for 800,000 federal workers who are n't getting paid . Meanwhile , the Transportation Security Administration says a record 8 percent of its agents are calling out sick , bringing long lines at airports and growing concerns about safety .

WASHINGTON – As the longest partial government shutdown in history drags on, the Senate will move on a measure this week the White House hopes will bring all sides to the table. Over the weekend, President Donald Trump offered to temporarily extend protections for young immigrants brought to the US illegally as children and those fleeing disaster zones in exchange for his border wall. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) plans to bring the president's proposal to a vote Tuesday, despite criticism from both the Left and the Right. Some conservatives say Trump's offer to help the Dreamers amounts to amnesty. "Trump proposes amnesty. We voted for Trump and got Jeb!" commentator Ann Coulter tweeted. Trump proposes amnesty. We voted for Trump and got Jeb! — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) January 19, 2019 Vice President Mike Pence defended the president's plan allowing for three years of protection for some 700,000 DACA recipients. "This is not amnesty. There's no pathway to citizenship," Pence told "Fox News Sunday." "What this is, is a good faith effort." That effort, unveiled by Trump Saturday, includes the following: - $5.7 billion for barriers along parts of the southern border; - Funding for technology to the protect ports of entry; - Funding for additional immigration judges; - A 3-year extension for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). "This is a common-sense compromise both parties should embrace," Trump said during his speech Saturday. The vice president calls the measure a bipartisan effort that was based on talks with Democrats. "What the president presented really is an effort to bring together ideas from both political parties. I think it is an act of statesmanship on the president's part," Pence told CBS' "Face the Nation." But Democrats want a permanent solution for Dreamers. "He's the one that got rid of DACA in the first place," Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said of President Trump. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) agreed: "It was effectively saying, 'I created a problem by taking away protections for Dreamers; I'm willing to undo part of the damage, temporarily, that I have inflicted,'" he said. While several Republicans say they're on board with the proposal, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called the plan dead on arrival. "@realDonaldTrump, 800,000 Americans are going without pay. Re-open the government, let workers get their paychecks and then we can discuss how we can come together to protect the border. #EndTheShutdown," the California Democrat tweeted Sunday. Democrats plan to counter with $1 billion in border funding. They'll also propose legislation this week that would offer support for 800,000 federal workers who aren't getting paid. Meanwhile, the Transportation Security Administration says a record 8 percent of its agents are calling out sick, bringing long lines at airports and growing concerns about safety.

www1.cbn.com

right

1Z6n28NdhJhqEwW0

test

k4jiIEHehbWfjMTj

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/11/boehner-lashes-out-at-conservative-groups-over-budget-deal/

Boehner lashes out at conservative groups over budget deal

2013-12-11

( CNN ) - House Speaker John Boehner lashed out at grassroots conservative groups opposed to a compromise budget deal , accusing them on Wednesday of `` using our members and using the American people for their own goals . '' The Speaker said their actions were `` ridiculous '' and noted some of them came out against the bipartisan budget agreement even before it was announced on Tuesday . The measure struck by Republican House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and his Senate counterpart , Democrat Patty Murray , aims to avert another shutdown like the one that closed the government for more than two weeks in October . Many rank-and-file Republicans signaled they could back the deal and predicted it would pass the House on Thursday . The measure will likely need support from minority Democrats since some Republicans are expected to oppose it . The agreement sets government spending at $ 1.012 trillion for the current fiscal year that runs through September and $ 1.014 trillion for next year . It would eliminate $ 45 billion from the next round of largely unpopular forced federal spending cuts - known as sequestration - that are set to hit in January and another $ 18 billion scheduled for 2015 . Overall , it proposes to save $ 85 billion and would reduce the deficit by more than $ 20 billion once the money spared from sequestration is factored in , budget leaders said . Boehner 's comments to reporters were aimed at some of the same organizations that have effectively pressured House Republicans previously to not compromise on budget issues . They include Americans for Prosperity , Club for Growth , Freedom Works , Heritage Action and the Koch brothers , GOP campaign financiers . Boehner made similar comments questioning the motives of some of the groups at a closed-door meeting with all House Republicans to discuss the agreement . The Speaker told members that `` no one controls your voting card but you , '' according to a GOP source in the meeting . But with this deal , their impact appears to be diminished with signs of growing Republican support . I 'm not sure that the outside groups are going to be able to influence us , '' said Rep. John Fleming , a conservative from Louisiana . Fleming said conservative groups wo n't be able to sway as many conservatives because so many like the idea of the deal returning Congress to what 's known as regular order - deliberating and passing bills the way they 're supposed to be done , instead of backroom deals amid crisis . But Idaho GOP Rep Raul Labrador , a critic of the plan , responded to Boehner 's comments . `` What is it that groups said yesterday that is false today ? '' he asked . Labrador touted his approval rating with Heritage Action at a Capitol Hill forum sponsored by the advocacy group that is growing in influence . He said anyone who suggests his vote is for sale `` is sadly mistaken '' Dan Holler , a spokesman for Heritage Action , did n't back down from his criticism of the budget deal . `` Over the next few days , lawmakers will have to explain to their constituents , many of whom are our members , what they 've achieved by increasing spending , increasing taxes and offering up another round of promises waiting to be broken . That will be a really tough sell back home , '' Holler said in a statement to CNN . Ryan , the chief negotiator of the deal , gave what even opponents called a stellar closed-door presentation to fellow Republicans . Top House Republican leaders also told their members they recognized some were disappointed with the proposal . But it met their test to continue reducing the deficit and was a good deal given the political limitations on Capitol Hill . `` It 's the best compromise you can get in divided government , '' said Rep. Darrell Issa , a California Republican , agreeing with Ryan 's argument for supporting the deal . Fleming , who tends to vote against any compromise of conservative principles on economic issues , said Ryan gave a convincing argument that , long term , this bipartisan deal begins to address excess spending Republicans rail against . Rep. Matt Salmon , an Arizona Republican , told reporters he plans to vote `` no '' because he is disappointed this does n't do more to address the biggest contributors to the debt and deficit , like Medicare and Medicaid . `` It 's an incredibly small baby step , '' said Salmon , conceding that the measure would ultimately pass . Other Republicans will oppose it for other reasons , like the decision to ease the sequester or the proposal to increase the fee paid by airline passengers to help cover federal aviation security costs . Some see that as a tax hike . Because of that GOP opposition , Democrats will have to join Republicans in order for the budget deal to pass . Although Democrats have different problems with the budget agreement , several came out of their Wednesday meeting saying they , too , expect the proposal to pass before the House leaves town for the holidays this week . `` I 'll hold my nose and vote 'yes , ' '' said Rep Gerry Connolly , a Virginia Democrat . He has federal workers in his suburban Washington-area district who would have to contribute more to their federal pensions as a result of the deal . Many Democrats are also concerned the deal leaves out an extension of long-term unemployment benefits .

6 years ago (CNN) - House Speaker John Boehner lashed out at grassroots conservative groups opposed to a compromise budget deal, accusing them on Wednesday of "using our members and using the American people for their own goals." The Speaker said their actions were "ridiculous" and noted some of them came out against the bipartisan budget agreement even before it was announced on Tuesday. Follow @politicalticker The measure struck by Republican House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and his Senate counterpart, Democrat Patty Murray, aims to avert another shutdown like the one that closed the government for more than two weeks in October. Many rank-and-file Republicans signaled they could back the deal and predicted it would pass the House on Thursday. The measure will likely need support from minority Democrats since some Republicans are expected to oppose it. The White House urged Congress to approve the measure. Deal aims to avert shutdown The agreement sets government spending at $1.012 trillion for the current fiscal year that runs through September and $1.014 trillion for next year. It would eliminate $45 billion from the next round of largely unpopular forced federal spending cuts - known as sequestration - that are set to hit in January and another $18 billion scheduled for 2015. Overall, it proposes to save $85 billion and would reduce the deficit by more than $20 billion once the money spared from sequestration is factored in, budget leaders said. Boehner's comments to reporters were aimed at some of the same organizations that have effectively pressured House Republicans previously to not compromise on budget issues. They include Americans for Prosperity, Club for Growth, Freedom Works, Heritage Action and the Koch brothers, GOP campaign financiers. Boehner made similar comments questioning the motives of some of the groups at a closed-door meeting with all House Republicans to discuss the agreement. Diminished impact apparent The Speaker told members that "no one controls your voting card but you," according to a GOP source in the meeting. But with this deal, their impact appears to be diminished with signs of growing Republican support. I'm not sure that the outside groups are going to be able to influence us," said Rep. John Fleming, a conservative from Louisiana. Fleming said conservative groups won't be able to sway as many conservatives because so many like the idea of the deal returning Congress to what's known as regular order - deliberating and passing bills the way they're supposed to be done, instead of backroom deals amid crisis. But Idaho GOP Rep Raul Labrador, a critic of the plan, responded to Boehner's comments. "What is it that groups said yesterday that is false today?" he asked. Labrador touted his approval rating with Heritage Action at a Capitol Hill forum sponsored by the advocacy group that is growing in influence. He said anyone who suggests his vote is for sale "is sadly mistaken" Conservative criticism Dan Holler, a spokesman for Heritage Action, didn't back down from his criticism of the budget deal. "Over the next few days, lawmakers will have to explain to their constituents, many of whom are our members, what they've achieved by increasing spending, increasing taxes and offering up another round of promises waiting to be broken. That will be a really tough sell back home," Holler said in a statement to CNN. Ryan, the chief negotiator of the deal, gave what even opponents called a stellar closed-door presentation to fellow Republicans. Top House Republican leaders also told their members they recognized some were disappointed with the proposal. But it met their test to continue reducing the deficit and was a good deal given the political limitations on Capitol Hill. "It's the best compromise you can get in divided government," said Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, agreeing with Ryan's argument for supporting the deal. Fleming, who tends to vote against any compromise of conservative principles on economic issues, said Ryan gave a convincing argument that, long term, this bipartisan deal begins to address excess spending Republicans rail against. Rep. Matt Salmon, an Arizona Republican, told reporters he plans to vote "no" because he is disappointed this doesn't do more to address the biggest contributors to the debt and deficit, like Medicare and Medicaid. "It's an incredibly small baby step," said Salmon, conceding that the measure would ultimately pass. Sequester cuts, security fee Other Republicans will oppose it for other reasons, like the decision to ease the sequester or the proposal to increase the fee paid by airline passengers to help cover federal aviation security costs. Some see that as a tax hike. Because of that GOP opposition, Democrats will have to join Republicans in order for the budget deal to pass. Although Democrats have different problems with the budget agreement, several came out of their Wednesday meeting saying they, too, expect the proposal to pass before the House leaves town for the holidays this week. "I'll hold my nose and vote 'yes,'" said Rep Gerry Connolly, a Virginia Democrat. He has federal workers in his suburban Washington-area district who would have to contribute more to their federal pensions as a result of the deal. Many Democrats are also concerned the deal leaves out an extension of long-term unemployment benefits.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

k4jiIEHehbWfjMTj

test

GsKwwkxdKIOT5O8Y

great_britain

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/04/10/brexit-uk-us-trade-talks-postponed-because-coronavirus/

UK-U.S. Trade Talks Postponed Because of Coronavirus: Report

2020-04-10

Victoria Friedman

Negotiations for a free trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States have been postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic , according to a British government source speaking to The Telegraph . Insiders told the newspaper that a delegation of politicians and trade officials was supposed to fly out to Washington , D.C , for the week beginning March 23rd for negotiations set to take place over several days . However , the trip , led by international trade secretary Liz Truss , was cancelled due to the pandemic . The British and Americans are said to eager to begin negotiations , but no date for restarting them has reportedly been set . Instead , options such as video conferencing are being explored . “ Both sides are keen to ensure trade talks between the UK and U.S. progress asap . Free trade is integral to global recovery from this crisis , ” the UK government source told The Telegraph . EU Trade Negotiations Continue as UK Stands by December 2020 Deadline https : //t.co/LQlHVrBfB7 — Breitbart London ( @ BreitbartLondon ) April 9 , 2020 President Donald J Trump , who as a presidential candidate in 2016 supported the UK ’ s bid to leave the EU , had told both former Prime Minister Theresa May and current premier Boris Johnson that the U.S. will strike a “ massive new Trade Deal ” after the UK left the European Union . He said following Prime Minister Johnson winning re-election in December : “ This deal has the potential to be far bigger and more lucrative than any deal that could be made with the EU . ” A friend of Mr Johnson and ally of the United Kingdom , President Trump has recently extended messages of support to the prime minister , who contracted coronavirus last month . After Prime Minister Johnson was admitted to intensive care on Monday when his symptoms worsened , President Trump said : “ I want to send best wishes to a very good friend of mine , and a friend to our nation , Prime Minister Boris Johnson . We are very saddened to hear that he was taken into intensive care this afternoon . “ Americans are all praying for his recovery — he ’ s been a really good friend and something very special : strong , resolute , doesn ’ t quit , doesn ’ t give up . ” Great News : Prime Minister Boris Johnson has just been moved out of Intensive Care . Get well Boris ! ! ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) April 9 , 2020 On Thursday when the prime minister was moved out of ICU , the President expressed his happiness at his friend ’ s recovering , tweeting : “ Great News : Prime Minister Boris Johnson has just been moved out of Intensive Care . Get well Boris ! ! ! ” British trade secretary Liz Truss and her U.S. equivalent Bob Leithauser have , according to The Telegraph , spoke since both countries went into emergency measures . The newspaper reports that Ms Truss is hoping to begin negotiations as soon as possible . In-person trade talks with the EU were also cancelled indefinitely . However , both the EU ’ s negotiator Michel Barner and Britain ’ s David Frost have said that next week they will confirm future dates in April and May for virtual negotiations . Despite calls from Europhiles , leftists , and Members of the European Parliament , the British government has said this week that it is sticking by the December 31st , 2020 , transition period deadline by which the UK will leave the EU ’ s institutions entirely , with or without an EU trade deal .

Negotiations for a free trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States have been postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic, according to a British government source speaking to The Telegraph. Insiders told the newspaper that a delegation of politicians and trade officials was supposed to fly out to Washington, D.C, for the week beginning March 23rd for negotiations set to take place over several days. However, the trip, led by international trade secretary Liz Truss, was cancelled due to the pandemic. The British and Americans are said to eager to begin negotiations, but no date for restarting them has reportedly been set. Instead, options such as video conferencing are being explored. “Both sides are keen to ensure trade talks between the UK and U.S. progress asap. Free trade is integral to global recovery from this crisis,” the UK government source told The Telegraph. EU Trade Negotiations Continue as UK Stands by December 2020 Deadline https://t.co/LQlHVrBfB7 — Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) April 9, 2020 President Donald J Trump, who as a presidential candidate in 2016 supported the UK’s bid to leave the EU, had told both former Prime Minister Theresa May and current premier Boris Johnson that the U.S. will strike a “massive new Trade Deal” after the UK left the European Union. He said following Prime Minister Johnson winning re-election in December: “This deal has the potential to be far bigger and more lucrative than any deal that could be made with the EU.” A friend of Mr Johnson and ally of the United Kingdom, President Trump has recently extended messages of support to the prime minister, who contracted coronavirus last month. After Prime Minister Johnson was admitted to intensive care on Monday when his symptoms worsened, President Trump said: “I want to send best wishes to a very good friend of mine, and a friend to our nation, Prime Minister Boris Johnson. We are very saddened to hear that he was taken into intensive care this afternoon. “Americans are all praying for his recovery — he’s been a really good friend and something very special: strong, resolute, doesn’t quit, doesn’t give up.” Great News: Prime Minister Boris Johnson has just been moved out of Intensive Care. Get well Boris!!! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 9, 2020 On Thursday when the prime minister was moved out of ICU, the President expressed his happiness at his friend’s recovering, tweeting: “Great News: Prime Minister Boris Johnson has just been moved out of Intensive Care. Get well Boris!!!” British trade secretary Liz Truss and her U.S. equivalent Bob Leithauser have, according to The Telegraph, spoke since both countries went into emergency measures. The newspaper reports that Ms Truss is hoping to begin negotiations as soon as possible. In-person trade talks with the EU were also cancelled indefinitely. However, both the EU’s negotiator Michel Barner and Britain’s David Frost have said that next week they will confirm future dates in April and May for virtual negotiations. Despite calls from Europhiles, leftists, and Members of the European Parliament, the British government has said this week that it is sticking by the December 31st, 2020, transition period deadline by which the UK will leave the EU’s institutions entirely, with or without an EU trade deal.

www.breitbart.com

right

GsKwwkxdKIOT5O8Y

test

y3KeluReivKTQ7Y7

national_defense

Newsmax - Opinion

https://www.newsmax.com/patrickbuchanan/madison-nixon-king-minneapolis/2020/06/05/id/970665/

Mattis Defects to the Resistance

2020-06-05

In his statement to The Atlantic magazine , former Defense Secretary General James Mattis says of the events of the last 10 days that have shaken the nation as it has not been shaken since 1968 : `` We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers . '' Is `` a small number of lawbreakers '' an apt description of wilding mobs who have showered cops with bottles , bricks and rocks in 40 cities , looted stores in the hundreds , torched police cars , and injured dozens of Secret Service personnel defending the White House ? Is `` a small number of lawbreakers '' the way a patriot would describe anti-American anarchists who desecrated the Lincoln Memorial , the World War II Memorial on the Mall and the Korean War Memorial and tried to burn down the Church of the Presidents in Lafayette Square ? Was the sacking of Georgetown , Rodeo Drive in LA , 5th Avenue in New York and 40 city centers , the work of a few `` lawbreakers '' ? Is that a good description of the people who gravely wounded that cop in Las Vegas and shot four cops and murdered that retired black police chief in St. Louis ? The protesters , says Mattis , are `` rightly demanding . . . Equal Justice Under Law . '' This is a `` wholesome and unifying demand — one that all of us should be able to get behind . '' But what does the general think of the methods and means the `` protesters '' have used — the massive civil disobedience , the blocking of streets , the vilification of police , the contempt for curfews . What does the general think of protesters who provide moral cover for insurrection ? `` Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people , '' says Mattis . Trump `` does n't even pretend to try . Instead he tries to divide us . '' But it was not Trump who divided America in this racial crisis . The nation was united in revulsion at the criminal cruelty that led to George Floyd 's death . The nation was united in backing an enraged people 's right to protest that atrocity . What divided America were the methods and means protesters began using in the first hours of the Minneapolis riot — the attacks on cops with bottles , bricks and Molotov cocktails . In Mattis ' statement , one finds not a word of sympathy or support for the police bearing the brunt of mob brutality for defending the communities they serve , while defending the constitutional right of the protesters to curse them as racist and rogue cops . `` Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them , '' not to the military , says the general . But what happens when mobs run wild to where a governor of New York is denouncing the NYPD for failing to protect the city from anarchy and is threatening to replace the mayor for failing to put down the insurrection . In July 1967 , the 82nd Airborne was sent into Detroit to put down the riot . In 1968 , there were federal troops in D.C. to stop the rioting in the wake of Dr. King 's assassination . In the violent protests of the Nixon era , U.S. airborne troops were brought into the basement of the Executive Office Building . The general quotes James Madison : `` America united with a handful of troops , or without a single soldier exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign invaders than an America disunited . '' And how , General , did that work out for Madison when the `` foreign invaders '' arrived in Maryland in August 1814 , marched up Bladensburg Road , and burned the Capitol and White House and Alexandria , while `` Little Jimmy '' fled out the Brookville Road ? If memory serves , it was Gen. Andrew Jackson and the troops he pulled together for the Battle of New Orleans who defeated the British and saved the Union . `` Society can not exist , '' wrote Edmund Burke , `` unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere ; and the less of it there is within , the more there must be without . `` It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things , that men of intemperate minds can not be free . Their passions forge their fetters . '' That is where we are now . Society and civilization are on the line . If mob tactics are now how we change laws and alter public policy , the democratic republic is dead and we have gone full Third World . Some of us do not believe America is a racist society or that the nation 's police , numbering a million men and women , are shot through with anti-black racism . Some of us believe the police are the last line of defense we have against that `` small number of lawbreakers '' Mattis tells us are no problem . Did the general actually produce this pile of mush that reads like something out of Ramsey Clark in the 1960s ? My guess : Mattis , an obedient servant of President Trump for two years , has been persuaded that the wind is blowing the other way and his `` place in history '' demands that he get himself on the correct side . Patrick Buchanan has been an adviser to three presidents , a two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination , and the nominee for the Reform Party in 2000 . He was also a founding member of `` The McLaughlin Group , '' which began on NBC , and CNN 's `` Capital Gang '' and `` Crossfire . '' His latest book is : `` The Greatest Comeback : How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority . '' Read Patrick Buchanan 's Reports — More Here .

In his statement to The Atlantic magazine, former Defense Secretary General James Mattis says of the events of the last 10 days that have shaken the nation as it has not been shaken since 1968: "We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers." Is "a small number of lawbreakers" an apt description of wilding mobs who have showered cops with bottles, bricks and rocks in 40 cities, looted stores in the hundreds, torched police cars, and injured dozens of Secret Service personnel defending the White House? Is "a small number of lawbreakers" the way a patriot would describe anti-American anarchists who desecrated the Lincoln Memorial, the World War II Memorial on the Mall and the Korean War Memorial and tried to burn down the Church of the Presidents in Lafayette Square? Was the sacking of Georgetown, Rodeo Drive in LA, 5th Avenue in New York and 40 city centers, the work of a few "lawbreakers"? Is that a good description of the people who gravely wounded that cop in Las Vegas and shot four cops and murdered that retired black police chief in St. Louis? The protesters, says Mattis, are "rightly demanding . . . Equal Justice Under Law." This is a "wholesome and unifying demand — one that all of us should be able to get behind." But what does the general think of the methods and means the "protesters" have used — the massive civil disobedience, the blocking of streets, the vilification of police, the contempt for curfews. What does the general think of protesters who provide moral cover for insurrection? "Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people," says Mattis. Trump "doesn't even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us." But it was not Trump who divided America in this racial crisis. The nation was united in revulsion at the criminal cruelty that led to George Floyd's death. The nation was united in backing an enraged people's right to protest that atrocity. What divided America were the methods and means protesters began using in the first hours of the Minneapolis riot — the attacks on cops with bottles, bricks and Molotov cocktails. In Mattis' statement, one finds not a word of sympathy or support for the police bearing the brunt of mob brutality for defending the communities they serve, while defending the constitutional right of the protesters to curse them as racist and rogue cops. "Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them," not to the military, says the general. Correct. But what happens when mobs run wild to where a governor of New York is denouncing the NYPD for failing to protect the city from anarchy and is threatening to replace the mayor for failing to put down the insurrection. In July 1967, the 82nd Airborne was sent into Detroit to put down the riot. In 1968, there were federal troops in D.C. to stop the rioting in the wake of Dr. King's assassination. In the violent protests of the Nixon era, U.S. airborne troops were brought into the basement of the Executive Office Building. The general quotes James Madison: "America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign invaders than an America disunited." And how, General, did that work out for Madison when the "foreign invaders" arrived in Maryland in August 1814, marched up Bladensburg Road, and burned the Capitol and White House and Alexandria, while "Little Jimmy" fled out the Brookville Road? If memory serves, it was Gen. Andrew Jackson and the troops he pulled together for the Battle of New Orleans who defeated the British and saved the Union. "Society cannot exist," wrote Edmund Burke, "unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. "It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." That is where we are now. Society and civilization are on the line. If mob tactics are now how we change laws and alter public policy, the democratic republic is dead and we have gone full Third World. Some of us do not believe America is a racist society or that the nation's police, numbering a million men and women, are shot through with anti-black racism. Some of us believe the police are the last line of defense we have against that "small number of lawbreakers" Mattis tells us are no problem. Did the general actually produce this pile of mush that reads like something out of Ramsey Clark in the 1960s? My guess: Mattis, an obedient servant of President Trump for two years, has been persuaded that the wind is blowing the other way and his "place in history" demands that he get himself on the correct side. The general has just defected to the resistance. Patrick Buchanan has been an adviser to three presidents, a two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and the nominee for the Reform Party in 2000. He was also a founding member of "The McLaughlin Group," which began on NBC, and CNN's "Capital Gang" and "Crossfire." His latest book is: "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority." Read Patrick Buchanan's Reports — More Here.

www.newsmax.com

right

y3KeluReivKTQ7Y7

test

5rpt3CjwrP3JS8LH

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/05/state-of-the-union-trump-to-call-for-unity-as-he-tries-to-reboot-presidency

State of the Union: Trump to call for unity as he tries to reboot presidency

2019-02-05

David Smith

Trump will tout economic strength and border security as he faces an audience with an unprecedented number of women Donald Trump will attempt to reboot his presidency on Tuesday with a State of the Union address that will tout economic strength and border security – but he faces an audience with an unprecedented number of women and a high degree of scepticism . Halfway into his term , having just endured a drubbing in November ’ s congressional elections and after prompting the longest government shutdown in US history , Trump will seek to regain momentum by calling on Congress to come together on infrastructure projects and his trade deal with Canada and Mexico . He will promise that “ we can bridge old divisions , heal old wounds , build new coalitions , forge new solutions , ” the White House previewed . The president will command one of the biggest stages in American politics but , unlike last year ’ s address , Capitol Hill will be something of a hostile environment . Along with Vice-President Mike Pence , the Democratic speaker , Nancy Pelosi – a formidable adversary who has thwarted his border wall at every turn – will sit just over his shoulder on the dais , her facial expressions watched closely by millions of primetime TV viewers . Seated in front of Trump will be a record number of female House members , most Democrats and some dressed in white , in homage to the suffragist movement . In the gallery overhead there will be two former employees of Trump ’ s New Jersey golf club , both immigrant women who have gone public about its hiring practices . And when the speech is over , Stacey Abrams , who ran a close race in the midterms for governor of Georgia , will become the first African American woman to deliver the Democratic rebuttal . Benjamin Wittes , a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington , said during a recent panel discussion at the thinktank : “ The State of the Union involves ritualised shows of chumminess from the time the president walks in and everybody gives a sort of demonstrative standing ovation , despite what they may be muttering under their breath . [ Pelosi ’ s ] won and he has to walk in there and he has to hug her , give a warm handshake at a minimum … “ Everybody will be noticing when she does clap and when she doesn ’ t clap . Everybody will be noticing these little things that she does . ” Trump made his debut in the House with an address to a joint session of Congress two years ago . In contrast to his roistering campaign rallies , he struck a sombre tone as he honoured the widow of a dead Navy Seal , prompting the Democratic pundit Van Jones to declare grandiloquently on CNN : “ He became president of the United States in that moment , period . ” A year later , Trump gave his first formal State of the Union address , a full hour and 20 minutes that stressed unity and earned rapturous applause from Republicans . But the midterms changed the balance : while the Senate majority Republicans will be out in force , Trump will be reminded that Democrats swept the House , with a record number of women , whose appreciation is likely to be muted . Cameras are bound to focus on new congresswomen such as Rashida Tlaib of Michigan , who recently promised “ We ’ re gon na impeach the motherfucker ! ” , and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York to see whether they clap any of Trump ’ s lines or attempt some type of protest . The public gallery will also include , at Democrats ’ invitation , federal workers who went without pay for 35 days and are worried about a repeat . The partial government shutdown , triggered by political stalemate over Trump ’ s $ 5.7bn demand for the wall , also led to the postponement of the State of the Union by a week – the first time that had happened since the Challenger space shuttle disaster delayed Ronald Reagan ’ s speech in 1986 . Despite that context , and the looming threat of another shutdown or national emergency if congressional negotiators do not strike a compromise by mid-February , Trump is likely to begin by reeling off accomplishments . Wittes , who is also editor-in-chief of the Lawfare blog , said : “ The first part is always a victory lap . Even if you ’ re in the trough of a recession , the president says the State of the Union is better than it looks , and then trots out 25 minutes of positive talking points . ” However , dark claims about MS-13 seem inevitable at some point thanks to one of the speechwriters , immigration hardliner Stephen Miller , in an attempt to throw down the gauntlet to Pelosi . But going in too aggressively carries risks , with young Democrats newly emboldened and even some Republicans becoming restless . Only last week the Senate rebuked him over troop withdrawals from Syria and Afghanistan . Trump is expected to declare victory over Isis in Syria , despite US military leaders suspecting the terrorists are just lying low . Meanwhile , Bill Whalen , who was chief speechwriter for the former California governor Pete Wilson , said : “ There is uncertainty over interruptions by Democrats . We have plenty of faces of resistance but will we get a voice of resistance through heckling ? The second question is , how unified are the Republicans ? It ’ s a tricky time for him to be in front of them . ” Whalen , now a research fellow at the Hoover Institution think tank in Palo Alto , California , added : “ The State of the Union has become a very sad spectacle . We ’ re much more interested in the drama , the theatrics , what people are wearing . It ’ s like an awards show . We don ’ t pay much attention to the substance . ”

Trump will tout economic strength and border security as he faces an audience with an unprecedented number of women Donald Trump will attempt to reboot his presidency on Tuesday with a State of the Union address that will tout economic strength and border security – but he faces an audience with an unprecedented number of women and a high degree of scepticism. Halfway into his term, having just endured a drubbing in November’s congressional elections and after prompting the longest government shutdown in US history, Trump will seek to regain momentum by calling on Congress to come together on infrastructure projects and his trade deal with Canada and Mexico. He will promise that “we can bridge old divisions, heal old wounds, build new coalitions, forge new solutions,” the White House previewed. The president will command one of the biggest stages in American politics but, unlike last year’s address, Capitol Hill will be something of a hostile environment. Along with Vice-President Mike Pence, the Democratic speaker, Nancy Pelosi – a formidable adversary who has thwarted his border wall at every turn – will sit just over his shoulder on the dais, her facial expressions watched closely by millions of primetime TV viewers. Seated in front of Trump will be a record number of female House members, most Democrats and some dressed in white, in homage to the suffragist movement. In the gallery overhead there will be two former employees of Trump’s New Jersey golf club, both immigrant women who have gone public about its hiring practices. And when the speech is over, Stacey Abrams, who ran a close race in the midterms for governor of Georgia, will become the first African American woman to deliver the Democratic rebuttal. Facebook Twitter Pinterest The speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, will sit just over his shoulder on the dais, her facial expressions watched closely by millions of primetime TV viewers. Photograph: Michael Reynolds/EPA Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said during a recent panel discussion at the thinktank: “The State of the Union involves ritualised shows of chumminess from the time the president walks in and everybody gives a sort of demonstrative standing ovation, despite what they may be muttering under their breath. [Pelosi’s] won and he has to walk in there and he has to hug her, give a warm handshake at a minimum … “Everybody will be noticing when she does clap and when she doesn’t clap. Everybody will be noticing these little things that she does.” Trump made his debut in the House with an address to a joint session of Congress two years ago. In contrast to his roistering campaign rallies, he struck a sombre tone as he honoured the widow of a dead Navy Seal, prompting the Democratic pundit Van Jones to declare grandiloquently on CNN: “He became president of the United States in that moment, period.” A year later, Trump gave his first formal State of the Union address, a full hour and 20 minutes that stressed unity and earned rapturous applause from Republicans. But the midterms changed the balance: while the Senate majority Republicans will be out in force, Trump will be reminded that Democrats swept the House, with a record number of women, whose appreciation is likely to be muted. Cameras are bound to focus on new congresswomen such as Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, who recently promised “We’re gonna impeach the motherfucker!”, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York to see whether they clap any of Trump’s lines or attempt some type of protest. The public gallery will also include, at Democrats’ invitation, federal workers who went without pay for 35 days and are worried about a repeat. The partial government shutdown, triggered by political stalemate over Trump’s $5.7bn demand for the wall, also led to the postponement of the State of the Union by a week – the first time that had happened since the Challenger space shuttle disaster delayed Ronald Reagan’s speech in 1986. Despite that context, and the looming threat of another shutdown or national emergency if congressional negotiators do not strike a compromise by mid-February, Trump is likely to begin by reeling off accomplishments. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Stacey Abrams, who ran a close race in the midterms for governor of Georgia, will be the first African American woman to deliver the Democratic rebuttal. Photograph: Tami Chappell/EPA Wittes, who is also editor-in-chief of the Lawfare blog, said: “The first part is always a victory lap. Even if you’re in the trough of a recession, the president says the State of the Union is better than it looks, and then trots out 25 minutes of positive talking points.” However, dark claims about MS-13 seem inevitable at some point thanks to one of the speechwriters, immigration hardliner Stephen Miller, in an attempt to throw down the gauntlet to Pelosi. But going in too aggressively carries risks, with young Democrats newly emboldened and even some Republicans becoming restless. Only last week the Senate rebuked him over troop withdrawals from Syria and Afghanistan. Trump is expected to declare victory over Isis in Syria, despite US military leaders suspecting the terrorists are just lying low. Meanwhile, Bill Whalen, who was chief speechwriter for the former California governor Pete Wilson, said: “There is uncertainty over interruptions by Democrats. We have plenty of faces of resistance but will we get a voice of resistance through heckling? The second question is, how unified are the Republicans? It’s a tricky time for him to be in front of them.” Whalen, now a research fellow at the Hoover Institution think tank in Palo Alto, California, added: “The State of the Union has become a very sad spectacle. We’re much more interested in the drama, the theatrics, what people are wearing. It’s like an awards show. We don’t pay much attention to the substance.”

www.theguardian.com

left

5rpt3CjwrP3JS8LH

test

xTf0d3HUYOLLedCa

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/18/christian_right_in_decline_religious_conservatives_have_become_so_belligerent_and_greedy_people_are_turning_against_them/

Christian right in decline: Religious conservatives have become so belligerent and greedy, people are turning against them

2016-03-18

Amanda Marcotte

With all the alarming news that comes out on a daily basis , it 's hard to believe anything good is happening out there . But there are a few promising signs that one good thing is happening : The religious right really is facing a decline in influence . The story has just a few tendrils and shoots — make no mistake , the religious right is still far too powerful — but there are hopeful signs that they are on the decline . And the best part is they did it to themselves . Derrick Gordon , a guard for Seton Hall 's basketball team , is the first openly gay Division I player in NCAA basketball , and Wednesday he got an unlikely supporter in the form of the usually conservative-leaning New York Post . The Post gave laudatory coverage to Charles Barkley for defending Gordon against homophobic haters . `` I really hate them sumbitches , '' Barkley told TMZ in an interview about the Westboro Baptist Church , an anti-gay organization that plans to picket one of Seton Hall 's games . `` Hopefully , somebody will beat the hell out of those Westboro people . '' While we here at ███ can not condone threatening or even wishing violence on people , there is still something heartening about this whole story . Professional and college athletics tend to be the last bastion ( besides fundamentalist religion , of course ) of this sort of mindless homophobia and sexism . It was n't that long ago that it was hard to imagine someone in that world not only defending a gay athlete , but doing so swiftly and without any apparent fear of blowback from homophobic fans . But Barkley seems unconcerned about whiny homophobes , saying instead he wishes `` the best '' for Gordon . Barkley 's right that the Westboro protesters , who picket soldiers ' funerals because they are so hungry for attention , are terrible people . Ironically , however , it 's this very terribleness that has helped get us to this point where a prominent figure like Barkley can be unequivocal in siding with a gay player like this . Whatever they are trying to accomplish , what the Westboro folks did was publicly and loudly and repeatedly tie anti-gay attitudes to a general hatefulness and disrespect for basic decency . Most anti-gay conservatives tried to keep their distance , but still , the Westboro people were always there , unvarnished in their loathing , stripping away the religious justifications and posturing to reveal the beating heart of hatred that fuels anti-gay attitudes . They are cartoonishly evil and easy to hate . And their mere existence makes the targets of their hatred — LGBTQ Americans — much easier to sympathize with . There 's been a lot of writing in recent months , spurred by the Donald Trump campaign , about the decline in the power of the religious right . To be clear , the Christian right still basically runs the Republican Party and has been behind a powerful and successful movement to destroy reproductive rights . But now that power is under threat because , seemingly overnight , people have started caring a lot less what the fundamentalists think . Will Saletan at Slate reported on Tuesday that the Faith Angle Forum , which he has covered for years , was under a cloud of despair this year . `` For them , Trump ’ s support among self-identified evangelicals is an embarrassment and a puzzle , '' he writes . They gave him many reasons they hate Trump — supposedly his hatefulness , misogyny , viciousness , etc . — but since those things never bothered them coming from , say , Ted Cruz , the likelier explanation for the anti-Trump sentiment among the movers and shakers of the religious right is that he 's just not one of them . He may sign off on the standard-issue Republican opinions on abortion and gay rights , but you get the sense that he does n't really care and would totally be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage tomorrow if he thought that 's what would get him votes . That so many conservatives prefer him to someone who mimics piety more persuasively is a slap to the face . They want fealty from Republican voters , and instead they 're getting a `` yeah , yeah , abortion this gays that , let 's hear more about this wall '' reaction . But the religious right did this to themselves , by getting ever more extreme and power-hungry . No matter how much power they were given , fundamentalists wanted more , making increasingly extravagant demands and throwing fits when they did n't get their way . Witness what happened in Ohio this week in a little covered but interesting Republican primary for state Legislature . For years , anti-choice activist Janet Porter has been trying to pass a law that would functionally ban most abortions by setting the cut-off date too early in pregnancy for most women to get abortions . Her efforts have gone nowhere , and not because Republicans in the state have suddenly decided to stop hating women . Outright bans like Porter 's are a waste of time , because they are so obviously in violation of Roe v. Wade that they get thrown right out in court . Instead , the current anti-choice strategy is to use feigned concern for women 's `` safety '' to pass a bunch of medically unnecessary restrictions to make offering legal abortion impossible to do . This strategy , under the sexist hand of Gov . John Kasich , has been incredibly effective in wiping out legal abortion in the state , using regulatory schemes to shut down more abortion clinics than any other state but Texas . And all with very little of the backlash that might stop them from quietly disappearing all these clinics until there are none left . But that was n't good enough for Porter . Frustrated at her inability to just get her outright ban on the books , Porter primaried Republican state Sen. Larry Obhof , claiming that he and other Republicans were n't doing enough to stop women from getting legal abortions . This was an asinine claim — as he himself noted , Obhof 's voting record shows enough loathing for female sexuality to satisfy any misogynist — but Porter was nonetheless able to rack up a murderer 's row of endorsements from religious right luminaries , including James Dobson and Mike Huckabee . In the end , though , putting all that Bible-beating weight behind a candidate for even such a small seat in a state Legislature did n't matter . Obhof won the primary on Tuesday . To be clear , this should n't be treated as some kind of great victory against the religious right , because Obhof is still expected to pay fealty to the sex police as the price of his seat . ( Also , I think he wants to . ) But the whole debacle shows a slight shift in the power structures on the right . Religious right fanatics do n't get everything they want . There is such a thing as going too far . Even conservative Republicans are starting to get a little sick of it . We 'll know for sure this summer how much of a backlash the anti-choice movement has created by going too far . The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the oppressive Texas law restricting abortion then , and the sense that the right has just taken this too far might compel Justice Anthony Kennedy to rule against Texas , just to put a stop to the nonsense . But as these two stories show , there 's already good reason to think the Christian right 's hungry power grab and tendencies toward excess are hurting their image . And if you doubt that , ask Kim Davis , the Kentucky clerk who was supposed to be a noble martyr for the cause of Christians who do n't want to `` participate '' in gay marriage , but instead became a laughingstock symbol for hate and bigotry . They may still have the Republican Party , but the religious right is losing the country .

With all the alarming news that comes out on a daily basis, it's hard to believe anything good is happening out there. But there are a few promising signs that one good thing is happening: The religious right really is facing a decline in influence. The story has just a few tendrils and shoots — make no mistake, the religious right is still far too powerful — but there are hopeful signs that they are on the decline. And the best part is they did it to themselves. Derrick Gordon, a guard for Seton Hall's basketball team, is the first openly gay Division I player in NCAA basketball, and Wednesday he got an unlikely supporter in the form of the usually conservative-leaning New York Post. The Post gave laudatory coverage to Charles Barkley for defending Gordon against homophobic haters. Advertisement: "I really hate them sumbitches," Barkley told TMZ in an interview about the Westboro Baptist Church, an anti-gay organization that plans to picket one of Seton Hall's games. "Hopefully, somebody will beat the hell out of those Westboro people." While we here at Salon cannot condone threatening or even wishing violence on people, there is still something heartening about this whole story. Professional and college athletics tend to be the last bastion (besides fundamentalist religion, of course) of this sort of mindless homophobia and sexism. It wasn't that long ago that it was hard to imagine someone in that world not only defending a gay athlete, but doing so swiftly and without any apparent fear of blowback from homophobic fans. But Barkley seems unconcerned about whiny homophobes, saying instead he wishes "the best" for Gordon. Barkley's right that the Westboro protesters, who picket soldiers' funerals because they are so hungry for attention, are terrible people. Ironically, however, it's this very terribleness that has helped get us to this point where a prominent figure like Barkley can be unequivocal in siding with a gay player like this. Whatever they are trying to accomplish, what the Westboro folks did was publicly and loudly and repeatedly tie anti-gay attitudes to a general hatefulness and disrespect for basic decency. Advertisement: Most anti-gay conservatives tried to keep their distance, but still, the Westboro people were always there, unvarnished in their loathing, stripping away the religious justifications and posturing to reveal the beating heart of hatred that fuels anti-gay attitudes. They are cartoonishly evil and easy to hate. And their mere existence makes the targets of their hatred — LGBTQ Americans — much easier to sympathize with. There's been a lot of writing in recent months, spurred by the Donald Trump campaign, about the decline in the power of the religious right. To be clear, the Christian right still basically runs the Republican Party and has been behind a powerful and successful movement to destroy reproductive rights. But now that power is under threat because, seemingly overnight, people have started caring a lot less what the fundamentalists think. Will Saletan at Slate reported on Tuesday that the Faith Angle Forum, which he has covered for years, was under a cloud of despair this year. "For them, Trump’s support among self-identified evangelicals is an embarrassment and a puzzle," he writes. Advertisement: They gave him many reasons they hate Trump — supposedly his hatefulness, misogyny, viciousness, etc. — but since those things never bothered them coming from, say, Ted Cruz, the likelier explanation for the anti-Trump sentiment among the movers and shakers of the religious right is that he's just not one of them. He may sign off on the standard-issue Republican opinions on abortion and gay rights, but you get the sense that he doesn't really care and would totally be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage tomorrow if he thought that's what would get him votes. That so many conservatives prefer him to someone who mimics piety more persuasively is a slap to the face. They want fealty from Republican voters, and instead they're getting a "yeah, yeah, abortion this gays that, let's hear more about this wall" reaction. But the religious right did this to themselves, by getting ever more extreme and power-hungry. No matter how much power they were given, fundamentalists wanted more, making increasingly extravagant demands and throwing fits when they didn't get their way. Advertisement: Witness what happened in Ohio this week in a little covered but interesting Republican primary for state Legislature. For years, anti-choice activist Janet Porter has been trying to pass a law that would functionally ban most abortions by setting the cut-off date too early in pregnancy for most women to get abortions. Her efforts have gone nowhere, and not because Republicans in the state have suddenly decided to stop hating women. Outright bans like Porter's are a waste of time, because they are so obviously in violation of Roe v. Wade that they get thrown right out in court. Instead, the current anti-choice strategy is to use feigned concern for women's "safety" to pass a bunch of medically unnecessary restrictions to make offering legal abortion impossible to do. This strategy, under the sexist hand of Gov. John Kasich, has been incredibly effective in wiping out legal abortion in the state, using regulatory schemes to shut down more abortion clinics than any other state but Texas. And all with very little of the backlash that might stop them from quietly disappearing all these clinics until there are none left. But that wasn't good enough for Porter. Frustrated at her inability to just get her outright ban on the books, Porter primaried Republican state Sen. Larry Obhof, claiming that he and other Republicans weren't doing enough to stop women from getting legal abortions. This was an asinine claim — as he himself noted, Obhof's voting record shows enough loathing for female sexuality to satisfy any misogynist — but Porter was nonetheless able to rack up a murderer's row of endorsements from religious right luminaries, including James Dobson and Mike Huckabee. Advertisement: In the end, though, putting all that Bible-beating weight behind a candidate for even such a small seat in a state Legislature didn't matter. Obhof won the primary on Tuesday. To be clear, this shouldn't be treated as some kind of great victory against the religious right, because Obhof is still expected to pay fealty to the sex police as the price of his seat. (Also, I think he wants to.) But the whole debacle shows a slight shift in the power structures on the right. Religious right fanatics don't get everything they want. There is such a thing as going too far. Even conservative Republicans are starting to get a little sick of it. We'll know for sure this summer how much of a backlash the anti-choice movement has created by going too far. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the oppressive Texas law restricting abortion then, and the sense that the right has just taken this too far might compel Justice Anthony Kennedy to rule against Texas, just to put a stop to the nonsense. But as these two stories show, there's already good reason to think the Christian right's hungry power grab and tendencies toward excess are hurting their image. And if you doubt that, ask Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who was supposed to be a noble martyr for the cause of Christians who don't want to "participate" in gay marriage, but instead became a laughingstock symbol for hate and bigotry. They may still have the Republican Party, but the religious right is losing the country.

www.salon.com

left

xTf0d3HUYOLLedCa

test

GMFNQdZACEajMONt

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/27/cruz-hotelier-caves-to-gaystapo-bullies/

Cruz Hotelier Caves to Big Gay McCarthy Hate Machine

2015-04-27

John Nolte

One of the two openly gay hoteliers who hosted Republican Senator Ted Cruz at a Manhattan event last week , has caved to the Gaystapo with the kind of sniveling , dishonest and humiliating apology demanded by the Gaystapo if you don ’ t want your life ruined . “ I am shaken to my bones by the emails , texts , postings and phone calls of the past few days . I made a terrible mistake , ” wrote Ian Reisner on his Facebook page over the weekend . Reisner went on to claim , quite ridiculously , that he was unaware of Cruz ’ s opposition to same sex marriage : I ’ ve spent the past 24 hours reviewing videos of Cruz ’ s statements on gay marriage and I am shocked and angry . I sincerely apologize for hurting the gay community and so many of our friends , family , allies , customers and employees . I will try my best to make up for my poor judgment . Again , I am deeply sorry . Reisner and his business partner , Mati Weiderpass , are prominent New York real estate developers and gay rights advocates . One of their hotels , OUT NYC , is famous for being gay-friendly . Instead of hating Cruz , the hoteliers decided last week to host an event with the Republican presidential hopeful to discuss , among other things , their common ground on the issue of Israel . Once news leaked of the event , The Big Gay McCarthy Hate Machine , that chooses which opinions are appropriate for the gay community , immediately began the evil work of destroying the lives of these two men . Boycotts against their businesses were quickly organized and hate campaigns were launched via social media . No one with a half a brain believes Reisner was unaware of Cruz ’ s personal opposition to same-sex marriage , or his political position in favor of allowing the states to determine the definition of marriage . What ’ s important to the Gaystapo is that Reisner was willing to grovel through such a ridiculous claim . Like many others before him , Reisner ’ s entire life and career was about to get the Khristallnacht treatment , and he caved . That ’ s what the Gaystapo wants ; for its targets to prove their fealty by humiliating themselves . Once The Big Gay McCarthy Hate Machine knows you are broken and no longer defiant , they take the pressure off . By terrorizing dissent and individual thought , followed by immediate relief once the target speaks the approved opinion , an important public example is set that warns other not to stray from the Thought Plantation .

One of the two openly gay hoteliers who hosted Republican Senator Ted Cruz at a Manhattan event last week, has caved to the Gaystapo with the kind of sniveling, dishonest and humiliating apology demanded by the Gaystapo if you don’t want your life ruined. “I am shaken to my bones by the emails, texts, postings and phone calls of the past few days. I made a terrible mistake,” wrote Ian Reisner on his Facebook page over the weekend. Reisner went on to claim, quite ridiculously, that he was unaware of Cruz’s opposition to same sex marriage: I’ve spent the past 24 hours reviewing videos of Cruz’s statements on gay marriage and I am shocked and angry. I sincerely apologize for hurting the gay community and so many of our friends, family, allies, customers and employees. I will try my best to make up for my poor judgment. Again, I am deeply sorry. Reisner and his business partner, Mati Weiderpass, are prominent New York real estate developers and gay rights advocates. One of their hotels, OUT NYC, is famous for being gay-friendly. Instead of hating Cruz, the hoteliers decided last week to host an event with the Republican presidential hopeful to discuss, among other things, their common ground on the issue of Israel. Once news leaked of the event, The Big Gay McCarthy Hate Machine, that chooses which opinions are appropriate for the gay community, immediately began the evil work of destroying the lives of these two men. Boycotts against their businesses were quickly organized and hate campaigns were launched via social media. No one with a half a brain believes Reisner was unaware of Cruz’s personal opposition to same-sex marriage, or his political position in favor of allowing the states to determine the definition of marriage. What’s important to the Gaystapo is that Reisner was willing to grovel through such a ridiculous claim. Like many others before him, Reisner’s entire life and career was about to get the Khristallnacht treatment, and he caved. That’s what the Gaystapo wants; for its targets to prove their fealty by humiliating themselves. Once The Big Gay McCarthy Hate Machine knows you are broken and no longer defiant, they take the pressure off. By terrorizing dissent and individual thought, followed by immediate relief once the target speaks the approved opinion, an important public example is set that warns other not to stray from the Thought Plantation. Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC

www.breitbart.com

right

GMFNQdZACEajMONt

test

xskKjJHIxsDIYF4q

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50003323

Ukraine's president says 'no blackmail' in Trump call

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said there was `` no blackmail '' in a phone call with Donald Trump that is at the heart of a possible attempt to remove the US president from office . `` This is not corruption , it was just a call , '' Mr Zelensky said on Thursday . The call prompted a whistleblower complaint and Democratic impeachment inquiry of the Republican president . Mr Trump denies withholding US aid while pressuring Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden . Impeachment is a process by which Congress can vote to oust a president - though it requires support from a majority of both chambers and as such , is currently thought unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled Senate . Speaking to reporters at a news conference in Kiev on Thursday , Mr Zelensky said of his 25 July call with Mr Trump : `` There was no blackmail . It was not the subject of our conversation . '' He said the purpose of the conversation was to arrange a meeting with Trump , and there were no `` conditions '' from the American side . Mr Zelensky also said he does not believe US-Ukraine relations will be affected by the impeachment inquiry . A rough transcript of the call released by the White House shows Mr Trump asked Mr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden , now a Democratic frontrunner for next year 's White House election . His son , Hunter Biden , landed a lucrative board position in 2014 with a Ukrainian gas firm , Burisma , that found itself under scrutiny from a former prosecutor general . As US vice-president Mr Biden , like other Western officials , put pressure on Ukraine in 2016 to have the prosecutor fired , citing corruption concerns . Mr Trump has said Mr Biden did so in order to derail the inquiry into Burisma . Ukrainian officials have said there is no evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens . The whistleblower who filed a complaint over the call said in a memo that a White House official who listened to the phone discussion described it as `` crazy '' and `` frightening '' , US media report . The official was `` visibly shaken by what had transpired '' in the call , the whistleblower reportedly wrote in the memo . On Wednesday a poll by Fox News , which is generally supportive of the president , found that 51 % of voters are in favour of impeaching Mr Trump and removing him from office . The results show 85 % of Democrats were in favour of impeachment , while 82 % of Republicans were against it . Mr Trump hit back at Fox 's poll results on Twitter , writing `` whoever their pollster is , they suck '' . Skip Twitter post by @ realDonaldTrump From the day I announced I was running for President , I have NEVER had a good @ FoxNews Poll . Whoever their Pollster is , they suck . But @ FoxNews is also much different than it used to be in the good old days . With people like Andrew Napolitano , who wanted to be a Supreme .... — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) October 10 , 2019 Report Later on Thursday , the president is hosting his first rally since the launch of the impeachment inquiry , in Minneapolis , Minnesota . Protests are expected against Mr Trump , who lost the state by a narrow margin to Hillary Clinton in 2016 . The whistleblower whose complaint fuelled the impeachment inquiry had a `` prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic contender '' and is a registered Democrat , a source familiar with the matter told CBS News on Thursday . The details of this working relationship or the candidate are unclear . Lawyers representing the anonymous whistleblower said in a statement their client `` has never worked for or advised a political candidate , campaign or party '' . They also noted that as a government employee , their client has interacted with candidates from both parties `` in their roles as elected officials - not as candidates '' . The whistleblower 's identity has remained a secret , though US media have reported he or she is a CIA officer .

Image copyright EPA Image caption Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has denied being blackmailed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said there was "no blackmail" in a phone call with Donald Trump that is at the heart of a possible attempt to remove the US president from office. "This is not corruption, it was just a call," Mr Zelensky said on Thursday. The call prompted a whistleblower complaint and Democratic impeachment inquiry of the Republican president. Mr Trump denies withholding US aid while pressuring Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden. Impeachment is a process by which Congress can vote to oust a president - though it requires support from a majority of both chambers and as such, is currently thought unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled Senate. Speaking to reporters at a news conference in Kiev on Thursday, Mr Zelensky said of his 25 July call with Mr Trump: "There was no blackmail. It was not the subject of our conversation." He said the purpose of the conversation was to arrange a meeting with Trump, and there were no "conditions" from the American side. Mr Zelensky also said he does not believe US-Ukraine relations will be affected by the impeachment inquiry. A rough transcript of the call released by the White House shows Mr Trump asked Mr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden, now a Democratic frontrunner for next year's White House election. His son, Hunter Biden, landed a lucrative board position in 2014 with a Ukrainian gas firm, Burisma, that found itself under scrutiny from a former prosecutor general. As US vice-president Mr Biden, like other Western officials, put pressure on Ukraine in 2016 to have the prosecutor fired, citing corruption concerns. Mr Trump has said Mr Biden did so in order to derail the inquiry into Burisma. Ukrainian officials have said there is no evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens. The whistleblower who filed a complaint over the call said in a memo that a White House official who listened to the phone discussion described it as "crazy" and "frightening", US media report. The official was "visibly shaken by what had transpired" in the call, the whistleblower reportedly wrote in the memo. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption What we know about Biden-Ukraine corruption claims On Wednesday a poll by Fox News, which is generally supportive of the president, found that 51% of voters are in favour of impeaching Mr Trump and removing him from office. The results show 85% of Democrats were in favour of impeachment, while 82% of Republicans were against it. Mr Trump hit back at Fox's poll results on Twitter, writing "whoever their pollster is, they suck". Skip Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump From the day I announced I was running for President, I have NEVER had a good @FoxNews Poll. Whoever their Pollster is, they suck. But @FoxNews is also much different than it used to be in the good old days. With people like Andrew Napolitano, who wanted to be a Supreme.... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 10, 2019 Report Later on Thursday, the president is hosting his first rally since the launch of the impeachment inquiry, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Protests are expected against Mr Trump, who lost the state by a narrow margin to Hillary Clinton in 2016. What do we know about the whistleblower? The whistleblower whose complaint fuelled the impeachment inquiry had a "prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic contender" and is a registered Democrat, a source familiar with the matter told CBS News on Thursday. The details of this working relationship or the candidate are unclear. Lawyers representing the anonymous whistleblower said in a statement their client "has never worked for or advised a political candidate, campaign or party". They also noted that as a government employee, their client has interacted with candidates from both parties "in their roles as elected officials - not as candidates". The whistleblower's identity has remained a secret, though US media have reported he or she is a CIA officer.

www.bbc.com

center

xskKjJHIxsDIYF4q

test

n3K2b4nQSAcUXZ7f

labor

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/380b07b9292ea7ae4d382f091d99bf10

Many small businesses say loans won’t get them to rehire

2020-04-22

Christopher Rugaber

In this Tuesday April 21 , 2020 photograph , Laury Hammel , CEO and founder of the Longfellow Health Clubs and the Salt Lake Tennis and Health Club , poses at the Wayland , Mass . facility , closed due state COVID-19 restrictions . Small businesses , who get government relief money are expected to rehire workers , are unsure when the business will reopen and how it will operate . ( AP Photo/Charles Krupa ) In this Tuesday April 21 , 2020 photograph , Laury Hammel , CEO and founder of the Longfellow Health Clubs and the Salt Lake Tennis and Health Club , poses at the Wayland , Mass . facility , closed due state COVID-19 restrictions . Small businesses , who get government relief money are expected to rehire workers , are unsure when the business will reopen and how it will operate . ( AP Photo/Charles Krupa ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — Some small businesses that obtained a highly-coveted government loan say they won ’ t be able to use it to bring all their laid-off workers back , even though that is what the program was designed to do . The Paycheck Protection Program promises a business owner loan forgiveness if they retain or rehire all the workers they had in late February . But owners say the equation isn ’ t so simple , in part because of current economic conditions and partly due to the terms of the loans . As a result , the lending may not reduce unemployment as much as the Trump administration and Congress hope . The government ’ s $ 2 trillion relief package included $ 349 billion for the small business loan program , which was besieged with applications and ran out of money Thursday . Congress and the White House reached a deal Tuesday that would provide another $ 310 billion . To get the loans forgiven , companies need to spend 75 % on payroll within eight weeks of receiving the money . The other 25 % can be spent on rent , utilities , and mortgage payments . Otherwise , the loan has generous terms : Only a 1 % interest rate and six months before any principal is due . Many of the small companies that were able to obtain a loan are having second thoughts about rehiring all their workers and a few plan to return the money . Others will use what they can on rent and utilities , and will use some to rehire a portion of their laid-off staff . But most are unsure they will be able to reopen eight weeks from now . They see little point in rehiring all their workers , paying them to do little or nothing , and then potentially laying them off again if business remains weak two months from now . “ You ’ re turning the business into a pass through for the federal government , ” said Joe Walsh , who owns Clean Green Maine , a cleaning service in Portland , Maine with 35 employees . “ You ’ re doing very little to actually help the business . ” It ’ s unclear how much the small business lending program can hold back the surge in joblessness — a record 22 million people sought unemployment aid in the past month . Most economists forecast the unemployment rate will reach between 15 % and 20 % when the monthly jobs report is released in early May . More money is clearly needed : Roughly 1.6 million small companies were able to obtain loans , the Small Business Administration said , out of at least 6 million that were likely eligible , according to Census data . Bank of America economists estimate that another $ 650 billion would be necessary to meet demand . Also , the generous unemployment aid that was also included in the government ’ s relief package has made it more difficult to rehire . Many workers are making more with unemployment checks , which now include a $ 600 weekly benefit from the federal government . Walsh , who received a $ 280,000 loan from the SBA , said that he is reluctant to push his employees to return to work because , under unemployment benefit rules , they could lose their weekly checks if they turn down potential jobs . “ That ’ s just putting me as the employer in a really difficult position , ” Walsh said . He pays at least $ 17 an hour , with benefits , but his former employees are getting the equivalent of roughly $ 25 an hour from unemployment . Right now , Walsh ’ s business is closed due to lack of demand for cleaning services . He hopes to reopen soon and bring back some workers , retrain them on new sanitizing processes , and earn a bit of revenue . Still , he doubts his business will be anywhere close to what it was anytime soon , which means his workforce won ’ t be either . “ There ’ s no way that I ’ m getting to 100 % employment by the end of 8 weeks , ” he said . The National Federation for Independent Business , a small business advocacy group , is pushing the government to make it easier for loans to be forgiven . The group wants the SBA to eliminate the requirement that 75 % be spent on payroll , or at least reduce it to 50 % . It also wants the rehiring window extended beyond eight weeks and is pushing for a “ good faith ” provision that would credit companies for trying to rehire workers who prefer unemployment aid instead . The NFIB also asked that half the next round of funding be reserved for businesses with fewer than 20 employees , to counter complaints that many large , publicly-traded companies obtained loans in the first round . The agreement reached late Tuesday did not make that change but directed some funds to smaller banks . According to a survey of its members , the NFIB said that just half of those who have applied for loans expect that they will rehire all their workers and get the entire amount forgiven . A quarter expect that at least three-quarters of the loan will be forgiven , while 15 % didn ’ t know . The American Sustainable Business Council and several other small business groups are pushing to have the starting date for rehiring shifted from the date a company received a loan to the date it can legally reopen . Many restaurants , gyms , and movie theaters have been shut down by the state . Adam Rammel received a $ 160,000 loan for his restaurant and bar in Bellefontaine , Ohio , near Columbus , though he ’ s uncertain about how many of his 17 laid-off staffers he will be able to rehire and when . Even when Ohio ends its restaurant shutdown , Rammel expects to face restrictions on how many people his place , Brewfontaine , can have on the premises . “ We have a small restaurant — we usually pack 90 to 100 in and they ’ re on top of each other . If everyone has to be six feet apart , with 40 or 45 ( customers ) we can ’ t pay the bills , ” Rammel said . He expects to bring his employees back slowly . Accounting firm Isdaner & Co. , based near Philadelphia , said in a client note that “ some employers will decide not to sign their loan agreement because their business is essentially closed and choose not to pay their employees for not working . ” Laury Hammel owns six gyms in Massachusetts , New Hampshire and Salt Lake City and employs about 480 workers . He doubts he will be able to reopen his Massachusetts locations within eight weeks , so rehiring workers now would simply force him to lay them all off again . And he ’ d be left with no money to pay them when he eventually does re-open . Hammel is using some of the loan he received to pay for his former workers ’ health care coverage , which can be forgiven . If he doesn ’ t use 75 % on rehiring his employees , he may accept the rest as a loan . His bank doesn ’ t want to carry the loan , however , so he may try and return the money . “ The process leaves ( small businesses ) cash-poor at the time when they have to re-open , ” Hammel said . “ Me having the money and paying people to not come to work doesn ’ t help my business one iota . ”

In this Tuesday April 21, 2020 photograph, Laury Hammel, CEO and founder of the Longfellow Health Clubs and the Salt Lake Tennis and Health Club, poses at the Wayland, Mass. facility, closed due state COVID-19 restrictions. Small businesses, who get government relief money are expected to rehire workers, are unsure when the business will reopen and how it will operate. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa) In this Tuesday April 21, 2020 photograph, Laury Hammel, CEO and founder of the Longfellow Health Clubs and the Salt Lake Tennis and Health Club, poses at the Wayland, Mass. facility, closed due state COVID-19 restrictions. Small businesses, who get government relief money are expected to rehire workers, are unsure when the business will reopen and how it will operate. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa) WASHINGTON (AP) — Some small businesses that obtained a highly-coveted government loan say they won’t be able to use it to bring all their laid-off workers back, even though that is what the program was designed to do. The Paycheck Protection Program promises a business owner loan forgiveness if they retain or rehire all the workers they had in late February. But owners say the equation isn’t so simple, in part because of current economic conditions and partly due to the terms of the loans. As a result, the lending may not reduce unemployment as much as the Trump administration and Congress hope. The government’s $2 trillion relief package included $349 billion for the small business loan program, which was besieged with applications and ran out of money Thursday . Congress and the White House reached a deal Tuesday that would provide another $310 billion. To get the loans forgiven, companies need to spend 75% on payroll within eight weeks of receiving the money. The other 25% can be spent on rent, utilities, and mortgage payments. Otherwise, the loan has generous terms: Only a 1% interest rate and six months before any principal is due. Many of the small companies that were able to obtain a loan are having second thoughts about rehiring all their workers and a few plan to return the money. Others will use what they can on rent and utilities, and will use some to rehire a portion of their laid-off staff. But most are unsure they will be able to reopen eight weeks from now. They see little point in rehiring all their workers, paying them to do little or nothing, and then potentially laying them off again if business remains weak two months from now. “You’re turning the business into a pass through for the federal government,” said Joe Walsh, who owns Clean Green Maine, a cleaning service in Portland, Maine with 35 employees. “You’re doing very little to actually help the business.” It’s unclear how much the small business lending program can hold back the surge in joblessness — a record 22 million people sought unemployment aid in the past month. Most economists forecast the unemployment rate will reach between 15% and 20% when the monthly jobs report is released in early May. More money is clearly needed: Roughly 1.6 million small companies were able to obtain loans, the Small Business Administration said, out of at least 6 million that were likely eligible, according to Census data. Bank of America economists estimate that another $650 billion would be necessary to meet demand. Also, the generous unemployment aid that was also included in the government’s relief package has made it more difficult to rehire. Many workers are making more with unemployment checks, which now include a $600 weekly benefit from the federal government. Walsh, who received a $280,000 loan from the SBA, said that he is reluctant to push his employees to return to work because, under unemployment benefit rules, they could lose their weekly checks if they turn down potential jobs. “That’s just putting me as the employer in a really difficult position,” Walsh said. He pays at least $17 an hour, with benefits, but his former employees are getting the equivalent of roughly $25 an hour from unemployment. Right now, Walsh’s business is closed due to lack of demand for cleaning services. He hopes to reopen soon and bring back some workers, retrain them on new sanitizing processes, and earn a bit of revenue. Still, he doubts his business will be anywhere close to what it was anytime soon, which means his workforce won’t be either. “There’s no way that I’m getting to 100% employment by the end of 8 weeks,” he said. The National Federation for Independent Business, a small business advocacy group, is pushing the government to make it easier for loans to be forgiven. The group wants the SBA to eliminate the requirement that 75% be spent on payroll, or at least reduce it to 50%. It also wants the rehiring window extended beyond eight weeks and is pushing for a “good faith” provision that would credit companies for trying to rehire workers who prefer unemployment aid instead. The NFIB also asked that half the next round of funding be reserved for businesses with fewer than 20 employees, to counter complaints that many large, publicly-traded companies obtained loans in the first round. The agreement reached late Tuesday did not make that change but directed some funds to smaller banks. According to a survey of its members, the NFIB said that just half of those who have applied for loans expect that they will rehire all their workers and get the entire amount forgiven. A quarter expect that at least three-quarters of the loan will be forgiven, while 15% didn’t know. The American Sustainable Business Council and several other small business groups are pushing to have the starting date for rehiring shifted from the date a company received a loan to the date it can legally reopen. Many restaurants, gyms, and movie theaters have been shut down by the state. Adam Rammel received a $160,000 loan for his restaurant and bar in Bellefontaine, Ohio, near Columbus, though he’s uncertain about how many of his 17 laid-off staffers he will be able to rehire and when. Even when Ohio ends its restaurant shutdown, Rammel expects to face restrictions on how many people his place, Brewfontaine, can have on the premises. “We have a small restaurant — we usually pack 90 to 100 in and they’re on top of each other. If everyone has to be six feet apart, with 40 or 45 (customers) we can’t pay the bills,” Rammel said. He expects to bring his employees back slowly. Accounting firm Isdaner & Co., based near Philadelphia, said in a client note that “some employers will decide not to sign their loan agreement because their business is essentially closed and choose not to pay their employees for not working.” Laury Hammel owns six gyms in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Salt Lake City and employs about 480 workers. He doubts he will be able to reopen his Massachusetts locations within eight weeks, so rehiring workers now would simply force him to lay them all off again. And he’d be left with no money to pay them when he eventually does re-open. Hammel is using some of the loan he received to pay for his former workers’ health care coverage, which can be forgiven. If he doesn’t use 75% on rehiring his employees, he may accept the rest as a loan. His bank doesn’t want to carry the loan, however, so he may try and return the money. “The process leaves (small businesses) cash-poor at the time when they have to re-open,” Hammel said. “Me having the money and paying people to not come to work doesn’t help my business one iota.” ___ AP Business Writer Joyce M. Rosenberg in New York City contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

n3K2b4nQSAcUXZ7f

test

oQiwfLhsZG3r7oET

fbi

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2015/December/Security-vs-Privacy-When-Jihad-and-Encryption-Meet

Security vs Privacy: When Jihad and Encryption Meet

2015-12-11

In the wake of the recent terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino , California , the FBI is warning that ISIS is using encryption technology to outsmart law enforcement . It 's a problem authorities encountered earlier this year when they found they were unable to decrypt more than 100 messages sent by one of the terrorists who attacked a Texas cartoon exhibit . The FBI says the government needs a way to access these encrypted communications – and companies need to help . `` Lots of good people have designed their systems and their devices so that a judge 's order can not be complied with for reasons I understand . I 'm not questioning their motivation , '' FBI Director James Comey said . But Comey told lawmakers this week that many companies have figured out how to provide secure services to their customers and still comply with court orders . He insisted the government does not want a `` back door '' but asked the tech world to create a solution . `` The question we have to ask is – should they change their business model ? That is a very , very hard question , lots of implications to that . We have to wrestle with it because of what 's at stake , '' he said . Privacy advocates and industry groups have plenty of concerns about weakening encryption . One practical issue : a tech company could inadvertently turn over innocent citizens ' communications . The government is mounting pressure on social media companies to be looking out for terrorist propaganda . But civil liberties experts say -- watch out . Censoring or monitoring content at the government 's request becomes a slippery slope , as well as determining the difference between political speech and terrorism . The government is also scrambling to keep up with the Islamic State 's sophisticated use of technology in other areas . ABC News reports ISIS can now produce fake passports using a passport machine likely captured in Syria . Additionally , a hacker collective called the Ghost Security Group says ISIS has developed its own smartphone app , which reportedly features the latest ISIS executions and battlefield victories . The terrorists have also been heavily using social media accounts . It all shows that ISIS is extremely adept at using online technology for recruiting , which means it could become more capable of radicalizing more people and carrying out more deadly attacks .

In the wake of the recent terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California, the FBI is warning that ISIS is using encryption technology to outsmart law enforcement. It's a problem authorities encountered earlier this year when they found they were unable to decrypt more than 100 messages sent by one of the terrorists who attacked a Texas cartoon exhibit. The FBI says the government needs a way to access these encrypted communications – and companies need to help. "Lots of good people have designed their systems and their devices so that a judge's order cannot be complied with for reasons I understand. I'm not questioning their motivation," FBI Director James Comey said. But Comey told lawmakers this week that many companies have figured out how to provide secure services to their customers and still comply with court orders. He insisted the government does not want a "back door" but asked the tech world to create a solution. "The question we have to ask is – should they change their business model? That is a very, very hard question, lots of implications to that. We have to wrestle with it because of what's at stake," he said. Privacy advocates and industry groups have plenty of concerns about weakening encryption. One practical issue: a tech company could inadvertently turn over innocent citizens' communications. The government is mounting pressure on social media companies to be looking out for terrorist propaganda. But civil liberties experts say-- watch out. Censoring or monitoring content at the government's request becomes a slippery slope, as well as determining the difference between political speech and terrorism. The government is also scrambling to keep up with the Islamic State's sophisticated use of technology in other areas. ABC News reports ISIS can now produce fake passports using a passport machine likely captured in Syria. Additionally, a hacker collective called the Ghost Security Group says ISIS has developed its own smartphone app, which reportedly features the latest ISIS executions and battlefield victories. The terrorists have also been heavily using social media accounts. It all shows that ISIS is extremely adept at using online technology for recruiting, which means it could become more capable of radicalizing more people and carrying out more deadly attacks.

www1.cbn.com

right

oQiwfLhsZG3r7oET

test

oWRUsKtD2TTECdDI

federal_budget

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/80e3a6eb9a20ffa8f31c02c0529cb53b

Esper defends shifting defense funds for Trump’s border wall

2020-02-14

Robert Burns

U.S. Secretary for Defense Mark Esper speaks during a press conference on the first day of the Munich Security Conference in Munich , Germany , Friday , Feb. 14 , 2020 . ( AP Photo/Jens Meyer ) b U.S. Secretary for Defense Mark Esper speaks during a press conference on the first day of the Munich Security Conference in Munich , Germany , Friday , Feb. 14 , 2020 . ( AP Photo/Jens Meyer ) b MUNICH , Germany ( AP ) — U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper on Friday defended his decision to divert billions of dollars in funding for Navy and Air Force aircraft and other military programs to help pay for President Donald Trump ’ s promised wall on the U.S.-Mexico border . Esper was asked by a reporter about criticism from Democrats and Republicans in Congress , including Rep. Mac Thornberry , a Republican from Texas , who called the diversion of funds contrary to the constitutional authority of Congress . “ Border security is national security , ” Esper said , “ and national security is our mission . ” He added , “ The action we took is legal under the law , and so it should be no surprise , and I ’ ll just leave it at that for now . ” Esper spoke on the sidelines of an international security conference in Munich . The Pentagon announced on Thursday that Esper approved shifting $ 3.8 billion in funds that Congress had previously authorized for F-35 fighter aircraft and other military programs . The money is being diverted to help the Department of Homeland Security build portions of the border wall . The Pentagon indicated that more such actions could be coming to provide additional funding for Trump ’ s signature campaign promise . The action drew sharp rebukes from Democrats as well as Republicans . “ Today ’ s reprogramming request confirms once again that the President is obsessed with fulfilling a campaign promise at the expense of our national security , ” Rep. Adam Smith of Washington , the Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee , said in a statement . “ This administration has already stolen billions from the Department of Defense in order to begin building the president ’ s vanity wall and today they are doubling down on bad policy . ” Last year , despite congressional opposition , Trump faced no consequences when making similar transfers by cancelling or postponing dozens of military construction projects to free up $ 3.6 billion . In reaction to Thursday ’ s Pentagon announcement , Thornberry , the top Republican on the committee and a supporter of wall construction , said that while the administration ’ s constitutional role is to recommend how tax dollars are spent , final choices are made by Congress . “ Once those choices have been made , the Department of Defense can not change them in pursuit of their own priorities without the approval of Congress , ” he said . “ Attempts to do so undermines the principle of civilian control of the military and is in violation of the separation of powers within the Constitution . The re-programming announced today is contrary to Congress ’ constitutional authority , and I believe that it requires Congress to take action . ” Trump , while campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 , repeatedly promised that Mexico would pay for the wall , but Mexico refused .

U.S. Secretary for Defense Mark Esper speaks during a press conference on the first day of the Munich Security Conference in Munich, Germany, Friday, Feb. 14, 2020. (AP Photo/Jens Meyer)b U.S. Secretary for Defense Mark Esper speaks during a press conference on the first day of the Munich Security Conference in Munich, Germany, Friday, Feb. 14, 2020. (AP Photo/Jens Meyer)b MUNICH, Germany (AP) — U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper on Friday defended his decision to divert billions of dollars in funding for Navy and Air Force aircraft and other military programs to help pay for President Donald Trump’s promised wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Esper was asked by a reporter about criticism from Democrats and Republicans in Congress, including Rep. Mac Thornberry, a Republican from Texas, who called the diversion of funds contrary to the constitutional authority of Congress. “Border security is national security,” Esper said, “and national security is our mission.” He added, “The action we took is legal under the law, and so it should be no surprise, and I’ll just leave it at that for now.” Esper spoke on the sidelines of an international security conference in Munich. The Pentagon announced on Thursday that Esper approved shifting $3.8 billion in funds that Congress had previously authorized for F-35 fighter aircraft and other military programs. The money is being diverted to help the Department of Homeland Security build portions of the border wall. The Pentagon indicated that more such actions could be coming to provide additional funding for Trump’s signature campaign promise. The action drew sharp rebukes from Democrats as well as Republicans. “Today’s reprogramming request confirms once again that the President is obsessed with fulfilling a campaign promise at the expense of our national security,” Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement. “This administration has already stolen billions from the Department of Defense in order to begin building the president’s vanity wall and today they are doubling down on bad policy.” Last year, despite congressional opposition, Trump faced no consequences when making similar transfers by cancelling or postponing dozens of military construction projects to free up $3.6 billion . In reaction to Thursday’s Pentagon announcement, Thornberry, the top Republican on the committee and a supporter of wall construction, said that while the administration’s constitutional role is to recommend how tax dollars are spent, final choices are made by Congress. “Once those choices have been made, the Department of Defense cannot change them in pursuit of their own priorities without the approval of Congress,” he said. “Attempts to do so undermines the principle of civilian control of the military and is in violation of the separation of powers within the Constitution. The re-programming announced today is contrary to Congress’ constitutional authority, and I believe that it requires Congress to take action.” Trump, while campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, repeatedly promised that Mexico would pay for the wall , but Mexico refused.

www.apnews.com

center

oWRUsKtD2TTECdDI

test

Jg6Dvdr4KeQhRJB4

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-biden/biden-mulling-white-house-run-seeks-to-stem-fallout-from-womens-complaints-idUSKCN1RF2II

Biden, mulling White House run, seeks to stem fallout from women's complaints

2019-04-05

James Oliphant

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden attempted on Wednesday to tamp down a controversy over allegations of unwanted physical contact with women , releasing a video in which he pledged to be “ more mindful ” of respecting “ personal space . ” The move marked the most extensive and personal effort yet by Biden to quell the furor ahead of a likely bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination . An announcement is expected later this month . In recent days , four women have said Biden made them feel uncomfortable when he touched them at political events in past years . “ The boundaries of protecting personal space have been reset and I get it . I get it . I hear what they ’ re saying , ” Biden said in the two-minute video posted on Twitter . “ I will be much more mindful , and that ’ s my responsibility , ” he said . “ I ’ ve worked my whole life to empower women . I ’ ve worked my whole life to prevent abuse . ” After a former Nevada politician , Lucy Flores , said last week that Biden made her feel “ uneasy , gross , and confused ” when he kissed the back of her head at a 2014 campaign event , Biden released a statement saying he believed he never acted inappropriately during his many years in public life . Three more women followed suit with similar complaints . Biden ’ s political team has tried to contain the damage , encouraging women who have known him to come forward with positive accounts of their interactions with him . Flores could not immediately be reached for comment on Wednesday . She supported U.S . Senator Bernie Sanders during his 2016 Democratic presidential campaign . Sanders is running again , and his campaign has denied any involvement in her going public with her story . There was no immediate response to Biden ’ s statement from leading Democratic contenders . U.S . Senators Kirsten Gillibrand , Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren and former congressman Beto O ’ Rourke , among others , have expressed sympathy for Biden ’ s accusers and have said they deserve to be heard . President Donald Trump poked fun at Biden on Tuesday over the allegations . On Wednesday , the Republican president , who during his 2016 campaign faced multiple accusations from women of unwanted sexual contact , wished his potential rival luck , saying it was up to Biden to decide if he should apologize . Biden , 76 , has long been known for a warm and intimate campaign style . He served eight years as vice president under Democratic President Barack Obama after 36 years as a U.S. senator from Delaware . But his propensity for hugging and physical touching has come under new scrutiny in the era of # MeToo and # TimesUp as awareness about sexual assault and harassment has grown and damaged the careers of dozens of men in politics and entertainment accused of sexual misconduct . Sources close to Biden told ███ that preparations for a run had not been slowed by the controversy . “ I don ’ t think there is anything to change the work we are doing , ” one source connected to the putative campaign said . Another source who has been in contact with Biden ’ s team said the flap over his personal conduct had been anticipated . Both sources asked not to be named in order to speak freely about the campaign . A top Biden donor , New York attorney James Kreindler , said his support of Biden had been unshaken by the controversy . Dick Harpootlian , a prominent lawyer in Democratic Party circles in South Carolina , added he did not think it would harm Biden ’ s bid . Public opinion polls have consistently shown Biden to be atop the 2020 field , which features more than a dozen candidates . There is yet to be any evidence that he has suffered lasting political damage from the accusations . Tracy Sefl , a Democratic strategist in Chicago and former adviser to Hillary Clinton ’ s presidential campaign , said Biden ’ s supporters were largely familiar with his public persona and unlikely to desert him over the issue . The challenge for Biden if he does mount a run , Sefl said , was to appeal to voters who may be more skeptical about his behavior . She suggested he place women in high-profile roles within his campaign as one way to send a signal he is adapting to the times . She also encouraged him to talk about his work supporting causes such as the Violence Against Women Act , which Biden sponsored while in the Senate . She recalled witnessing Biden speaking in support of the legislation as vice president . “ He was as emotional as any woman in that room , ” Sefl said . “ I want to see that should he be a candidate . ”

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden attempted on Wednesday to tamp down a controversy over allegations of unwanted physical contact with women, releasing a video in which he pledged to be “more mindful” of respecting “personal space.” The move marked the most extensive and personal effort yet by Biden to quell the furor ahead of a likely bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. An announcement is expected later this month. In recent days, four women have said Biden made them feel uncomfortable when he touched them at political events in past years. “The boundaries of protecting personal space have been reset and I get it. I get it. I hear what they’re saying,” Biden said in the two-minute video posted on Twitter. “I will be much more mindful, and that’s my responsibility,” he said. “I’ve worked my whole life to empower women. I’ve worked my whole life to prevent abuse.” After a former Nevada politician, Lucy Flores, said last week that Biden made her feel “uneasy, gross, and confused” when he kissed the back of her head at a 2014 campaign event, Biden released a statement saying he believed he never acted inappropriately during his many years in public life. Three more women followed suit with similar complaints. Biden’s political team has tried to contain the damage, encouraging women who have known him to come forward with positive accounts of their interactions with him. Flores could not immediately be reached for comment on Wednesday. She supported U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders during his 2016 Democratic presidential campaign. Sanders is running again, and his campaign has denied any involvement in her going public with her story. There was no immediate response to Biden’s statement from leading Democratic contenders. U.S. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren and former congressman Beto O’Rourke, among others, have expressed sympathy for Biden’s accusers and have said they deserve to be heard. President Donald Trump poked fun at Biden on Tuesday over the allegations. On Wednesday, the Republican president, who during his 2016 campaign faced multiple accusations from women of unwanted sexual contact, wished his potential rival luck, saying it was up to Biden to decide if he should apologize. FILE PHOTO: Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden speaks at the United States Conference of Mayors winter meeting in Washington, U.S., January 24, 2019. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas/File Photo Biden, 76, has long been known for a warm and intimate campaign style. He served eight years as vice president under Democratic President Barack Obama after 36 years as a U.S. senator from Delaware. But his propensity for hugging and physical touching has come under new scrutiny in the era of #MeToo and #TimesUp as awareness about sexual assault and harassment has grown and damaged the careers of dozens of men in politics and entertainment accused of sexual misconduct. CAMPAIGN PREPARATIONS Sources close to Biden told Reuters that preparations for a run had not been slowed by the controversy. “I don’t think there is anything to change the work we are doing,” one source connected to the putative campaign said. Another source who has been in contact with Biden’s team said the flap over his personal conduct had been anticipated. Both sources asked not to be named in order to speak freely about the campaign. A top Biden donor, New York attorney James Kreindler, said his support of Biden had been unshaken by the controversy. Dick Harpootlian, a prominent lawyer in Democratic Party circles in South Carolina, added he did not think it would harm Biden’s bid. Public opinion polls have consistently shown Biden to be atop the 2020 field, which features more than a dozen candidates. There is yet to be any evidence that he has suffered lasting political damage from the accusations. Tracy Sefl, a Democratic strategist in Chicago and former adviser to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, said Biden’s supporters were largely familiar with his public persona and unlikely to desert him over the issue. The challenge for Biden if he does mount a run, Sefl said, was to appeal to voters who may be more skeptical about his behavior. She suggested he place women in high-profile roles within his campaign as one way to send a signal he is adapting to the times. Slideshow (2 Images) She also encouraged him to talk about his work supporting causes such as the Violence Against Women Act, which Biden sponsored while in the Senate. She recalled witnessing Biden speaking in support of the legislation as vice president. “He was as emotional as any woman in that room,” Sefl said. “I want to see that should he be a candidate.”

www.reuters.com

center

Jg6Dvdr4KeQhRJB4

test

Sf6N4QD5k7AT3Ll5

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/05/rick_perlstein_presents_ronald_reagan_exorcist/

The right’s horrifying edge: History shows surprising pattern about its demise

2014-08-05

Joan Walsh

Rick Perlstein ’ s three-part history of modern American politics has been one long cautionary tale about liberals writing off the right . “ Before the Storm , ” his extraordinary account of the rise of Barry Goldwater , opened with New York Times columnist James Reston writing Goldwater ’ s political obituary , after the GOP ’ s 1964 humiliation by Lyndon Johnson . “ He has wrecked his party for a long time to come and is not even likely to control the wreckage. ” Four years later , of course , Republicans took back the White House , and thanks to the fire on the right Goldwater ignited , they held it for 20 of the next 24 years . “ The Invisible Bridge : The Fall of Nixon and the Rise of Reagan ” ends much the way “ Before the Storm ” began : with the Times writing the last chapter of Ronald Reagan ’ s career – in 1976 , after he lost the GOP nomination to Gerald Ford . “ At sixty-five years of age , ” Reagan was “ too old to consider seriously another run at the Presidency , ” the paper editorialized . We know how that story really ended . I always think of Perlstein when I ’ m tempted to predict the coming end of the GOP , when I ’ m sure demography will doom it , or when I believe its Tea Party fringe has done something so awful and destructive that this time , the American people will finally rise up , and send the haters and the know-nothings and the fear-mongers packing . Like , let ’ s say , Sen. Ted Cruz cynically blowing up the possibility of a House GOP border-crisis bill . That ’ s got ta wake people up , right ? But liberals like me have waited for that great rising up day many times in history , and just as it seems ready to arrive , the right rises up again , instead . People like me thought Goldwater , Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were too extreme and divisive to lead their parties , let alone the nation , and Perlstein lives to show us in cringe-making detail how wrong we were . Read “ The Invisible Bridge , ” and you won ’ t be able to write off the idea of President Ted Cruz entirely . ( I do nonetheless , but not blithely . ) Perlstein ’ s new book picks up where “ Nixonland ” left off . Having fractured the New Deal coalition and won over white working-class voters on issues of race , culture and the Vietnam War , to achieve a landslide over George McGovern , the president is inaugurated a second time – and just four days later , he announces an end to the war . He calls it “ peace with honor , ” but deep down , Americans knew we ’ d lost . Then things really fall apart . Then the Watergate crisis escalates , an unthinkable Arab oil embargo escalates an energy crisis , and even meat prices skyrocket , leading to the shame of a once-great nation forced to eat organ meats . “ Liver , kidney , brains and heart can be made into gourmet meals with seasoning , imagination and more cooking time , ” Nixon ’ s consumer adviser told anxious housewives . A horrified nation learns that the president talks like a mafia don and will seemingly do and say anything to keep his job . When he resigns , Americans have a choice : face up to the nation ’ s shortcomings that have been revealed so cruelly , and embrace `` a new definition of patriotism , one built upon questioning authority and unsettling ossified norms , '' in Perlstein ’ s words – or run away . They ran away , led by Ronald Reagan . “ Invisible Bridge ” captures the genius of Reagan and his impeccable timing , coming after Nixon : He refuted the cynicism that Watergate inspired about America , while capitalizing on the cynicism it fostered about government . Perlstein makes a lot of the country ’ s fascination with the horror movie “ The Exorcist ” in the winter of 1974 , as Watergate revelations unfurled . In it , Ellen Burstyn ’ s secular Georgetown career lady finds that her 12-year-old daughter has been possessed by a masturbating demon who swears like Richard Nixon . Her name is Regan , one of those androgynous names suddenly in vogue in the gender-bending ‘ 70s ( which also , weirdly , sounds a lot like the name of the 40th president ) . Burstyn turns to a priest for help : “ I ’ m telling you that thing upstairs isn ’ t my daughter ! ” she cries , echoing lots of parents of daughters in that era . Once exorcised , a calm young Regan wears a lovely coat of red , white and blue . “ She doesn ’ t remember any of it , ” her relieved mother tells a friend . Perlstein doesn ’ t go on to make the obvious point , but I will : Ronald Reagan was the country ’ s exorcist , driving out the demons of suspicion and self-doubt ( while also taming unruly daughters ) , so the pure , innocent country could reemerge from the humiliations of Vietnam and Watergate and thrive again . We wouldn ’ t remember any of it . Or so many hoped . While pundits and even some party elders , including Barry Goldwater , insisted Republicans must cut Nixon loose , Reagan supported him to the end . He shamelessly appropriated civil rights language along the way : Nixon ’ s congressional inquisitors were “ night riders ” out for a “ lynching. ” When a spending cap ballot measure he backed fails in California , Reagan compares himself to Rev . Martin Luther King Jr. What if King had given up on his dreams after a few disappointments ? Well , Reagan won ’ t give up either . Over and over , the media underestimates him . As Reagan leaves the governor ’ s office in Sacramento in 1974 ( the office reporters hadn ’ t expected him to win eight years earlier ) , Joseph Kraft declares “ the end of backlash politics. ” The rise of liberal Jerry Brown meant “ Reaganism has had it , ” Kraft wrote . Politicians on both sides were giving up the angry politics of George Wallace and , yes , Reagan . It was a tough time to be a Republican generally . Reince Priebus thinks he ’ s got a hard job : In the wake of Watergate , only 18 percent of the country identified as Republican , and the party resorted to buying airtime for a television special gamely titled “ Republicans are people , too. ” As they did after the Goldwater defeat , pundits and establishment Republicans insisted that moderation and tolerance were the key to a GOP revival , but Reagan disagreed , and he was proven right . Perlstein shows how the divorced Hollywood playboy became the unlikely tribune of family values . The man who set back the women ’ s movement might have been motivated by payback : He had suffered as “ Jane Wyman ’ s husband , ” playing a supporting role to her rising star . Left by Wyman , he beds everyone he can , then he takes up with Nancy Davis , and adopts her father ’ s far-right politics . Their daughter Patti was conceived before they were married . Yet this was the man who was able to unite evangelical Protestants and blue-collar Catholics who were in revolt against the pro-choice , pro-ERA , pro-busing , anti-family elites . A new outfit called the Heritage Foundation hired some folks to work with parents rebelling against the inclusion of “ liberal ” books in West Virginia ’ s curriculum . Their job was “ finding little clusters of Evangelical , fundamentalist Mom ’ s groups ” and helping them grow . Conservatives would have called them “ outside agitators ” if they ’ d been on the other side . Up in Boston , some Irish Catholic “ Moms ” became the public face of the backlash against busing , and the two groups of moms begin to make common cause : The women of South Boston ’ s ROAR , Restore Our Alienated Rights , turn up to protest a pro-ERA hearing at Faneuil Hall and take it over . The building of this unlikely New Right coalition mostly goes unnoticed by media and the Republican establishment . As primary season began in 1976 , President Ford ’ s forces were blindsided by the “ unexpected Reagan success in certain caucus states , ” one internal memo reported . Reagan was turning out voters who were “ unknown and have not been involved in the Republican political system before ” and seemed “ alienated from both parties . ” If Reagan is the man who sold us the “ invisible bridge ” of the title , Ford represented the visible bridge to our post-Watergate , post-Vietnam future -- and he all but collapsed . After Nixon resigns , Ford enjoys a brief honeymoon ; the media tell us that he made his own English muffins . He ’ s a kindly '50s sitcom dad with a pipe , but he has a wife perfect for the '70s – Betty Ford could have been a friend of Maude or Mary Tyler Moore . It might have worked : A bridge needs a landing on both sides of the divide . But Nixon left Ford holding the bag – the truth about lies and loss in Vietnam , the criminality of Watergate and the CIA/FBI scandals that preceded it , the quick fall of Saigon ; an energy crisis , an inflation crisis , and a backlash against feminism and liberalism as embodied by his own wife , the abortion- and ERA-supporting Betty , who was popular with the country , but not so much with the right . The highlights of Perlstein ’ s chapters on the 1976 Republican convention in Kansas City are the accounts of how Ford and Reagan competed via the pageantry of dueling convention entrances by Betty and Nancy . The book ’ s one shortcoming is the excessive attention it paid to that convention showdown ; I learned entirely too much about amendment 16c , and other delegate-rule arcana . The reason to soldier through Perlstein ’ s convention-tick tock is to see Ford ’ s forces utterly sell out Republican feminists , accepting antiabortion and anti-ERA platform planks without a fight , while trying to block an attack on Ford ’ s foreign policy . In the end , Ford would throw women under the bus , but not Henry Kissinger . So today , when you hear establishment Republicans bemoan the misogynist crazies who threaten their hopes of winning back the White House and the Senate , remember how that same establishment appeased those crazies on women ’ s issues starting with the 1976 convention , and try to withhold your sympathy . Ford ’ s biggest sin to the right , Perlstein writes , was having to preside over a world where “ the rules must apply to America as well. ” When Saigon becomes Ho Chi Minh City and the Khmer Rouge take over Cambodia , Ford is easily portrayed as the dupe who ’ s advancing Nixon ’ s policy of détente with the Soviet Union – of course it would turn out to be a French word -- which came to be translated as “ surrender ” on the right . After a fairly polite beginning to what became an ugly primary challenge , Reagan goes after Ford hard over the Panama Canal treaty in a Memorial Day 1976 campaign speech . “ Have we stopped to think that young Americans have seldom if ever in their lives seen America act as a great nation ? ” he asked . That ’ s trademark Reagan , and here Perlstein interjects the obvious : Clearly , the civil rights movement hadn ’ t counted . The release of “ Invisible Bridge ” is timed to the 40th anniversary of Nixon ’ s Aug. 9 resignation , but it comes out the week of two other important anniversaries . Aug. 6 marks 49 years since LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act , which he admitted to Bill Moyers would hand the South to the GOP indefinitely . Five days later , the Watts riots broke out in Los Angeles , and the country began to say “ Enough ” to civil rights liberalism . This is the history Perlstein chronicled so well in “ Nixonland , ” and he picks it up again , a little less surely , in “ Bridge. ” Race runs through the backlash to modern liberalism first channeled by Goldwater , then Nixon and then Reagan – and it runs back to the Civil War . Throughout the book he refers darkly to the “ suspicious circles ” of liberal elites and journalists who believed the lost war in Vietnam , the shame of Watergate and the revelations of CIA and FBI wrongdoing revealed something important and deeply troubling about the state of our union . Perlstein takes the term “ suspicious circles ” from a Reconstruction-era New York Times editorial deriding people like abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison who were warning that the post-Civil War South was slipping back into racist tyranny . “ Does he really imagine , ” the Times wrote of Garrison , “ that outside of small and suspicious circles , any real interest attaches to the old forms of the Southern question ? ” Of course the “ suspicious circles ” were right about the post-Reconstruction South , and they were right about Nixon , Watergate and Reagan , too . But harking quietly back to the period after the Civil War helps Perlstein remind us that the backlash to the civil rights movement was connected to that earlier backlash . This country does great things , albeit a little late , like fighting a war to end slavery , and then going back 100 years later to abolish Jim Crow . And then it ’ s finished for a while . After the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act , there would be no second Reconstruction , there would be only recrimination . Perlstein also wants us to remember : Backlash is usually abetted by journalists , who too easily succumb to outrage fatigue . The post-Watergate conservative uprising marked the beginning of the “ both sides do it ” narrative that degrades political reporting to this day . Nixon was a victim of a media establishment that conservatives denounced as “ liberal ” – and then we learned media darling Jack Kennedy was responsible for some of the worst domestic and foreign plotting , spying , espionage and coverups in history , only nobody cared . From behind enemy lines at the New York Times , Nixon speechwriter turned columnist William Safire railed at his colleagues for acting as though his old boss had invented presidential wrongdoing , when their beloved Kennedy had plotted to assassinate Fidel Castro while cavorting with the former mistress of Mafioso Sam Giancana , Judith Exner . Working the refs worked for the right . Suddenly , the media didn ’ t have much appetite for revealing wrongdoing , on either side . Frank Church thought he could ride his CIA investigation into the White House , but he found himself the victim of outrage fatigue . “ To see a conspiracy and coverup in everything is as myopic as to believe that no conspiracies or coverups exist , ” the Washington Post publisher Katharine Graham told a publishing trade group in 1975 . Now when the CIA complained about a story , the great William Greider lamented , the once “ adversarial ” media “ rolled over on its back to have its belly rubbed . ” Of course everything Perlstein covers in “ Invisible Bridge ” feels eerily current and familiar . The parallels to the backlash to President Obama are obvious . The revolt against the Equal Rights Amendment and Roe v. Wade that began in the mid-1970s continue , in the renewed attacks on abortion rights and even contraception today . The conservative backlash against Common Core has its roots in the right-wing uprising against '70s curriculum standards abetted by those early Heritage Foundation staffers . When Joni Ernst talks about “ nullification ” of laws passed under our first black president , she represents the enduring Goldwater alliance between anti-Washington Northerners and states ' rights Southerners that powered the presidencies of Nixon , Reagan and both Bushes , too . When Sen. John McCain calls President Obama “ cowardly ” for not castrating Vladimir Putin over meddling in Ukraine , or neocons bray that the president has “ abandoned ” Iraq , we are living with the results of refusing to face up to the limits of American power , even as the lone remaining “ superpower. ” They ’ ve been screaming about this since Jerry Ford had to go out and attack Cambodia to “ rescue ” the SS Mayaguez – unnecessarily killing 49 American servicemen because Henry Kissinger believed “ the United States must carry out some act somewhere in the world which shows its determination to continue to be a world power . ” Again the media are complicit , covering the Tea Party as though it was something new and novel and tailored to the times , rather than the Goldwater-Nixon-Reagan coalition dressed up in funny costumes , many of them still animated by an abiding racism . In fact , the American right has lost some of the authentic anti-Wall Street , anti-crony capitalism energy that powered Goldwater ’ s rise . But Perlstein shows how Democrats have been complicit too , from Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama . Carter was the Democrats ’ Reagan , in a way , smiling and reassuring like Reagan was , but shorn of ideology . The Georgia governor made us feel better about America ’ s racist past , like maybe we had overcome – as long as we didn ’ t look too closely at his earlier efforts to court George Wallace and his supporters , or hold it against him when he defended white neighborhoods seeking to preserve their “ ethnic purity . ” In fact , many of the Democratic Watergate babies swept into power in ’ 74 and ’ 76 were like Carter , as much a rejection of George McGovern as of Richard Nixon . Gary Hart famously declared “ the end of the New Deal , ” insisting “ we ’ re not a bunch of Hubert Humphreys. ” He and much of his cohort had no strong ties to the party ’ s historic labor base . Nor did they offer much of an economic alternative to pro-business Reaganomics and the fetishizing of the free market . Likewise , Barack Obama told supporters he aspired to the “ transformative ” presidency of the “ optimistic ” Ronald Reagan , not the crabbed , partisan battling of Bill Clinton , the Democrats ’ only two-term president since Harry Truman ( although , to be fair , Clinton delivered his party ’ s final rebuke to McGovern , even though he cut his teeth working for the liberal Democrat ’ s 1972 campaign ) . Obama inherited the McGovern coalition of minorities , women and liberal whites when it had grown into a majority of the country , but he channeled a vague but powerful longing for “ hope ” and “ change , ” while hoping to avoid the ideological conflict genuine change would require . The remnants of the Nixon-Reagan coalition made that impossible . But as a centrist corporate Democrat who is also conflict-averse , Obama took too long to articulate why the nation must break from the anti-government , pro-free market approach Reagan pioneered . He found his inner FDR in time to beat Mitt Romney in 2012 , but the damage to his two mandates , and his presidency , had been done , by Tea Party reaction and , yes , racism . And by the Democrats ’ recurrent belief that their inner righteousness will redeem them . In all three of his books Perlstein rubs liberals ’ noses in the difference between the way we face adversity , and the way the right does . We trust in our own moral superiority – and lately , in our moral superiority tied to demographic destiny , which seems unbeatable . But they just get busy trying to out-organize the other side – whether the other side is Ford Republicans or Obama Democrats – and after a few setbacks , they beat us anyway . Over and over since the rise of Barry Goldwater , Democrats and much of the media have concluded that the Republican Party is dead if it won ’ t court new voters , and over and over they don ’ t do that – and they win . This time , Democrats seem to have a little more genuine electoral ballast on their side , given the rising power of Latino voters and younger , single women , two groups Republicans can ’ t and won ’ t court if they want to hold onto their fearful older , white Christian base . So maybe this time the Perlstein formula won ’ t work . Maybe he , or some historian who comes after , won ’ t be able to rely on quoting self-congratulatory Democrats along with smug pundits writing off Mitt Romney as they miss the rise of President Cruz . Democrats ought to hope that ’ s true – while they work at least as hard as Republicans do , to make sure of it .

Rick Perlstein’s three-part history of modern American politics has been one long cautionary tale about liberals writing off the right. “Before the Storm,” his extraordinary account of the rise of Barry Goldwater, opened with New York Times columnist James Reston writing Goldwater’s political obituary, after the GOP’s 1964 humiliation by Lyndon Johnson. “He has wrecked his party for a long time to come and is not even likely to control the wreckage.” Four years later, of course, Republicans took back the White House, and thanks to the fire on the right Goldwater ignited, they held it for 20 of the next 24 years. “The Invisible Bridge: The Fall of Nixon and the Rise of Reagan” ends much the way “Before the Storm” began: with the Times writing the last chapter of Ronald Reagan’s career – in 1976, after he lost the GOP nomination to Gerald Ford. “At sixty-five years of age,” Reagan was “too old to consider seriously another run at the Presidency,” the paper editorialized. We know how that story really ended. Advertisement: I always think of Perlstein when I’m tempted to predict the coming end of the GOP, when I’m sure demography will doom it, or when I believe its Tea Party fringe has done something so awful and destructive that this time, the American people will finally rise up, and send the haters and the know-nothings and the fear-mongers packing. Like, let’s say, Sen. Ted Cruz cynically blowing up the possibility of a House GOP border-crisis bill. That’s gotta wake people up, right? But liberals like me have waited for that great rising up day many times in history, and just as it seems ready to arrive, the right rises up again, instead. People like me thought Goldwater, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were too extreme and divisive to lead their parties, let alone the nation, and Perlstein lives to show us in cringe-making detail how wrong we were. Read “The Invisible Bridge,” and you won’t be able to write off the idea of President Ted Cruz entirely. (I do nonetheless, but not blithely.) Perlstein’s new book picks up where “Nixonland” left off. Having fractured the New Deal coalition and won over white working-class voters on issues of race, culture and the Vietnam War, to achieve a landslide over George McGovern, the president is inaugurated a second time – and just four days later, he announces an end to the war. He calls it “peace with honor,” but deep down, Americans knew we’d lost. Then things really fall apart. Advertisement: Then the Watergate crisis escalates, an unthinkable Arab oil embargo escalates an energy crisis, and even meat prices skyrocket, leading to the shame of a once-great nation forced to eat organ meats. “Liver, kidney, brains and heart can be made into gourmet meals with seasoning, imagination and more cooking time,” Nixon’s consumer adviser told anxious housewives. A horrified nation learns that the president talks like a mafia don and will seemingly do and say anything to keep his job. When he resigns, Americans have a choice: face up to the nation’s shortcomings that have been revealed so cruelly, and embrace "a new definition of patriotism, one built upon questioning authority and unsettling ossified norms," in Perlstein’s words – or run away. They ran away, led by Ronald Reagan. * * * Advertisement: “Invisible Bridge” captures the genius of Reagan and his impeccable timing, coming after Nixon: He refuted the cynicism that Watergate inspired about America, while capitalizing on the cynicism it fostered about government. Perlstein makes a lot of the country’s fascination with the horror movie “The Exorcist” in the winter of 1974, as Watergate revelations unfurled. In it, Ellen Burstyn’s secular Georgetown career lady finds that her 12-year-old daughter has been possessed by a masturbating demon who swears like Richard Nixon. Her name is Regan, one of those androgynous names suddenly in vogue in the gender-bending ‘70s (which also, weirdly, sounds a lot like the name of the 40th president). Burstyn turns to a priest for help: “I’m telling you that thing upstairs isn’t my daughter!” she cries, echoing lots of parents of daughters in that era. Once exorcised, a calm young Regan wears a lovely coat of red, white and blue. “She doesn’t remember any of it,” her relieved mother tells a friend. Perlstein doesn’t go on to make the obvious point, but I will: Ronald Reagan was the country’s exorcist, driving out the demons of suspicion and self-doubt (while also taming unruly daughters), so the pure, innocent country could reemerge from the humiliations of Vietnam and Watergate and thrive again. We wouldn’t remember any of it. Or so many hoped. Advertisement: While pundits and even some party elders, including Barry Goldwater, insisted Republicans must cut Nixon loose, Reagan supported him to the end. He shamelessly appropriated civil rights language along the way: Nixon’s congressional inquisitors were “night riders” out for a “lynching.” When a spending cap ballot measure he backed fails in California, Reagan compares himself to Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. What if King had given up on his dreams after a few disappointments? Well, Reagan won’t give up either. Over and over, the media underestimates him. As Reagan leaves the governor’s office in Sacramento in 1974 (the office reporters hadn’t expected him to win eight years earlier), Joseph Kraft declares “the end of backlash politics.” The rise of liberal Jerry Brown meant “Reaganism has had it,” Kraft wrote. Politicians on both sides were giving up the angry politics of George Wallace and, yes, Reagan. It was a tough time to be a Republican generally. Reince Priebus thinks he’s got a hard job: In the wake of Watergate, only 18 percent of the country identified as Republican, and the party resorted to buying airtime for a television special gamely titled “Republicans are people, too.” As they did after the Goldwater defeat, pundits and establishment Republicans insisted that moderation and tolerance were the key to a GOP revival, but Reagan disagreed, and he was proven right. Advertisement: Perlstein shows how the divorced Hollywood playboy became the unlikely tribune of family values. The man who set back the women’s movement might have been motivated by payback: He had suffered as “Jane Wyman’s husband,” playing a supporting role to her rising star. Left by Wyman, he beds everyone he can, then he takes up with Nancy Davis, and adopts her father’s far-right politics. Their daughter Patti was conceived before they were married. Yet this was the man who was able to unite evangelical Protestants and blue-collar Catholics who were in revolt against the pro-choice, pro-ERA, pro-busing, anti-family elites. A new outfit called the Heritage Foundation hired some folks to work with parents rebelling against the inclusion of “liberal” books in West Virginia’s curriculum. Their job was “finding little clusters of Evangelical, fundamentalist Mom’s groups” and helping them grow. Conservatives would have called them “outside agitators” if they’d been on the other side. Up in Boston, some Irish Catholic “Moms” became the public face of the backlash against busing, and the two groups of moms begin to make common cause: The women of South Boston’s ROAR, Restore Our Alienated Rights, turn up to protest a pro-ERA hearing at Faneuil Hall and take it over. The building of this unlikely New Right coalition mostly goes unnoticed by media and the Republican establishment. As primary season began in 1976, President Ford’s forces were blindsided by the “unexpected Reagan success in certain caucus states,” one internal memo reported. Reagan was turning out voters who were “unknown and have not been involved in the Republican political system before” and seemed “alienated from both parties.” Advertisement: * * * If Reagan is the man who sold us the “invisible bridge” of the title, Ford represented the visible bridge to our post-Watergate, post-Vietnam future -- and he all but collapsed. After Nixon resigns, Ford enjoys a brief honeymoon; the media tell us that he made his own English muffins. He’s a kindly '50s sitcom dad with a pipe, but he has a wife perfect for the '70s – Betty Ford could have been a friend of Maude or Mary Tyler Moore. It might have worked: A bridge needs a landing on both sides of the divide. But Nixon left Ford holding the bag – the truth about lies and loss in Vietnam, the criminality of Watergate and the CIA/FBI scandals that preceded it, the quick fall of Saigon; an energy crisis, an inflation crisis, and a backlash against feminism and liberalism as embodied by his own wife, the abortion- and ERA-supporting Betty, who was popular with the country, but not so much with the right. The highlights of Perlstein’s chapters on the 1976 Republican convention in Kansas City are the accounts of how Ford and Reagan competed via the pageantry of dueling convention entrances by Betty and Nancy. The book’s one shortcoming is the excessive attention it paid to that convention showdown; I learned entirely too much about amendment 16c, and other delegate-rule arcana. The reason to soldier through Perlstein’s convention-tick tock is to see Ford’s forces utterly sell out Republican feminists, accepting antiabortion and anti-ERA platform planks without a fight, while trying to block an attack on Ford’s foreign policy. In the end, Ford would throw women under the bus, but not Henry Kissinger. So today, when you hear establishment Republicans bemoan the misogynist crazies who threaten their hopes of winning back the White House and the Senate, remember how that same establishment appeased those crazies on women’s issues starting with the 1976 convention, and try to withhold your sympathy. Advertisement: Ford’s biggest sin to the right, Perlstein writes, was having to preside over a world where “the rules must apply to America as well.” When Saigon becomes Ho Chi Minh City and the Khmer Rouge take over Cambodia, Ford is easily portrayed as the dupe who’s advancing Nixon’s policy of détente with the Soviet Union – of course it would turn out to be a French word -- which came to be translated as “surrender” on the right. After a fairly polite beginning to what became an ugly primary challenge, Reagan goes after Ford hard over the Panama Canal treaty in a Memorial Day 1976 campaign speech. “Have we stopped to think that young Americans have seldom if ever in their lives seen America act as a great nation?” he asked. That’s trademark Reagan, and here Perlstein interjects the obvious: Clearly, the civil rights movement hadn’t counted. The release of “Invisible Bridge” is timed to the 40th anniversary of Nixon’s Aug. 9 resignation, but it comes out the week of two other important anniversaries. Aug. 6 marks 49 years since LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act, which he admitted to Bill Moyers would hand the South to the GOP indefinitely. Five days later, the Watts riots broke out in Los Angeles, and the country began to say “Enough” to civil rights liberalism. This is the history Perlstein chronicled so well in “Nixonland,” and he picks it up again, a little less surely, in “Bridge.” Race runs through the backlash to modern liberalism first channeled by Goldwater, then Nixon and then Reagan – and it runs back to the Civil War. Throughout the book he refers darkly to the “suspicious circles” of liberal elites and journalists who believed the lost war in Vietnam, the shame of Watergate and the revelations of CIA and FBI wrongdoing revealed something important and deeply troubling about the state of our union. Perlstein takes the term “suspicious circles” from a Reconstruction-era New York Times editorial deriding people like abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison who were warning that the post-Civil War South was slipping back into racist tyranny. “Does he really imagine,” the Times wrote of Garrison, “that outside of small and suspicious circles, any real interest attaches to the old forms of the Southern question?” Of course the “suspicious circles” were right about the post-Reconstruction South, and they were right about Nixon, Watergate and Reagan, too. But harking quietly back to the period after the Civil War helps Perlstein remind us that the backlash to the civil rights movement was connected to that earlier backlash. This country does great things, albeit a little late, like fighting a war to end slavery, and then going back 100 years later to abolish Jim Crow. And then it’s finished for a while. After the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, there would be no second Reconstruction, there would be only recrimination. Advertisement: Perlstein also wants us to remember: Backlash is usually abetted by journalists, who too easily succumb to outrage fatigue. The post-Watergate conservative uprising marked the beginning of the “both sides do it” narrative that degrades political reporting to this day. Nixon was a victim of a media establishment that conservatives denounced as “liberal” – and then we learned media darling Jack Kennedy was responsible for some of the worst domestic and foreign plotting, spying, espionage and coverups in history, only nobody cared. From behind enemy lines at the New York Times, Nixon speechwriter turned columnist William Safire railed at his colleagues for acting as though his old boss had invented presidential wrongdoing, when their beloved Kennedy had plotted to assassinate Fidel Castro while cavorting with the former mistress of Mafioso Sam Giancana, Judith Exner. Working the refs worked for the right. Suddenly, the media didn’t have much appetite for revealing wrongdoing, on either side. Frank Church thought he could ride his CIA investigation into the White House, but he found himself the victim of outrage fatigue. “To see a conspiracy and coverup in everything is as myopic as to believe that no conspiracies or coverups exist,” the Washington Post publisher Katharine Graham told a publishing trade group in 1975. Now when the CIA complained about a story, the great William Greider lamented, the once “adversarial” media “rolled over on its back to have its belly rubbed.” * * * Of course everything Perlstein covers in “Invisible Bridge” feels eerily current and familiar. The parallels to the backlash to President Obama are obvious. Advertisement: The revolt against the Equal Rights Amendment and Roe v. Wade that began in the mid-1970s continue, in the renewed attacks on abortion rights and even contraception today. The conservative backlash against Common Core has its roots in the right-wing uprising against '70s curriculum standards abetted by those early Heritage Foundation staffers. When Joni Ernst talks about “nullification” of laws passed under our first black president, she represents the enduring Goldwater alliance between anti-Washington Northerners and states' rights Southerners that powered the presidencies of Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes, too. When Sen. John McCain calls President Obama “cowardly” for not castrating Vladimir Putin over meddling in Ukraine, or neocons bray that the president has “abandoned” Iraq, we are living with the results of refusing to face up to the limits of American power, even as the lone remaining “superpower.” They’ve been screaming about this since Jerry Ford had to go out and attack Cambodia to “rescue” the SS Mayaguez – unnecessarily killing 49 American servicemen because Henry Kissinger believed “the United States must carry out some act somewhere in the world which shows its determination to continue to be a world power.” Again the media are complicit, covering the Tea Party as though it was something new and novel and tailored to the times, rather than the Goldwater-Nixon-Reagan coalition dressed up in funny costumes, many of them still animated by an abiding racism. In fact, the American right has lost some of the authentic anti-Wall Street, anti-crony capitalism energy that powered Goldwater’s rise. But Perlstein shows how Democrats have been complicit too, from Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama. Carter was the Democrats’ Reagan, in a way, smiling and reassuring like Reagan was, but shorn of ideology. The Georgia governor made us feel better about America’s racist past, like maybe we had overcome – as long as we didn’t look too closely at his earlier efforts to court George Wallace and his supporters, or hold it against him when he defended white neighborhoods seeking to preserve their “ethnic purity.” In fact, many of the Democratic Watergate babies swept into power in ’74 and ’76 were like Carter, as much a rejection of George McGovern as of Richard Nixon. Gary Hart famously declared “the end of the New Deal,” insisting “we’re not a bunch of Hubert Humphreys.” He and much of his cohort had no strong ties to the party’s historic labor base. Nor did they offer much of an economic alternative to pro-business Reaganomics and the fetishizing of the free market. Likewise, Barack Obama told supporters he aspired to the “transformative” presidency of the “optimistic” Ronald Reagan, not the crabbed, partisan battling of Bill Clinton, the Democrats’ only two-term president since Harry Truman (although, to be fair, Clinton delivered his party’s final rebuke to McGovern, even though he cut his teeth working for the liberal Democrat’s 1972 campaign). Obama inherited the McGovern coalition of minorities, women and liberal whites when it had grown into a majority of the country, but he channeled a vague but powerful longing for “hope” and “change,” while hoping to avoid the ideological conflict genuine change would require. The remnants of the Nixon-Reagan coalition made that impossible. But as a centrist corporate Democrat who is also conflict-averse, Obama took too long to articulate why the nation must break from the anti-government, pro-free market approach Reagan pioneered. He found his inner FDR in time to beat Mitt Romney in 2012, but the damage to his two mandates, and his presidency, had been done, by Tea Party reaction and, yes, racism. And by the Democrats’ recurrent belief that their inner righteousness will redeem them. In all three of his books Perlstein rubs liberals’ noses in the difference between the way we face adversity, and the way the right does. We trust in our own moral superiority – and lately, in our moral superiority tied to demographic destiny, which seems unbeatable. But they just get busy trying to out-organize the other side – whether the other side is Ford Republicans or Obama Democrats – and after a few setbacks, they beat us anyway. Over and over since the rise of Barry Goldwater, Democrats and much of the media have concluded that the Republican Party is dead if it won’t court new voters, and over and over they don’t do that – and they win. This time, Democrats seem to have a little more genuine electoral ballast on their side, given the rising power of Latino voters and younger, single women, two groups Republicans can’t and won’t court if they want to hold onto their fearful older, white Christian base. So maybe this time the Perlstein formula won’t work. Maybe he, or some historian who comes after, won’t be able to rely on quoting self-congratulatory Democrats along with smug pundits writing off Mitt Romney as they miss the rise of President Cruz. Democrats ought to hope that’s true – while they work at least as hard as Republicans do, to make sure of it.

www.salon.com

left

Sf6N4QD5k7AT3Ll5

test

9hu4iwdJqsfkvExC

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/05/the_era_of_bill_clinton_liberalism_is_over_what_does_that_mean_for_hillary_and_the_dems/

The era of (Bill) Clinton liberalism is over. What does that mean for Hillary and the Dems?

2015-05-05

Joan Walsh

President Clinton famously told us “ The era of big government is over. ” The Baltimore tragedy is trying to tell us , if we didn ’ t already know , that the era of ( Bill ) Clinton liberalism is over -- just when his wife has her best shot at becoming president . In the wake of the Baltimore unrest , a stunning 96 percent of Americans polled by NBC News say they expect more urban riots this summer . Yet there ’ s little visible urgency around preventing that outcome . A post-Clinton Democratic domestic agenda is essential – even if the Democratic frontrunner is named Clinton . Intentionally or not , Hillary Clinton echoed her husband ’ s trademark verdict on “ big government ” last week when she called for “ an end to the era of mass incarceration , ” in a speech on criminal justice that symbolized a break from policies championed in the last Clinton administration . Whether post-Clinton politics can be pioneered by someone named Clinton will be an interesting test for Democrats in the months and years to come . My goal is not to bash either Clinton , as we look at what did and didn ’ t work in the 1990s Democratic domestic agenda . ( I also think it ’ s unfair to automatically credit or blame Hillary Clinton for the policies of her husband . ) Bill Clinton was a gifted politician who cared about civil rights and poverty . He saw the way Republicans had used both issues against Democrats since the 1960s and he tried to fight it , even if he had to wade into the swamp of white backlash politics to fashion a new Democratic approach to crime , poverty and race . His notorious “ Sister Souljah ” moment during the 1992 campaign ; his crime and welfare reform policies ; his railing against “ big government ; ” all were tailored to reassure white people that Democrats had heard their concerns about the excesses of the war on poverty , and would incorporate the politics of personal responsibility into future efforts to promote equality . But his goal wasn ’ t perpetuating poverty , inequality and racism ; it was forging a winning political coalition to take up a new fight against them , informed by the lessons of the 1960s and '70s . You can disagree with his tactics , but it ’ s indisputable that was his intent . Eight years after Clinton left the White House , Barack Obama tweaked but didn ’ t reject his Democratic predecessor ’ s overall approach to urban poverty . Obama included a heavy dose of respectability politics in his pitch to become the nation ’ s first black president . It worked politically ; he won twice . Yet on Obama ’ s watch , we ’ ve come up hard on the limits of the '90s approach to race , crime and inequality , not just in Baltimore but in Ferguson , Cleveland , Staten Island , Oakland and Sanford , Florida ; in inner cities all across the country . Tough sentencing laws and “ zero tolerance ” policing , we ’ ve seen , helped reduce violence , but they didn ’ t bring jobs back to the cities , and they also separated millions of black men from their families and trapped them in the criminal justice system . Draconian welfare reform slashed the welfare rolls , we ’ ve learned , but the number of households headed by single mothers has steadily climbed , among all races , while poverty among children persists . In fact welfare reform helped create a poverty trap , in which more than a quarter of people who work make so little they receive some form of welfare . On the race relations front , our first black president continues to preach the importance of personal responsibility in improving black lives , even as police murder black men on camera . His opponents don ’ t care : they continue to stereotype Obama as a lazy , criminal-coddling , poverty pimp of old , whose policies brought about the chaos in Baltimore . And while the Democrats updated their approach to crime and poverty , Republicans continue to scapegoat them as tolerating lawlessness and propagating suffering with a family-eroding welfare state . House Speaker John Boehner blamed Democrats for Baltimore ’ s troubles on “ Meet the Press ” Sunday . Clinton ’ s centrist moves didn ’ t help his party politically on these issues in any lasting way . Ironically for Hillary Clinton , it ’ s not her but former Baltimore mayor Martin O ’ Malley who ’ s on the hot seat after Baltimore , for the approach to urban crime that her husband helped pioneer . On “ Meet the Press , '' O ’ Malley , who is hoping to challenge Clinton for the nomination , was confronted by one of his campaign statements from 1999 : “ As much as we ’ d like to think poverty is the cause of crime , crime is also the cause of poverty. ” A visibly pained O ’ Malley refused to take the blame for his city ’ s unrest . “ We didn ’ t get it wrong then , ” he told Chuck Todd , “ but we have yet to get it entirely right . ” So far , Democrats will have two veterans of the '90s , Clinton and O ’ Malley , plus democratic socialist Bernie Sanders , vying to get it right . They , and we , have to learn from the past . Post-Baltimore , there ’ s a vibrant debate about whether riots advance the cause of social progress or retard it , and I ’ ll leave that aside for now . We do know that time and again , riots serve to concentrate the nation ’ s attention on urban poverty . America “ rediscovered ” the issue last week with the Baltimore riots -- after rediscovering it when Ferguson exploded last year . As well as in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina 10 years ago . Let ’ s be honest : It was the overblown reports of looting and lawlessness in New Orleans that focused the nation on the tragedy there , more than the hurricane itself . But our first “ rediscovery ” of urban poverty , after we abandoned the issue in the 1960s , came 23 years ago , with the Los Angeles riots . Like virtually every outbreak of urban violence in the last 50 years , from Watts in 1965 to Baltimore in 2015 , the 1992 Los Angeles troubles began over an issue of policing : in that case , the on-camera beating of Rodney King , a black man , and the acquittal of the four white cops who did it . The Los Angeles unrest gave candidate Bill Clinton the perfect platform on which to showcase his new Democrat approach to issues of race , poverty and crime . Suddenly , the nation had been thrown back to Watts , literally and figuratively , the place where white backlash politics found its winning narrative in 1965 . It provided Clinton with a chance to rewrite the Democrats ’ story . Watts exploded just five days after President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act , and Republicans began blaming liberal do-gooders for the wave of urban riots that continued throughout the decade . Notorious Los Angeles police commissioner William Parker put responsibility for the Watts riot at the feet of civil rights advocates , claiming that violence was the predictable result when `` you keep telling people they are unfairly treated . '' The problem , in the right ’ s telling , wasn ’ t the unfair treatment , it was the rabble-rousers “ telling people they 're unfairly treated . ” After Watts , the dark politics of law and order pioneered by Richard Nixon , and California Gov . Ronald Reagan , perfected white backlash politics and prevailed politically . Nixon chose Spiro Agnew as vice president at least partly because of his role in cracking down on Baltimore 's 1968 riots after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Reagan updated backlash politics in 1980 , leavening it with a pinch of concern the poor , as summed up by his genial and deeply dishonest lament , “ We fought a war on poverty , and poverty won. ” That Nixon-Reagan storyline won Republicans five out of six presidential elections between 1968 and 1992 . Until Clinton . A Democratic counter-movement emerged to answer Republicans , and incorporate some of their critique into new Democratic politics . Clinton was its best practitioner . The rhetoric he pioneered , and the policies he pushed , on crime , welfare and race , tried to take the sharp and often racist edge off the GOP approach while incorporating its “ common sense ” lessons , especially on crime and poverty . It worked , at least politically , for a while . The Los Angeles riots offered Clinton a stage on which to unveil that approach to the nation . President Bush denounced the “ anarchy ” as “ purely criminal ” and never even visited the scene . Clinton toured it with local congresswoman Maxine Waters and blamed the Reagan-Bush administrations for “ more than a decade of urban decay , ” intensified by federal spending cuts . Bush press secretary Marlin Fitzwater blamed “ the Great Society ; ” Clinton shot back , “ Republicans have had the White House for twenty of the last twenty-four years , and they have to go all the way back to the sixties to find somebody to blame . I want to do something about the problems . ” But Clinton also found in the Los Angeles chaos the perfect way to show white voters he wouldn ’ t tolerate African Americans using white racism as the primary excuse for poverty and crime . His famous “ Sister Souljah ” moment came after the rapper defended the Los Angeles violence in 1992 . “ If Black people kill Black people every day , why not have a week and kill white people ? ” she told Washington Post writer David Mills . Few people remember that the interviewer was Mills , an African-American reporter who went on to write for “ Homicide ” and David Simon ’ s “ The Wire ” -- the great shows about Baltimore poverty and violence that shaped so many people ’ s reactions to the city ’ s unrest over the last week . And almost nobody remembers that Mills , who tragically died of an aneurism in 2010 , was himself critical of Soujah ’ s remarks , writing that her empathy for the rioters had reached a “ chilling extreme . ” It was Clinton who got notoriety for his much more pointed attack on Souljah – and that ’ s what he wanted . “ If you took the words ‘ white ’ and ‘ black ’ and you reversed them , ” he said about her comments to Mills , “ you might think David Duke was giving that speech. ” Souljah ’ s remarks , he told the Rainbow Coalition , “ are filled with a kind of hatred you do not honor . ” In fact Clinton ’ s so-called Sister Souljah moment was really his Jesse Jackson moment , designed to telegraph to white people that Democrats weren ’ t just the party of two-time presidential candidate Jackson anymore . Clinton improved his showing with the white working class , but he did less well among African Americans than did Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis , getting only 84 percent of the vote where Democrats had been getting in the '90s for two decades . That was OK. Jesse Jackson had assembled the Obama coalition in 1984 and 1988 , but it was 20 years too soon . Clinton briefly won back the white working class in 1992 , and that ’ s what got him elected . Still , it wasn ’ t only Clinton who brought a tougher , behavioral approach to the problems of crime and poverty back then . Black leaders joined him in the '90s , even Jackson himself . Cornel West and Barack Obama talked about the way some among the inner city poor contributed to their own misery ; West saw “ nihilism , ” Obama an abdication by fathers , Jackson preached “ hope not dope . ” A new generation of urban leaders , black and white , incorporated a behavioral element into their politics and policy for the inner city . Even the great William Julius Wilson , who showed the way the disappearance of jobs for men without a college education created a crisis in the inner city , focused his early research on inner city poverty and single parenthood on the absence of what he called “ marriageable men. ” A wave of urban development projects in the late '80s and early '90s tried to meld Wilson ’ s jobs analysis with efforts to shore up families and fight crime . In Baltimore , a liberal black mayor , Kurt Schmoke , partnered with moderate Republican developer James Rouse to transform Freddie Gray ’ s neighborhood of Sandtown-Winchester , in a laudable effort that focused on housing , education and family troubles , but left out issues of jobs . Schmoke ’ s successor , white Democrat Martin O ’ Malley , an admirer of Bill Clinton , then ran on the issue of violent crime as not merely a symptom of poverty , but a cause . What these Democrats learned throughout the '90s showed the limits of the behavioral approach to crime , poverty and race . Just as the Los Angeles riots opened the era of Bill Clinton liberalism , the trouble in Baltimore , despite years of Democratic leadership , should mark its close . Clinton , O ’ Malley , Sanders and perhaps others will grapple with this changed landscape . They have one big advantage over Republicans . The GOP is still stuck in the 1980s , trying to reanimate Zombie Reaganism for the 21st century . Tomorrow : Beyond Sister Souljah : How Democrats get beyond the stale ‘ 90s politics of race , and why Republicans can ’ t .

President Clinton famously told us “The era of big government is over.” The Baltimore tragedy is trying to tell us, if we didn’t already know, that the era of (Bill) Clinton liberalism is over -- just when his wife has her best shot at becoming president. In the wake of the Baltimore unrest, a stunning 96 percent of Americans polled by NBC News say they expect more urban riots this summer. Yet there’s little visible urgency around preventing that outcome. A post-Clinton Democratic domestic agenda is essential – even if the Democratic frontrunner is named Clinton. Intentionally or not, Hillary Clinton echoed her husband’s trademark verdict on “big government” last week when she called for “an end to the era of mass incarceration,” in a speech on criminal justice that symbolized a break from policies championed in the last Clinton administration. Whether post-Clinton politics can be pioneered by someone named Clinton will be an interesting test for Democrats in the months and years to come. Advertisement: My goal is not to bash either Clinton, as we look at what did and didn’t work in the 1990s Democratic domestic agenda. (I also think it’s unfair to automatically credit or blame Hillary Clinton for the policies of her husband.) Bill Clinton was a gifted politician who cared about civil rights and poverty. He saw the way Republicans had used both issues against Democrats since the 1960s and he tried to fight it, even if he had to wade into the swamp of white backlash politics to fashion a new Democratic approach to crime, poverty and race. His notorious “Sister Souljah” moment during the 1992 campaign; his crime and welfare reform policies; his railing against “big government;” all were tailored to reassure white people that Democrats had heard their concerns about the excesses of the war on poverty, and would incorporate the politics of personal responsibility into future efforts to promote equality. But his goal wasn’t perpetuating poverty, inequality and racism; it was forging a winning political coalition to take up a new fight against them, informed by the lessons of the 1960s and '70s. You can disagree with his tactics, but it’s indisputable that was his intent. Eight years after Clinton left the White House, Barack Obama tweaked but didn’t reject his Democratic predecessor’s overall approach to urban poverty. Obama included a heavy dose of respectability politics in his pitch to become the nation’s first black president. It worked politically; he won twice. Yet on Obama’s watch, we’ve come up hard on the limits of the '90s approach to race, crime and inequality, not just in Baltimore but in Ferguson, Cleveland, Staten Island, Oakland and Sanford, Florida; in inner cities all across the country. Advertisement: Tough sentencing laws and “zero tolerance” policing, we’ve seen, helped reduce violence, but they didn’t bring jobs back to the cities, and they also separated millions of black men from their families and trapped them in the criminal justice system. Draconian welfare reform slashed the welfare rolls, we’ve learned, but the number of households headed by single mothers has steadily climbed, among all races, while poverty among children persists. In fact welfare reform helped create a poverty trap, in which more than a quarter of people who work make so little they receive some form of welfare. On the race relations front, our first black president continues to preach the importance of personal responsibility in improving black lives, even as police murder black men on camera. His opponents don’t care: they continue to stereotype Obama as a lazy, criminal-coddling, poverty pimp of old, whose policies brought about the chaos in Baltimore. And while the Democrats updated their approach to crime and poverty, Republicans continue to scapegoat them as tolerating lawlessness and propagating suffering with a family-eroding welfare state. House Speaker John Boehner blamed Democrats for Baltimore’s troubles on “Meet the Press” Sunday. Clinton’s centrist moves didn’t help his party politically on these issues in any lasting way. Advertisement: Ironically for Hillary Clinton, it’s not her but former Baltimore mayor Martin O’Malley who’s on the hot seat after Baltimore, for the approach to urban crime that her husband helped pioneer. On “Meet the Press," O’Malley, who is hoping to challenge Clinton for the nomination, was confronted by one of his campaign statements from 1999: “As much as we’d like to think poverty is the cause of crime, crime is also the cause of poverty.” A visibly pained O’Malley refused to take the blame for his city’s unrest. “We didn’t get it wrong then,” he told Chuck Todd, “but we have yet to get it entirely right.” So far, Democrats will have two veterans of the '90s, Clinton and O’Malley, plus democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, vying to get it right. They, and we, have to learn from the past. Advertisement: * * * Post-Baltimore, there’s a vibrant debate about whether riots advance the cause of social progress or retard it, and I’ll leave that aside for now. We do know that time and again, riots serve to concentrate the nation’s attention on urban poverty. America “rediscovered” the issue last week with the Baltimore riots -- after rediscovering it when Ferguson exploded last year. As well as in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina 10 years ago. Let’s be honest: It was the overblown reports of looting and lawlessness in New Orleans that focused the nation on the tragedy there, more than the hurricane itself. But our first “rediscovery” of urban poverty, after we abandoned the issue in the 1960s, came 23 years ago, with the Los Angeles riots. Like virtually every outbreak of urban violence in the last 50 years, from Watts in 1965 to Baltimore in 2015, the 1992 Los Angeles troubles began over an issue of policing: in that case, the on-camera beating of Rodney King, a black man, and the acquittal of the four white cops who did it. Advertisement: The Los Angeles unrest gave candidate Bill Clinton the perfect platform on which to showcase his new Democrat approach to issues of race, poverty and crime. Suddenly, the nation had been thrown back to Watts, literally and figuratively, the place where white backlash politics found its winning narrative in 1965. It provided Clinton with a chance to rewrite the Democrats’ story. Watts exploded just five days after President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, and Republicans began blaming liberal do-gooders for the wave of urban riots that continued throughout the decade. Notorious Los Angeles police commissioner William Parker put responsibility for the Watts riot at the feet of civil rights advocates, claiming that violence was the predictable result when "you keep telling people they are unfairly treated." The problem, in the right’s telling, wasn’t the unfair treatment, it was the rabble-rousers “telling people they're unfairly treated.” After Watts, the dark politics of law and order pioneered by Richard Nixon, and California Gov. Ronald Reagan, perfected white backlash politics and prevailed politically. Nixon chose Spiro Agnew as vice president at least partly because of his role in cracking down on Baltimore's 1968 riots after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Reagan updated backlash politics in 1980, leavening it with a pinch of concern the poor, as summed up by his genial and deeply dishonest lament, “We fought a war on poverty, and poverty won.” That Nixon-Reagan storyline won Republicans five out of six presidential elections between 1968 and 1992. Advertisement: Until Clinton. A Democratic counter-movement emerged to answer Republicans, and incorporate some of their critique into new Democratic politics. Clinton was its best practitioner. The rhetoric he pioneered, and the policies he pushed, on crime, welfare and race, tried to take the sharp and often racist edge off the GOP approach while incorporating its “common sense” lessons, especially on crime and poverty. It worked, at least politically, for a while. The Los Angeles riots offered Clinton a stage on which to unveil that approach to the nation. President Bush denounced the “anarchy” as “purely criminal” and never even visited the scene. Clinton toured it with local congresswoman Maxine Waters and blamed the Reagan-Bush administrations for “more than a decade of urban decay,” intensified by federal spending cuts. Bush press secretary Marlin Fitzwater blamed “the Great Society;” Clinton shot back, “Republicans have had the White House for twenty of the last twenty-four years, and they have to go all the way back to the sixties to find somebody to blame. I want to do something about the problems.” But Clinton also found in the Los Angeles chaos the perfect way to show white voters he wouldn’t tolerate African Americans using white racism as the primary excuse for poverty and crime. His famous “Sister Souljah” moment came after the rapper defended the Los Angeles violence in 1992. “If Black people kill Black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?” she told Washington Post writer David Mills. Few people remember that the interviewer was Mills, an African-American reporter who went on to write for “Homicide” and David Simon’s “The Wire” -- the great shows about Baltimore poverty and violence that shaped so many people’s reactions to the city’s unrest over the last week. And almost nobody remembers that Mills, who tragically died of an aneurism in 2010, was himself critical of Soujah’s remarks, writing that her empathy for the rioters had reached a “chilling extreme.” Advertisement: It was Clinton who got notoriety for his much more pointed attack on Souljah – and that’s what he wanted. “If you took the words ‘white’ and ‘black’ and you reversed them,” he said about her comments to Mills, “you might think David Duke was giving that speech.” Souljah’s remarks, he told the Rainbow Coalition, “are filled with a kind of hatred you do not honor.” In fact Clinton’s so-called Sister Souljah moment was really his Jesse Jackson moment, designed to telegraph to white people that Democrats weren’t just the party of two-time presidential candidate Jackson anymore. Clinton improved his showing with the white working class, but he did less well among African Americans than did Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis, getting only 84 percent of the vote where Democrats had been getting in the '90s for two decades. That was OK. Jesse Jackson had assembled the Obama coalition in 1984 and 1988, but it was 20 years too soon. Clinton briefly won back the white working class in 1992, and that’s what got him elected. Still, it wasn’t only Clinton who brought a tougher, behavioral approach to the problems of crime and poverty back then. Black leaders joined him in the '90s, even Jackson himself. Cornel West and Barack Obama talked about the way some among the inner city poor contributed to their own misery; West saw “nihilism,” Obama an abdication by fathers, Jackson preached “hope not dope.” Advertisement: A new generation of urban leaders, black and white, incorporated a behavioral element into their politics and policy for the inner city. Even the great William Julius Wilson, who showed the way the disappearance of jobs for men without a college education created a crisis in the inner city, focused his early research on inner city poverty and single parenthood on the absence of what he called “marriageable men.” A wave of urban development projects in the late '80s and early '90s tried to meld Wilson’s jobs analysis with efforts to shore up families and fight crime. In Baltimore, a liberal black mayor, Kurt Schmoke, partnered with moderate Republican developer James Rouse to transform Freddie Gray’s neighborhood of Sandtown-Winchester, in a laudable effort that focused on housing, education and family troubles, but left out issues of jobs. Schmoke’s successor, white Democrat Martin O’Malley, an admirer of Bill Clinton, then ran on the issue of violent crime as not merely a symptom of poverty, but a cause. What these Democrats learned throughout the '90s showed the limits of the behavioral approach to crime, poverty and race. Just as the Los Angeles riots opened the era of Bill Clinton liberalism, the trouble in Baltimore, despite years of Democratic leadership, should mark its close. Clinton, O’Malley, Sanders and perhaps others will grapple with this changed landscape. They have one big advantage over Republicans. The GOP is still stuck in the 1980s, trying to reanimate Zombie Reaganism for the 21st century. Advertisement: Tomorrow: Beyond Sister Souljah: How Democrats get beyond the stale ‘90s politics of race, and why Republicans can’t.

www.salon.com

left

9hu4iwdJqsfkvExC

test

78EKHaHjPn6QXjpj

politics

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/29/hillary-clintons-new-2016-answer/

Hillary Clinton's new 2016 answer?

2013-01-29

Washington ( CNN ) - It 's the biggest question in campaign politics : Will Hillary Clinton run for president again , in 2016 ? We heard from Clinton later Tuesday , as she sat down for an interview with CNN 's Foreign Affairs Correspondent Jill Dougherty and Foreign Affairs Reporter Elise Labott for `` The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer . '' `` I am lucky because I 've been very healthy . I feel great . I 've got enormous amounts of energy that have to be harnessed and focused , so I 'm very fortunate , '' she said . `` I 'm looking forward to this next chapter in my life , whatever it is . '' `` I do n't know everything I 'll be doing . I 'll be working on behalf of women and girls , hopefully writing and speaking , those are the things that I 'm planning to do right now , '' she added . As Clinton gets ready to leave public service and enter private life , the outgoing secretary of state appears to be changing her answer . Her comments in the CNN interview were in line with remarks she made earlier Tuesday . `` Well I 'm not thinking about anything like that right now . I 'm looking forward to finishing my tenure as secretary of state and catching up on 20 years of sleep deprivation , '' Clinton said Tuesday morning at a global townhall style forum at the Newseum in Washington . In the event , she answered questions from Africa , Europe , Asia , South America as well as from questioners in the audience . The event was also live-tweeted in eleven different languages on Twitter , with people also participating through Facebook , YouTube and Skype . Those answers sound different than her responses to such questions about her political future last year . `` Look , I 'm flattered . I am honored , '' she told CNN 's Wolf Blitzer last April , when asked about the chorus of Democrats who want Clinton to make another bid for her party 's presidential nomination . `` That is not in the future for me , but obviously I 'm hoping that I 'll get to cast my vote for a woman running for president of our country . '' As late as last month , Clinton continued to downplay talk of another White House run , telling ABC 's Barbara Walters that `` I really do n't believe that that 's something I will do again . I am so grateful I had the experience of doing it before . '' A Democratic strategist close to Clinton tells CNN not to read much into the change in language , and dismissed talk that Clinton 's latest comments are any indication she 's now more serious about mounting another presidential campaign . The strategist asked to remain anonymous to speak more freely . Clinton 's comments Tuesday came as the Senate confirmed Sen. John Kerry as secretary of state . Kerry , the longtime senator from Massachusetts and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee , has served on the committee for decades and has served as the panel 's chairman the past four years . Obama last month nominated Kerry to succeed Clinton as the country 's top diplomat . `` I just wanted to have a chance to publicly say thank you , because I think Hillary will go down as one of the finest secretary of states we 've had . It has been a great collaboration over the last four years . I 'm going to miss her , '' Obama said in the CBS interview . It was the first time Obama had given a joint interview as president with anyone other than the First Lady . Was the interview a subtle endorsement by the president of Clinton , if she decides to run again in 2016 ? `` The interview was President Obama 's way of putting a capper on Clinton 's tenure as secretary of state , and of taking some credit for it , '' says the adviser . `` The president 's very proud he went this route of appointing his chief top rival an extremely important and high profile cabinet position and he sees her years as secretary of state as an important part of his legacy . '' When asked about 2016 in the interview , the president chuckled , saying `` you guys in the press are incorrigible . I was literally ... [ laughs ] ... inaugurated four days ago , and you 're talking about elections four years from now . '' Obama and Clinton battled each other in tough and historic 2008 Democratic nomination battle , with Clinton dropping out in June of that year , at the conclusion of the primary and caucus calendar . After winning the general election that November , Obama asked his former rival to serve as secretary of state . Vice President Joe Biden is also considering a 2016 bid . The vice president met with Democratic Party delegates last week , capping a number of moves he made over inauguration weekend that could be considered early signals that Biden may be laying the groundwork for a possible 2016 run for the White House . Biden , who served nearly four decades as a senator from Delaware , unsuccessfully ran for the Democratic nomination in 1988 and 2008 . On Election Day 2012 , when asked if it was the last time he 'd vote for himself , the vice president said `` No , I do n't think so . '' But when asked last week in an interview with CNN Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger if there were any reasons why he would n't run in 2016 , Biden said `` there 's a whole lot of reasons why I would n't run . Um , I have n't made that decision . And I do n't have to make that decision for a while . '' A Democratic strategist close to Biden sees the Obama-Clinton interview as a parting gift to the secretary of state , and does n't see the teaming up on TV as any threat to Biden . The strategist also asked to remain anonymous to speak more freely . According to a CNN/ORC International poll conducted last month , 85 % of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democratic Party said they 'd be very or somewhat likely to support Clinton if she makes another bid for the Democratic nomination , with two-thirds of Democrats questioned saying they would be very or somewhat likely to support Vice President Joe Biden if he runs . Other possible 2016 candidates mentioned in the survey trailed Biden by at least 10 points .

7 years ago Washington (CNN) - It's the biggest question in campaign politics: Will Hillary Clinton run for president again, in 2016? We heard from Clinton later Tuesday, as she sat down for an interview with CNN's Foreign Affairs Correspondent Jill Dougherty and Foreign Affairs Reporter Elise Labott for "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer." Follow @politicalticker "I am lucky because I've been very healthy. I feel great. I've got enormous amounts of energy that have to be harnessed and focused, so I'm very fortunate," she said. "I'm looking forward to this next chapter in my life, whatever it is." "I don't know everything I'll be doing. I'll be working on behalf of women and girls, hopefully writing and speaking, those are the things that I'm planning to do right now," she added. As Clinton gets ready to leave public service and enter private life, the outgoing secretary of state appears to be changing her answer. Her comments in the CNN interview were in line with remarks she made earlier Tuesday. "Well I'm not thinking about anything like that right now. I'm looking forward to finishing my tenure as secretary of state and catching up on 20 years of sleep deprivation," Clinton said Tuesday morning at a global townhall style forum at the Newseum in Washington. In the event, she answered questions from Africa, Europe, Asia, South America as well as from questioners in the audience. The event was also live-tweeted in eleven different languages on Twitter, with people also participating through Facebook, YouTube and Skype. Those answers sound different than her responses to such questions about her political future last year. "Look, I'm flattered. I am honored," she told CNN's Wolf Blitzer last April, when asked about the chorus of Democrats who want Clinton to make another bid for her party's presidential nomination. "That is not in the future for me, but obviously I'm hoping that I'll get to cast my vote for a woman running for president of our country." As late as last month, Clinton continued to downplay talk of another White House run, telling ABC's Barbara Walters that "I really don't believe that that's something I will do again. I am so grateful I had the experience of doing it before." A Democratic strategist close to Clinton tells CNN not to read much into the change in language, and dismissed talk that Clinton's latest comments are any indication she's now more serious about mounting another presidential campaign. The strategist asked to remain anonymous to speak more freely. Clinton's comments Tuesday came as the Senate confirmed Sen. John Kerry as secretary of state. Kerry, the longtime senator from Massachusetts and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, has served on the committee for decades and has served as the panel's chairman the past four years. Obama last month nominated Kerry to succeed Clinton as the country's top diplomat. The joint interview with the president was Obama's idea. "I just wanted to have a chance to publicly say thank you, because I think Hillary will go down as one of the finest secretary of states we've had. It has been a great collaboration over the last four years. I'm going to miss her," Obama said in the CBS interview. It was the first time Obama had given a joint interview as president with anyone other than the First Lady. Was the interview a subtle endorsement by the president of Clinton, if she decides to run again in 2016? The Democratic strategist close to Clinton says no. "The interview was President Obama's way of putting a capper on Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, and of taking some credit for it," says the adviser. "The president's very proud he went this route of appointing his chief top rival an extremely important and high profile cabinet position and he sees her years as secretary of state as an important part of his legacy." When asked about 2016 in the interview, the president chuckled, saying "you guys in the press are incorrigible. I was literally... [laughs] ...inaugurated four days ago, and you're talking about elections four years from now." Obama and Clinton battled each other in tough and historic 2008 Democratic nomination battle, with Clinton dropping out in June of that year, at the conclusion of the primary and caucus calendar. After winning the general election that November, Obama asked his former rival to serve as secretary of state. Vice President Joe Biden is also considering a 2016 bid. The vice president met with Democratic Party delegates last week, capping a number of moves he made over inauguration weekend that could be considered early signals that Biden may be laying the groundwork for a possible 2016 run for the White House. Biden, who served nearly four decades as a senator from Delaware, unsuccessfully ran for the Democratic nomination in 1988 and 2008. On Election Day 2012, when asked if it was the last time he'd vote for himself, the vice president said "No, I don't think so." But when asked last week in an interview with CNN Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger if there were any reasons why he wouldn't run in 2016, Biden said "there's a whole lot of reasons why I wouldn't run. Um, I haven't made that decision. And I don't have to make that decision for a while." A Democratic strategist close to Biden sees the Obama-Clinton interview as a parting gift to the secretary of state, and doesn't see the teaming up on TV as any threat to Biden. The strategist also asked to remain anonymous to speak more freely. According to a CNN/ORC International poll conducted last month, 85% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democratic Party said they'd be very or somewhat likely to support Clinton if she makes another bid for the Democratic nomination, with two-thirds of Democrats questioned saying they would be very or somewhat likely to support Vice President Joe Biden if he runs. Other possible 2016 candidates mentioned in the survey trailed Biden by at least 10 points.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

78EKHaHjPn6QXjpj

test

86N9ePUVCfTzRq2i

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2019/april/lsquo-he-knows-better-rsquo-mike-pence-responds-to-pete-buttigieg-rsquo-s-criticism-of-his-faith

‘He Knows Better’: Mike Pence Responds to Pete Buttigieg’s Criticism of His Faith

2019-04-11

Vice President Mike Pence has responded to criticism leveled against him by Democratic Presidential hopeful and South Bend , Indiana Mayor , Pete Buttigieg . Buttigieg , in a recent address to an LGBT campaign group , swiped at Pence for his religious belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman . “ I wish the Mike Pence ’ s of the world would understand , that if you have a problem with who I am , your quarrel is not with me , ” Buttigieg , who is openly gay and married , declared Sunday . “ Your quarrel , sir , is with my creator . ” Buttigieg also referred to Pence when insisting that his gay marriage brought him “ closer to God . ” Presidential Candidate Pete Buttigieg Claims God Is on His Side of the Gay Marriage Debate Bizarrely , Pence had not issued any comments to provoke such pointed remarks . Speaking in response to the mayor ’ s comments , the Vice President told CNBC that Buttigieg “ knows better ” than to say “ things that are critical of my Christian faith and about me personally . ” “ He knows me , ” Pence added , “ but I get it . You know , it ’ s look , again , 19 people running for president on that side in a party that ’ s sliding off to the left . And they ’ re all competing with one another for how much more liberal they are . ” Pence , who has been a staunch believer in traditional marriage for his entire political career , noted that this “ doesn ’ t mean that we ’ re we ’ re critical of anyone else who has a different point of view , ” Pence noted that as governor of Indiana , he “ worked very closely with Mayor Pete ” and that they “ had a great working relationship . ” Karen Pence Issues Blunt Response to Buttigieg ’ s Unprovoked Attacks on Vice President ’ s Christian Beliefs Pence ’ s wife , Karen , also responded to Buttigieg ’ s comments , declaring that “ in our country , we need to understand you shouldn ’ t be attacked for what your religious beliefs are . ” “ I think kids need to learn that , at a young age , that this is OK , what faith people have , ” she said . “ We don ’ t attack them for their faith . ”

Vice President Mike Pence has responded to criticism leveled against him by Democratic Presidential hopeful and South Bend, Indiana Mayor, Pete Buttigieg. Buttigieg, in a recent address to an LGBT campaign group, swiped at Pence for his religious belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman. “I wish the Mike Pence’s of the world would understand, that if you have a problem with who I am, your quarrel is not with me,” Buttigieg, who is openly gay and married, declared Sunday. “Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.” Buttigieg also referred to Pence when insisting that his gay marriage brought him “closer to God.” Presidential Candidate Pete Buttigieg Claims God Is on His Side of the Gay Marriage Debate Bizarrely, Pence had not issued any comments to provoke such pointed remarks. Speaking in response to the mayor’s comments, the Vice President told CNBC that Buttigieg “knows better” than to say “things that are critical of my Christian faith and about me personally.” “He knows me,” Pence added, “but I get it. You know, it’s look, again, 19 people running for president on that side in a party that’s sliding off to the left. And they’re all competing with one another for how much more liberal they are.” Pence, who has been a staunch believer in traditional marriage for his entire political career, noted that this “doesn’t mean that we’re we’re critical of anyone else who has a different point of view,” Pence noted that as governor of Indiana, he “worked very closely with Mayor Pete” and that they “had a great working relationship.” Karen Pence Issues Blunt Response to Buttigieg’s Unprovoked Attacks on Vice President’s Christian Beliefs Pence’s wife, Karen, also responded to Buttigieg’s comments, declaring that “in our country, we need to understand you shouldn’t be attacked for what your religious beliefs are.” “I think kids need to learn that, at a young age, that this is OK, what faith people have,” she said. “We don’t attack them for their faith.”

www1.cbn.com

right

86N9ePUVCfTzRq2i

test

u04Jotbs9hQAl3Lj

politics

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/06/joaquin-castro-names-trump-donors/

Joaquin Castro Posts Names, Employers Of Trump Donors

2019-08-06

Democratic Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro on Monday tweeted the names and employers of 44 San Antonio residents who donated the federal maximum to President Donald Trump ’ s reelection campaign . Castro , whose district includes much of San Antonio , claimed the donors “ are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘ invaders . ' ” Castro is the twin brother of Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro and chairs his presidential campaign . Sad to see so many San Antonians as 2019 maximum donors to Donald Trump — the owner of ⁦ @ BillMillerBarBQ⁩ , owner of the ⁦ @ HistoricPearl , realtor Phyllis Browning , etc⁩ . Their contributions are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘ invaders. ’ pic.twitter.com/YT85IBF19u — Joaquin Castro ( @ Castro4Congress ) August 6 , 2019 “ Sad to see so many San Antonians as 2019 maximum donors to Donald Trump , ” the congressman wrote , proceeding to name local businesses whose owners gave the maximum to Trump ’ s campaign . Eleven of the 44 donors shown in Rep. Castro ’ s post listed their employment as “ retired . ” Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh is demanding Castro delete the post . “ Democrats want to talk about inciting violence ? This naming of private citizens and their employers is reckless and irresponsible . He is endangering the safety of people he is supposed to be representing , ” Murtaugh told ███ News Foundation . “ No one should be targeted for exercising their First Amendment rights or for their political beliefs . He should delete the tweet , apologize , and his brother ’ s campaign should disavow it , ” Murtaugh continued . ( RELATED : A Mob Showed Up At Tucker Carlson ’ s House And Ordered Him To ‘ Leave Town ’ ) Murtaugh added that the campaign reported Castro ’ s tweet to Twitter for “ targeted harassment . ” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise was harshly critical of Rep. Castro as well , warning the Democratic congressman : “ This isn ’ t a game . It ’ s dangerous , and lives are at stake . I know this firsthand . ” The names and employers of campaign donors are publicly available in Federal Election Commission ( FEC ) filings , but publishing lists of opposing donors in the area and their places of employment , is outside the norm for members of the House of Representatives . Neither Castro ’ s presidential campaign nor Rep. Castro ’ s congressional office returned requests for comment . Castro later doubled down on his decision to publish the list , comparing it to media coverage of large campaign donors .

Democratic Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro on Monday tweeted the names and employers of 44 San Antonio residents who donated the federal maximum to President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign. Castro, whose district includes much of San Antonio, claimed the donors “are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders.'” Castro is the twin brother of Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro and chairs his presidential campaign. Sad to see so many San Antonians as 2019 maximum donors to Donald Trump — the owner of ⁦@BillMillerBarBQ⁩, owner of the ⁦@HistoricPearl, realtor Phyllis Browning, etc⁩. Their contributions are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders.’ pic.twitter.com/YT85IBF19u — Joaquin Castro (@Castro4Congress) August 6, 2019 “Sad to see so many San Antonians as 2019 maximum donors to Donald Trump,” the congressman wrote, proceeding to name local businesses whose owners gave the maximum to Trump’s campaign. Eleven of the 44 donors shown in Rep. Castro’s post listed their employment as “retired.” Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh is demanding Castro delete the post. “Democrats want to talk about inciting violence? This naming of private citizens and their employers is reckless and irresponsible. He is endangering the safety of people he is supposed to be representing,” Murtaugh told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “No one should be targeted for exercising their First Amendment rights or for their political beliefs. He should delete the tweet, apologize, and his brother’s campaign should disavow it,” Murtaugh continued. (RELATED: A Mob Showed Up At Tucker Carlson’s House And Ordered Him To ‘Leave Town’) Murtaugh added that the campaign reported Castro’s tweet to Twitter for “targeted harassment.” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise was harshly critical of Rep. Castro as well, warning the Democratic congressman: “This isn’t a game. It’s dangerous, and lives are at stake. I know this firsthand.” The names and employers of campaign donors are publicly available in Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings, but publishing lists of opposing donors in the area and their places of employment, is outside the norm for members of the House of Representatives. Neither Castro’s presidential campaign nor Rep. Castro’s congressional office returned requests for comment. Castro later doubled down on his decision to publish the list, comparing it to media coverage of large campaign donors. Follow Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

www.dailycaller.com

right

u04Jotbs9hQAl3Lj

test

SLX7yKIroBaxymXE

politics

Guest Writer - Right

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/07/blocking-people-on-twitter-is-a-first-amendment-violation-but-only-when-trump-does-it/

Blocking People On Twitter Is A First Amendment Violation, But Only When Trump Does It

2017-06-07

As a dirty rotten # NeverTrump traitor , I realize my opinion doesn ’ t count for much , but I think it ’ s a mistake for President Trump to be tweeting all the time . Sure , it helped get him elected , but is it really helping him govern ? His off-the-cuff style can be fun , and I can ’ t help but enjoy the way he drives lefties out of the tattered remnants of their minds , but spewing out every little thing that annoys him about whatever he ’ s watching on cable news… It just seems like a bad idea in the long run . That said , he has every right to do it , and he ’ s under no obligation to listen to anybody he doesn ’ t want to . Twitter allows users to mute or block any other user , at any time and for any reason . You can say whatever you want , but that doesn ’ t oblige anybody else to listen . That ’ s not enough for some people , though , because Hillary lost and it isn ’ t fair and they will not be ignored . Charlie Savage , NYT : Lawyers for Twitter users blocked by President Trump after they criticized or mocked him are asking him to reverse the moves , arguing that the Constitution bars him from blocking people on the social media service . The request raises novel legal issues stemming from Mr. Trump ’ s use of his Twitter account , @ realDonaldTrump , to make statements about public policy… The blocked Twitter users are represented by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University , whose executive director , Jameel Jaffer , said in a statement that Mr. Trump did not have a right to exclude his critics from engaging with his posts… One of the Twitter users the letter said Mr. Trump had blocked is Holly O ’ Reilly , whose account is @ AynRandPaulRyan . After reading this , I became curious about the sort of person who would threaten to sue the President of the United States for blocking her on Twitter . So I clicked the link to check Ms. O ’ Reilly ’ s Twitter account , and guess what I saw ? I ’ ve never interacted with this person in my life . I ’ d never even heard of her before yesterday . And yet the woman who made the pages of the New York Times because Trump blocked her… had blocked me . Apparently she used some sort of block list , because a lot of other people who follow me on Twitter are discovering they ’ ve been blocked by her too . She has every right to do so , of course . I never would ’ ve cared , or even noticed , if she hadn ’ t made a spectacle of herself in the Newspaper of Record by howling about Trump doing the exact same thing to her . She doesn ’ t have to listen to me . He doesn ’ t have to listen to her . The First Amendment has nothing to do with any of it . If a person in power blocks you on Twitter , you shouldn ’ t sue . You should celebrate ! You may or may not have done something right , but at least you momentarily annoyed someone you don ’ t like . That ’ s what the Internet is all about . Take the win already . Update : WaPo published Ms. O ’ Reilly ’ s op-ed today , because of course they did . She seems to think Trump is “ silencing ” her , which is utterly ridiculous . No , child , you can stand outside and scream all you want . But you can ’ t stop him from closing his windows . Just like you ’ ve closed yours .

As a dirty rotten #NeverTrump traitor, I realize my opinion doesn’t count for much, but I think it’s a mistake for President Trump to be tweeting all the time. Sure, it helped get him elected, but is it really helping him govern? His off-the-cuff style can be fun, and I can’t help but enjoy the way he drives lefties out of the tattered remnants of their minds, but spewing out every little thing that annoys him about whatever he’s watching on cable news… It just seems like a bad idea in the long run. That said, he has every right to do it, and he’s under no obligation to listen to anybody he doesn’t want to. Twitter allows users to mute or block any other user, at any time and for any reason. You can say whatever you want, but that doesn’t oblige anybody else to listen. That’s not enough for some people, though, because Hillary lost and it isn’t fair and they will not be ignored. Charlie Savage, NYT: Lawyers for Twitter users blocked by President Trump after they criticized or mocked him are asking him to reverse the moves, arguing that the Constitution bars him from blocking people on the social media service. The request raises novel legal issues stemming from Mr. Trump’s use of his Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, to make statements about public policy… The blocked Twitter users are represented by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, whose executive director, Jameel Jaffer, said in a statement that Mr. Trump did not have a right to exclude his critics from engaging with his posts… One of the Twitter users the letter said Mr. Trump had blocked is Holly O’Reilly, whose account is @AynRandPaulRyan. After reading this, I became curious about the sort of person who would threaten to sue the President of the United States for blocking her on Twitter. So I clicked the link to check Ms. O’Reilly’s Twitter account, and guess what I saw? Yep: I’ve never interacted with this person in my life. I’d never even heard of her before yesterday. And yet the woman who made the pages of the New York Times because Trump blocked her… had blocked me. Apparently she used some sort of block list, because a lot of other people who follow me on Twitter are discovering they’ve been blocked by her too. She has every right to do so, of course. I never would’ve cared, or even noticed, if she hadn’t made a spectacle of herself in the Newspaper of Record by howling about Trump doing the exact same thing to her. She doesn’t have to listen to me. He doesn’t have to listen to her. The First Amendment has nothing to do with any of it. But hey, #Resist, right? If a person in power blocks you on Twitter, you shouldn’t sue. You should celebrate! You may or may not have done something right, but at least you momentarily annoyed someone you don’t like. That’s what the Internet is all about. Take the win already. Update: WaPo published Ms. O’Reilly’s op-ed today, because of course they did. She seems to think Trump is “silencing” her, which is utterly ridiculous. No, child, you can stand outside and scream all you want. But you can’t stop him from closing his windows. Just like you’ve closed yours.

www.dailycaller.com

right

SLX7yKIroBaxymXE

test

nTpWpz4tRmZSdz8Y

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/21/exclusive-podesta-was-board-member-of-firm-linked-to-russian-investors/

Podesta Was Board Member Of Firms Linked To Russian ‘Investors’

2017-03-21

Rep. Louie Gohmert , an outspoken House Republican from Texas , is calling for a congressional investigation of John Podesta ’ s role with Rusnano , a state-run company founded by Russian President Vladimir Putin , ███ News Foundation ’ s Investigative Group has learned . Podesta — Hillary Clinton ’ s 2016 presidential campaign chairman and former President Bill Clinton ’ s White House chief of staff — first made contact with the Russian firm in 2011 , when he joined the boards and executive committees of three related entities : Boston-based Joule Unlimited ; Rotterdam-based Joule Global Holdings ; Joule Global Stichting , the company ’ s controlling interest . All are high-tech renewable energy enterprises . Three months after Podesta ’ s arrival , Joule Unlimited accepted a 1 billion ruble investment from Rusnano , amounting to $ 35 million in U.S. currency . The firm also awarded a Joule board seat in February 2012 to Anatoly Chubais , Rusnano ’ s CEO , who has been depicted as a corrupt figure . Podesta has attempted to downplay his relationship with Joule and Rusnano , but it could come to haunt him . One potential legal problem for him relates to the time he joined former President Barack Obama ’ s White House staff in 2014 as a senior counselor and failed to reveal his 2011 Joule stock vesting agreement in his government financial disclosure form . Further , he failed to disclose 75,000 common shares of Joule stock he received , as disclosed in a WikiLeaks email . After Podesta began working at the White House , his lawyer indicated in a Jan. 6 , 2014 email that he had not yet finished the legal work on the private transfer of the stock to a family-owned entity called Leonido Holdings , LLC . Gohmert ’ s call for an examination of Podesta ’ s Russian ties comes as Washington is in the grips of a set of allegations about Russian ties to President Donald Trump and his aides , as well as charges of Russian influence during the presidential election . Gohmert is troubled about the Podesta-Russia connection , telling TheDCNF , “ this certainly needs to be reviewed to see if there really is something nefarious going on with these activities. ” Gohmert sits on the House Judiciary Committee and is vice chair of its subcommittee on crime , terrorism and homeland security . The Podesta-Russia connection also could rekindle a new round of questions about Clinton relationships with foreign figures — in this case , Chubais . Chubais , Russia ’ s deputy prime minister in the 1990s , owed his personal fortunes to Bill Clinton , who embraced him as a “ reformer ” in former President Boris Yeltsin ’ s government . Clinton ’ s ally instead created a new generation of tycoons who today rule Russia . Podesta ’ s role at Joule was largely unknown until last year when the nonprofit Government Accountability Institute ( GAI ) published a highly-detailed report on Russian ties to Podesta and the Clintons . An ongoing federal lawsuit , Neas Ltd , v. Rusnano , which is now before the U.S. District Court for Northern California , suggests Podesta and others at Joule may have unwittingly assisted Rusnano in a scheme hatched to move billions of weak rubles into valuable U.S. dollars by parking them as “ investments ” in high-tech companies in Boston and in Silicon Valley . A deposition by Ilya Ponomarev , an architect of Russia ’ s innovation enterprises and the former chairman of innovations subcommittee in the Russian Parliament , shed light on Rusnano ’ s plans in the United States . He says its primary objective “ was the transformation of Rusnano from a state-owned corporation to an enterprise suitable for operations in the United States. ” Ponomarev now lives in exile in the United States . Shortly after then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pursued her “ reset ” with Russia , state-owned Russian companies began targeting American companies in Boston and Silicon Valley as investment opportunities . In May 2010 , under Hillary Clinton ’ s leadership , the Department of State facilitated a visit by 22 American hi-tech and venture capital firms to Skolkovo , Russia ’ s version of Silicon Valley , according to GAI . Rusnano appears to have been a leader in the Russian investment move into the United States . Chubais created a Rusnano “ investment fund ” and set up a so-called “ Russian Innovation Center ” in tony Silicon Valley , according to the Neas lawsuit . The company opened shop in Palo Alto called DJF Venture Fund , a venture capital fund advised the Russian company . Rusnano targeted Boston where Joule ’ s U.S. operations were centered . In 2010 , Chubais joined a Rusnano “ road show ” and gave a presentation at MIT . A Rusnano managing director also addressed the Harvard Faculty Club . An Oct. 5 , 2011 Rusnano PowerPoint presentation by Dmitry Akhanov , Rusnano USA president , promised American businessmen “ cheap money. ” Rusnano dangled $ 4.6 billion in government contributions and $ 5.7 billion in state guarantees . Lucia Ziobro , the special agent in charge at the FBI ’ s Boston field office , issued an “ extraordinary warning ” to Boston-area high-tech firms in 2014 about Russian investors to startups like Joule . “ The FBI believes the true motives of the Russian partners , who are often funded by their government , is to gain access to classified , sensitive and emerging technology from the companies , ” she wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed . Podesta ’ s emails also show how in 2015 Podesta continued to help Rusnano even though he had left Joule ’ s boards . Podesta ’ s lawyer told him he did legal work for the Rosnano president to get on the Joule board . Rusnano was a special company formed by decree at the direction of Putin . A small group of Putin cronies called the “ Kooperative Ozero ” masterminded the takeover of big swaths of the Russian economy . The Ozero group are eight men — including Putin — who owned expensive dachas on a lake outside of St. Petersburg . They now run state-owned banks , the news media and oil and gas companies . “ This group Ozero turned to occupy all the ruling positions in the country after Putin came to power , ” Ponomarev told TheDCNF . He said the group represented “ former KGB , organized crime and their associates . ” David Satter , a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and former Wall Street Journal reporter who covered Russia , called Chubais as “ a very shady figure . ” “ Chubais was in charge of the whole privatization process during the 1990 ’ s under Yeltsin which was notoriously corrupt , ” he told TheDCNF . “ Billions of dollars in property changed hands under conditions that were unethical , illegal , criminal . He was in charge of that whole process , ” he said . The DCNF contacted but received no replies from Joule Unlimited , Rusnano USA or Podesta .

Rep. Louie Gohmert, an outspoken House Republican from Texas, is calling for a congressional investigation of John Podesta’s role with Rusnano, a state-run company founded by Russian President Vladimir Putin, The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group has learned. Podesta — Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign chairman and former President Bill Clinton’s White House chief of staff — first made contact with the Russian firm in 2011, when he joined the boards and executive committees of three related entities: Boston-based Joule Unlimited; Rotterdam-based Joule Global Holdings; Joule Global Stichting, the company’s controlling interest. All are high-tech renewable energy enterprises. Three months after Podesta’s arrival, Joule Unlimited accepted a 1 billion ruble investment from Rusnano, amounting to $35 million in U.S. currency. The firm also awarded a Joule board seat in February 2012 to Anatoly Chubais, Rusnano’s CEO, who has been depicted as a corrupt figure. Podesta has attempted to downplay his relationship with Joule and Rusnano, but it could come to haunt him. One potential legal problem for him relates to the time he joined former President Barack Obama’s White House staff in 2014 as a senior counselor and failed to reveal his 2011 Joule stock vesting agreement in his government financial disclosure form. Further, he failed to disclose 75,000 common shares of Joule stock he received, as disclosed in a WikiLeaks email. After Podesta began working at the White House, his lawyer indicated in a Jan. 6, 2014 email that he had not yet finished the legal work on the private transfer of the stock to a family-owned entity called Leonido Holdings, LLC. Gohmert’s call for an examination of Podesta’s Russian ties comes as Washington is in the grips of a set of allegations about Russian ties to President Donald Trump and his aides, as well as charges of Russian influence during the presidential election. Gohmert is troubled about the Podesta-Russia connection, telling TheDCNF, “this certainly needs to be reviewed to see if there really is something nefarious going on with these activities.” Gohmert sits on the House Judiciary Committee and is vice chair of its subcommittee on crime, terrorism and homeland security. The Podesta-Russia connection also could rekindle a new round of questions about Clinton relationships with foreign figures — in this case, Chubais. Chubais, Russia’s deputy prime minister in the 1990s, owed his personal fortunes to Bill Clinton, who embraced him as a “reformer” in former President Boris Yeltsin’s government. Clinton’s ally instead created a new generation of tycoons who today rule Russia. Podesta’s role at Joule was largely unknown until last year when the nonprofit Government Accountability Institute (GAI) published a highly-detailed report on Russian ties to Podesta and the Clintons. An ongoing federal lawsuit, Neas Ltd, v. Rusnano, which is now before the U.S. District Court for Northern California, suggests Podesta and others at Joule may have unwittingly assisted Rusnano in a scheme hatched to move billions of weak rubles into valuable U.S. dollars by parking them as “investments” in high-tech companies in Boston and in Silicon Valley. A deposition by Ilya Ponomarev, an architect of Russia’s innovation enterprises and the former chairman of innovations subcommittee in the Russian Parliament, shed light on Rusnano’s plans in the United States. He says its primary objective “was the transformation of Rusnano from a state-owned corporation to an enterprise suitable for operations in the United States.” Ponomarev now lives in exile in the United States. Shortly after then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pursued her “reset” with Russia, state-owned Russian companies began targeting American companies in Boston and Silicon Valley as investment opportunities. In May 2010, under Hillary Clinton’s leadership, the Department of State facilitated a visit by 22 American hi-tech and venture capital firms to Skolkovo, Russia’s version of Silicon Valley, according to GAI. Rusnano appears to have been a leader in the Russian investment move into the United States. Chubais created a Rusnano “investment fund” and set up a so-called “Russian Innovation Center” in tony Silicon Valley, according to the Neas lawsuit. The company opened shop in Palo Alto called DJF Venture Fund, a venture capital fund advised the Russian company. Rusnano targeted Boston where Joule’s U.S. operations were centered. In 2010, Chubais joined a Rusnano “road show” and gave a presentation at MIT. A Rusnano managing director also addressed the Harvard Faculty Club. An Oct. 5, 2011 Rusnano PowerPoint presentation by Dmitry Akhanov, Rusnano USA president, promised American businessmen “cheap money.” Rusnano dangled $4.6 billion in government contributions and $5.7 billion in state guarantees. Lucia Ziobro, the special agent in charge at the FBI’s Boston field office, issued an “extraordinary warning” to Boston-area high-tech firms in 2014 about Russian investors to startups like Joule. “The FBI believes the true motives of the Russian partners, who are often funded by their government, is to gain access to classified, sensitive and emerging technology from the companies,” she wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed. Podesta’s emails also show how in 2015 Podesta continued to help Rusnano even though he had left Joule’s boards. Podesta’s lawyer told him he did legal work for the Rosnano president to get on the Joule board. Rusnano was a special company formed by decree at the direction of Putin. A small group of Putin cronies called the “Kooperative Ozero” masterminded the takeover of big swaths of the Russian economy. The Ozero group are eight men — including Putin — who owned expensive dachas on a lake outside of St. Petersburg. They now run state-owned banks, the news media and oil and gas companies. “This group Ozero turned to occupy all the ruling positions in the country after Putin came to power,” Ponomarev told TheDCNF. He said the group represented “former KGB, organized crime and their associates.” David Satter, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and former Wall Street Journal reporter who covered Russia, called Chubais as “a very shady figure.” “Chubais was in charge of the whole privatization process during the 1990’s under Yeltsin which was notoriously corrupt,” he told TheDCNF. “Billions of dollars in property changed hands under conditions that were unethical, illegal, criminal. He was in charge of that whole process,” he said. The DCNF contacted but received no replies from Joule Unlimited, Rusnano USA or Podesta. Follow Richard on Twitter Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

www.dailycaller.com

right

nTpWpz4tRmZSdz8Y

test

ZtazQMkVbdhL3FDT

treasury

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/04/15/fact-check-stimulus-checks-not-being-held-up-for-donald-trumps-name/

Stimulus Checks Not Being Held up for Donald Trump’s Name

2020-04-15

Matthew Boyle

The Washington Post published a story on Tuesday evening claiming the stimulus checks going out to the vast majority of Americans as a result of the coronavirus crisis are being held up due to the fact President Donald Trump ’ s name is being affixed to them . The opening sentence of the article from Lisa Rein claims that adding Trump ’ s name to the checks to tens of millions of Americans is “ a process that could slow their delivery by a few days . ” The article also includes a section quoting some career officials claiming this will lead to a delay : The team , working from home , is now racing to implement a programming change that two senior IRS officials said will probably lead to a delay in issuing the first batch of paper checks . They are scheduled to be sent Thursday to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service for printing and issuing . Computer code must be changed to include the president ’ s name , and the system must be tested , these officials said . “ Any last-minute request like this will create a downstream snarl that will result in a delay , ” said Chad Hooper , a quality-control manager who serves as national president of the IRS ’ s Professional Managers Association . But the idea there will be some kind of a delay is not true . Buried deeper within the piece is confirmation that the checks will not be delayed . A Treasury Department spokeswoman , however , denied any delay and said the plan all along was to issue the checks next week . “ Economic Impact Payment checks are scheduled to go out on time and exactly as planned — there is absolutely no delay whatsoever , ” the spokeswoman said in a written statement . She said this was a faster process than the stimulus checks the George W. Bush administration issued in 2008 to head off a looming recession . “ In fact , we expect the first checks to be in the mail early next week which is well in advance of when the first checks went out in 2008 and well in advance of initial estimates , ” the statement said . Multiple Treasury Department officials confirmed to ███ that the claims of a delay are inaccurate . One Treasury Department official confirmed that President Trump ’ s name will appear on the paper checks , adding there will be no delay to make that happen . Monica Crowley , the Treasury Department spokeswoman , also tweeted this response to the “ inaccurate and misleading ” Washington Post story on Wednesday : Treasury spokesperson response to last night ’ s inaccurate and misleading Washington Post story : pic.twitter.com/5K7SNa6PFC — Monica Crowley ( @ TreasurySpox ) April 15 , 2020 Most Americans are getting these cash payments directly deposited into their bank accounts , if they have gotten a tax return in recent years and the IRS has their direct deposit information on file . Some Americans , however , need a paper check to be mailed to them–and the Treasury Department says these checks are going out ahead of schedule even with the addition of President Trump ’ s name on them . Despite the claims from the Washington Post piece collapsing under scrutiny , many on the left and throughout the media and entertainment establishment have used this story to further attack President Trump : If the check you ’ re waiting for is delayed , you can thank this man . He cared more about getting his name on the check than about your need for it . He ’ s worse than contemptible . https : //t.co/O76gnmxgrj — Laurence Tribe ( @ tribelaw ) April 15 , 2020 EXCLUSIVE : In an unprecedented move , the Trump administration orders the president ’ s name to be printed on millions of Americans ’ stimulus checks — which will delay their arrival . By @ Reinlwapohttps : //t.co/HApaTx0pkr — Cathleen Decker ( @ cathleendecker ) April 15 , 2020 If he 's going to put his name on stimulus checks , then his name also belongs on every death certificate that resulted from his 70-day delay in taking action . https : //t.co/iX07X0cByT — Chris Lu ( @ ChrisLu44 ) April 15 , 2020 A delay of even 1 day in stimulus checks is too much , but especially just to flatter 45 's vanity & give him political advantage . Hold him accountable . # Vote4Biden https : //t.co/FCVk56rfZ2 — Jill Wine-Banks ( @ JillWineBanks ) April 15 , 2020 “ The addition of his signature is expected to delay the delivery of the paper checks by several days. ” https : //t.co/nd2d6q6EkL — Shannon Watts ( @ shannonrwatts ) April 15 , 2020 The Treasury Department must reveal if the Trump Administration is delaying Americans ’ stimulus checks in order to unnecessarily print the President 's name on them . As millions of families are struggling to get by , any unnecessary delay is unacceptable . https : //t.co/iioFBOYLqO pic.twitter.com/24UGQMJRPf — Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi ( @ CongressmanRaja ) April 15 , 2020 Donald Trump ordered that his name be printed on the $ 1,200 stimulus checks — an unprecedented and selfish move that will delay arrival of the checks by several days . https : //t.co/tY52KyUuvb — Jon Cooper 🇺🇸 ( @ joncoopertweets ) April 15 , 2020 . @ Acosta confirms that Trump 's name will be added to stimulus checks sent to Americans . A senior administration official says adding Trump 's name wo n't cause any delays . w/ @ caroline_mkelly https : //t.co/Gv06BKySAh — Kyle `` Please Mute Your Line '' Feldscher ( @ Kyle_Feldscher ) April 15 , 2020 He is delaying printed checks so they can update computer code to include his name in the memo line . True story . Donald J. Trump 's name will be on stimulus checks in unprecedented move https : //t.co/wxsuMaOcNz — Alyssa Milano ( @ Alyssa_Milano ) April 15 , 2020 A source familiar with the matter added to ███ the political attacks on the president and inaccurate claims of a delay in checks going out for this purpose are par for the course for those who hate President Trump . “ This is just another attempt by the entrenched , anti-Trump bureaucracy to craft a false narrative about the president ’ s ego when in fact millions of Americans are already seeing their economic impact payments hit their bank accounts , ” the source familiar with the process said . “ The Washington Post is the propaganda arm of the out of touch , rabid , far left and should be lambasted for sowing discord as our nation attempts to navigate this challenging economic climate . Shameful . ”

The Washington Post published a story on Tuesday evening claiming the stimulus checks going out to the vast majority of Americans as a result of the coronavirus crisis are being held up due to the fact President Donald Trump’s name is being affixed to them. The opening sentence of the article from Lisa Rein claims that adding Trump’s name to the checks to tens of millions of Americans is “a process that could slow their delivery by a few days.” The article also includes a section quoting some career officials claiming this will lead to a delay: The team, working from home, is now racing to implement a programming change that two senior IRS officials said will probably lead to a delay in issuing the first batch of paper checks. They are scheduled to be sent Thursday to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service for printing and issuing. Computer code must be changed to include the president’s name, and the system must be tested, these officials said. “Any last-minute request like this will create a downstream snarl that will result in a delay,” said Chad Hooper, a quality-control manager who serves as national president of the IRS’s Professional Managers Association. But the idea there will be some kind of a delay is not true. Buried deeper within the piece is confirmation that the checks will not be delayed. A Treasury Department spokeswoman, however, denied any delay and said the plan all along was to issue the checks next week. “Economic Impact Payment checks are scheduled to go out on time and exactly as planned — there is absolutely no delay whatsoever,” the spokeswoman said in a written statement. She said this was a faster process than the stimulus checks the George W. Bush administration issued in 2008 to head off a looming recession. “In fact, we expect the first checks to be in the mail early next week which is well in advance of when the first checks went out in 2008 and well in advance of initial estimates,” the statement said. Multiple Treasury Department officials confirmed to Breitbart News that the claims of a delay are inaccurate. One Treasury Department official confirmed that President Trump’s name will appear on the paper checks, adding there will be no delay to make that happen. Monica Crowley, the Treasury Department spokeswoman, also tweeted this response to the “inaccurate and misleading” Washington Post story on Wednesday: Treasury spokesperson response to last night’s inaccurate and misleading Washington Post story: pic.twitter.com/5K7SNa6PFC — Monica Crowley (@TreasurySpox) April 15, 2020 Most Americans are getting these cash payments directly deposited into their bank accounts, if they have gotten a tax return in recent years and the IRS has their direct deposit information on file. Some Americans, however, need a paper check to be mailed to them–and the Treasury Department says these checks are going out ahead of schedule even with the addition of President Trump’s name on them. Despite the claims from the Washington Post piece collapsing under scrutiny, many on the left and throughout the media and entertainment establishment have used this story to further attack President Trump: If the check you’re waiting for is delayed, you can thank this man. He cared more about getting his name on the check than about your need for it. He’s worse than contemptible. https://t.co/O76gnmxgrj — Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) April 15, 2020 EXCLUSIVE: In an unprecedented move, the Trump administration orders the president’s name to be printed on millions of Americans’ stimulus checks — which will delay their arrival. By @Reinlwapohttps://t.co/HApaTx0pkr — Cathleen Decker (@cathleendecker) April 15, 2020 If he's going to put his name on stimulus checks, then his name also belongs on every death certificate that resulted from his 70-day delay in taking action. https://t.co/iX07X0cByT — Chris Lu (@ChrisLu44) April 15, 2020 A delay of even 1 day in stimulus checks is too much, but especially just to flatter 45's vanity & give him political advantage. Hold him accountable. #Vote4Biden https://t.co/FCVk56rfZ2 — Jill Wine-Banks (@JillWineBanks) April 15, 2020 “The addition of his signature is expected to delay the delivery of the paper checks by several days.” https://t.co/nd2d6q6EkL — Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) April 15, 2020 The Treasury Department must reveal if the Trump Administration is delaying Americans’ stimulus checks in order to unnecessarily print the President's name on them. As millions of families are struggling to get by, any unnecessary delay is unacceptable. https://t.co/iioFBOYLqO pic.twitter.com/24UGQMJRPf — Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (@CongressmanRaja) April 15, 2020 Donald Trump ordered that his name be printed on the $1,200 stimulus checks — an unprecedented and selfish move that will delay arrival of the checks by several days. https://t.co/tY52KyUuvb — Jon Cooper 🇺🇸 (@joncoopertweets) April 15, 2020 .@Acosta confirms that Trump's name will be added to stimulus checks sent to Americans. A senior administration official says adding Trump's name won't cause any delays. w/@caroline_mkelly https://t.co/Gv06BKySAh — Kyle "Please Mute Your Line" Feldscher (@Kyle_Feldscher) April 15, 2020 He is delaying printed checks so they can update computer code to include his name in the memo line. True story. Donald J. Trump's name will be on stimulus checks in unprecedented move https://t.co/wxsuMaOcNz — Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) April 15, 2020 A source familiar with the matter added to Breitbart News the political attacks on the president and inaccurate claims of a delay in checks going out for this purpose are par for the course for those who hate President Trump. “This is just another attempt by the entrenched, anti-Trump bureaucracy to craft a false narrative about the president’s ego when in fact millions of Americans are already seeing their economic impact payments hit their bank accounts,” the source familiar with the process said. “The Washington Post is the propaganda arm of the out of touch, rabid, far left and should be lambasted for sowing discord as our nation attempts to navigate this challenging economic climate. Shameful.”

www.breitbart.com

right

ZtazQMkVbdhL3FDT

test

GmspuljrGkUuNlHM

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/27/the_gops_demonic_alliance_how_the_religious_right_big_business_are_dumbing_down_america/

The GOP's demonic alliance: How the religious right & big business are dumbing down America

2015-04-27

Conor Lynch

Though presidential hopeful Ted Cruz was apparently a top student at Harvard Law , he has always been quick to distance himself from the organization , especially since the despised Barack Obama went to the same school less then a decade earlier . Back in 2013 , at a conference sponsored by the Koch brothers , he said that “ [ Obama ] would have made a perfect president of Harvard Law School . '' `` There were fewer declared Republicans in the faculty when we were there than Communists ! There was one Republican . But there were twelve who would say they were Marxists who believed in the Communists overthrowing the United States government . ” This claim was discredited by Harvard Law , but it certainly can not come as a surprise that Cruz wants to distance himself from an academic organization that is generally thought of as liberal . His voter base , after all , is not a particularly highbrow community . With the Republican primaries ramping up , there will surely be a great deal of anti-intellectual musing coming from each candidate . There will be talk of how those elitist “ harvard faculty ” members are disconnected from the common people up in their ivory tower , and how they just don ’ t understand the real America . Mike Huckabee , who is expected to run for president , summarized this view on “ The Daily Show ” earlier this year : “ Theres a real disconnect between people that live in the bubbles of New York , Washington , and Hollywood , versus the people who live in the land of the bubba ’ s ... theres a big difference between people who are well educated and people who are smart . ” It is a view that has been espoused many times before here in America , similarly provided once by the crooked Tammany Hall politician George W. Plunkitt in response to calls for reform : “ Some young men think they can learn how to be successful in politics from books , and they cram their heads with all sorts of college rot . They couldn ’ t make a bigger mistake ... I guess [ colleges will ] have to exist as long as there ’ s bookworms ... but they don ’ t count in politics . ” Indeed , anti-intellectualism has quite a storied history here in America -- from evangelical preachers of the 19th century like Billy Sunday saying “ college graduates are going as fast as they can straight to hell , ” to Joseph McCarthy smearing every left-wing intellectual he could find . When it comes to alienating and demonizing thinking individuals , Christian ’ s and conservatives have always lead the way . And in the modern Republican party , anti-intellectualism has long been a common theme . America ’ s culture of anti-intellectualism can be traced back to the mid-18th century , when a schism occurred within puritan colonies . Originally , the puritans were very supportive of intellectuals , and founded top universities like Harvard and Yale . The 19th century Professor of American history , Moses Coit Tyler , wrote about Puritan intellectualism : “ In its inception , New England was not an agricultural community , nor a manufacturing community , nor a trading community : it was a thinking community ; an arena and mart for ideas ; its characteristic organ being not the hand , nor the heart , nor the pocket , but the brain. ” In the mid-18th century , however , what would later be coined “ the great awakening ” spread across colonies , and then to the west and south . Religious leaders began preaching with greater zeal and spontaneity , trying to reach out to the poor and uneducated masses . Certain denominations , particularly the Methodist and Baptist Churches , emphasized recruiting the common people , and therefore grew rapidly . In embracing the common people , the churches also embraced a kind of hostility towards eastern elites and intellectuals . During the 19th and 20th centuries , certain evangelical preachers , such as Dwight L. Moody and Billy Sunday , gained a mass of followers , as well as large fortunes , from their aggressively anti-intellectual and anti-modernity sermons . “ I do not read any book , unless it will help me understand the book , ” said Moody , “ I would rather have zeal without knowledge ; and their is a good deal of knowledge without zeal. ” The even more belligerent Sunday represented a kind of perversion of Christianity that would later become quite common within the religious right . Sunday had become a millionaire from his preachings , and was always quick to defend his private gain as a very Christian thing to do , once preaching that “ The Bible doesn ’ t condemn any man because of his wealth ... According to our standard of gold and silver , Abraham was worth a billion and a half dollars , David was worth three billion , Solomon was worth five billion . Solomon could ’ ve hired Andrew Carnegie for a butler , J. Pierpoint Morgan to cut his lawn , and Andrew Mellon for a chauffeur , and John D. to black his boots . ” This base synthesis of anti-intellectual evangelicalism and self-interested money making that Sunday preached was a precursor to the monstrous alliance between the religious right and business conservatives that we have today . From the New Deal era up to the Reagan years , the anti-intellectualist right was mostly focused on defeating communism , as seen with individuals like Joseph McCarthy and organizations like the John Birch Society . But the true synthesis of Christianity and business in modern politics came with Jerry Falwell ’ s “ moral majority ” and the election of Ronald Reagan . Falwell ’ s evangelical movement was focused mainly on social issues like abortion , homosexuality , and civil rights . Reagan wholly supported these social issues , but he was also a business conservative , whose economic philosophy was influenced by the likes of Milton Friedman and F.A . Hayek . As a spokesman for General Electric , Reagan had become entirely convinced of the free market ’ s supremacy , and in a sense , believed that what was good for GM , or in this case GE , was good for America . Today , the Republican party still supports these basic social and economic ideals . But the social issues are what truly gain votes , and they inevitably result in a hostility towards intellectualism and science . Many of Republicans seemingly vote against their economic self-interest in support of the conservative social values , which results in a vicious cycle of ignorance and poverty . Social conservative views , whether it be abortion or homosexuality , all sprout from the Christian faith , and the Christian faith inevitably clashes with modernity and science . We see it around the country , with schools teaching creationism and politicians denying man-made climate change . In states like Texas , Louisiana , and Tennessee , public school teachers are allowed to teach “ alternatives ” to evolution , while in the states Florida , Indiana , Arizona , Ohio , Washington , and elsewhere , taxpayer money goes to funding private creationist schools . Evolution is quite incompatible with biblical stories , and the lack of scientific education in many states shows itself in polls -- according to Gallup , 42 percent of Americans believe that God created humans in the present form . The denial of climate change is another major outcome of Americas cultural hostility towards intellectuals and experts . The scientific consensus of man-made climate change is as good as it gets : 97 percent of climate scientists agree . And yet , politicians and much of the populace simply do not trust the experts . According to a 2014 poll done by the Public Religion Research Institute , about 26 percent of Americans believe there is no solid evidence for climate change , and the most frequently cited reason for this belief was that they have not “ noticed any change in the weather around them. ” This popular view is clearly reflected by certain politicians , like the Chairman of the Senate Environment Committee Jim Inhofe , who vehemently denies climate change and says things like , “ the hoax is that there are some people who are so arrogant to think that they are so powerful , they can change climate . Man ca n't change climate . ” Clearly , this hostility towards science and intellectualism is ingrained within much of the country -- and now , with the Republican primaries heating up , a carnival of clownish windbags will be competing with each other to prove who is the most hostile towards science and education , and boy will it be close . Ted Cruz has already made it quite clear that , although he went to Harvard , he is as anti-intellectual as they come ; embracing conspiracy theories and comparing the climate change consensus to the theological consensus of the geocentric model during the time of Galileo . Cruz has been adamantly opposed to the entire idea of climate change , and was recently named to be Chairman of the Subcommittee on Space , Science , and Competitiveness . Aside from promoting the conspiracy theory that Harvard law is a communist organization , he has promoted other conspiracies that are outright loony , like saying the George Soros was leading a global movement to abolish the game of golf . Marco Rubio is also hostile to anything contradicting his faith , including climate change , while the leading contender for Republican nomination , Scott Walker , has taken the fight directly to academia , calling for major cuts in public university funding in Wisconsin that would add up to about $ 300 million over two years . He also just fired 57employees from Wisconsin ’ s Department of Natural Resources this past Earth Day . Predictably , he doesn ’ t believe climate change is a big issue either , and possibly has the worst record on environment out of all of the candidates . And so the Republican primaries will be full of the usual evangelical type preaching , damning abortion and calling their Democratic contenders “ elitist ” snobs , while brushing off those so-called “ expert ” climate scientists and their warnings . But you can only blame the politicians so much . When it comes down to it , this is simply what a big part of the population expects from their leaders -- religious buffoons who embrace a paranoid style of politics ; where experts and academics are looked down upon as disconnected and deceitful , and where faith in Jesus and the Bible is the ultimate guiding light . Where one is expected to go with their gut rather than their head , and where “ professorial ” is an insult . Anti-intellectualism is an American tradition , and these new contenders denying scientific facts and calling Harvard a communist institution are simply embracing a populace that individuals like Billy Sunday and Joseph McCarthy once embraced . The alliance of religion and big business has fully incorporated America ’ s unfortunate anti-intellectualist culture , which has resulted in millions of people voting against their interest because of their own ignorant hostility towards anything that could be deemed elitist . It is a cycle of ignorance and poverty , and it is exactly what the real elites , like billionaire oil men , aim for . The American writer , Issac Asimov , once said , “ Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life , nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘ my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge. ’ ” Unfortunately , this thread has continued to this day , and individuals like Ted Cruz and Scott Walker are here to remind us that ignorance can be quite competitive with knowledge , as long as there ’ s money behind it .

Though presidential hopeful Ted Cruz was apparently a top student at Harvard Law, he has always been quick to distance himself from the organization, especially since the despised Barack Obama went to the same school less then a decade earlier. Back in 2013, at a conference sponsored by the Koch brothers, he said that “[Obama] would have made a perfect president of Harvard Law School." His reasoning: Advertisement: "There were fewer declared Republicans in the faculty when we were there than Communists! There was one Republican. But there were twelve who would say they were Marxists who believed in the Communists overthrowing the United States government.” This claim was discredited by Harvard Law, but it certainly cannot come as a surprise that Cruz wants to distance himself from an academic organization that is generally thought of as liberal. His voter base, after all, is not a particularly highbrow community. With the Republican primaries ramping up, there will surely be a great deal of anti-intellectual musing coming from each candidate. There will be talk of how those elitist “harvard faculty” members are disconnected from the common people up in their ivory tower, and how they just don’t understand the real America. Mike Huckabee, who is expected to run for president, summarized this view on “The Daily Show” earlier this year: “Theres a real disconnect between people that live in the bubbles of New York, Washington, and Hollywood, versus the people who live in the land of the bubba’s...theres a big difference between people who are well educated and people who are smart.” It is a view that has been espoused many times before here in America, similarly provided once by the crooked Tammany Hall politician George W. Plunkitt in response to calls for reform: “Some young men think they can learn how to be successful in politics from books, and they cram their heads with all sorts of college rot. They couldn’t make a bigger mistake... I guess [colleges will] have to exist as long as there’s bookworms...but they don’t count in politics.” Advertisement: Indeed, anti-intellectualism has quite a storied history here in America -- from evangelical preachers of the 19th century like Billy Sunday saying “college graduates are going as fast as they can straight to hell,” to Joseph McCarthy smearing every left-wing intellectual he could find. When it comes to alienating and demonizing thinking individuals, Christian’s and conservatives have always lead the way. And in the modern Republican party, anti-intellectualism has long been a common theme. America’s culture of anti-intellectualism can be traced back to the mid-18th century, when a schism occurred within puritan colonies. Originally, the puritans were very supportive of intellectuals, and founded top universities like Harvard and Yale. The 19th century Professor of American history, Moses Coit Tyler, wrote about Puritan intellectualism: “In its inception, New England was not an agricultural community, nor a manufacturing community, nor a trading community: it was a thinking community; an arena and mart for ideas; its characteristic organ being not the hand, nor the heart, nor the pocket, but the brain.” In the mid-18th century, however, what would later be coined “the great awakening” spread across colonies, and then to the west and south. Religious leaders began preaching with greater zeal and spontaneity, trying to reach out to the poor and uneducated masses. Certain denominations, particularly the Methodist and Baptist Churches, emphasized recruiting the common people, and therefore grew rapidly. In embracing the common people, the churches also embraced a kind of hostility towards eastern elites and intellectuals. During the 19th and 20th centuries, certain evangelical preachers, such as Dwight L. Moody and Billy Sunday, gained a mass of followers, as well as large fortunes, from their aggressively anti-intellectual and anti-modernity sermons. “I do not read any book, unless it will help me understand the book,” said Moody, “I would rather have zeal without knowledge; and their is a good deal of knowledge without zeal.” The even more belligerent Sunday represented a kind of perversion of Christianity that would later become quite common within the religious right. Sunday had become a millionaire from his preachings, and was always quick to defend his private gain as a very Christian thing to do, once preaching that “The Bible doesn’t condemn any man because of his wealth... According to our standard of gold and silver, Abraham was worth a billion and a half dollars, David was worth three billion, Solomon was worth five billion. Solomon could’ve hired Andrew Carnegie for a butler, J. Pierpoint Morgan to cut his lawn, and Andrew Mellon for a chauffeur, and John D. to black his boots.” Advertisement: This base synthesis of anti-intellectual evangelicalism and self-interested money making that Sunday preached was a precursor to the monstrous alliance between the religious right and business conservatives that we have today. From the New Deal era up to the Reagan years, the anti-intellectualist right was mostly focused on defeating communism, as seen with individuals like Joseph McCarthy and organizations like the John Birch Society. But the true synthesis of Christianity and business in modern politics came with Jerry Falwell’s “moral majority” and the election of Ronald Reagan. Falwell’s evangelical movement was focused mainly on social issues like abortion, homosexuality, and civil rights. Reagan wholly supported these social issues, but he was also a business conservative, whose economic philosophy was influenced by the likes of Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek. As a spokesman for General Electric, Reagan had become entirely convinced of the free market’s supremacy, and in a sense, believed that what was good for GM, or in this case GE, was good for America. Today, the Republican party still supports these basic social and economic ideals. But the social issues are what truly gain votes, and they inevitably result in a hostility towards intellectualism and science. Many of Republicans seemingly vote against their economic self-interest in support of the conservative social values, which results in a vicious cycle of ignorance and poverty. Social conservative views, whether it be abortion or homosexuality, all sprout from the Christian faith, and the Christian faith inevitably clashes with modernity and science. Advertisement: We see it around the country, with schools teaching creationism and politicians denying man-made climate change. In states like Texas, Louisiana, and Tennessee, public school teachers are allowed to teach “alternatives” to evolution, while in the states Florida, Indiana, Arizona, Ohio, Washington, and elsewhere, taxpayer money goes to funding private creationist schools. Evolution is quite incompatible with biblical stories, and the lack of scientific education in many states shows itself in polls -- according to Gallup, 42 percent of Americans believe that God created humans in the present form. The denial of climate change is another major outcome of Americas cultural hostility towards intellectuals and experts. The scientific consensus of man-made climate change is as good as it gets: 97 percent of climate scientists agree. And yet, politicians and much of the populace simply do not trust the experts. According to a 2014 poll done by the Public Religion Research Institute, about 26 percent of Americans believe there is no solid evidence for climate change, and the most frequently cited reason for this belief was that they have not “noticed any change in the weather around them.” This popular view is clearly reflected by certain politicians, like the Chairman of the Senate Environment Committee Jim Inhofe, who vehemently denies climate change and says things like, “the hoax is that there are some people who are so arrogant to think that they are so powerful, they can change climate. Man can't change climate.” Clearly, this hostility towards science and intellectualism is ingrained within much of the country -- and now, with the Republican primaries heating up, a carnival of clownish windbags will be competing with each other to prove who is the most hostile towards science and education, and boy will it be close. Advertisement: Ted Cruz has already made it quite clear that, although he went to Harvard, he is as anti-intellectual as they come; embracing conspiracy theories and comparing the climate change consensus to the theological consensus of the geocentric model during the time of Galileo. Cruz has been adamantly opposed to the entire idea of climate change, and was recently named to be Chairman of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness. Aside from promoting the conspiracy theory that Harvard law is a communist organization, he has promoted other conspiracies that are outright loony, like saying the George Soros was leading a global movement to abolish the game of golf. Marco Rubio is also hostile to anything contradicting his faith, including climate change, while the leading contender for Republican nomination, Scott Walker, has taken the fight directly to academia, calling for major cuts in public university funding in Wisconsin that would add up to about $300 million over two years. He also just fired 57employees from Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources this past Earth Day. Predictably, he doesn’t believe climate change is a big issue either, and possibly has the worst record on environment out of all of the candidates. And so the Republican primaries will be full of the usual evangelical type preaching, damning abortion and calling their Democratic contenders “elitist” snobs, while brushing off those so-called “expert” climate scientists and their warnings. But you can only blame the politicians so much. When it comes down to it, this is simply what a big part of the population expects from their leaders -- religious buffoons who embrace a paranoid style of politics; where experts and academics are looked down upon as disconnected and deceitful, and where faith in Jesus and the Bible is the ultimate guiding light. Where one is expected to go with their gut rather than their head, and where “professorial” is an insult. Anti-intellectualism is an American tradition, and these new contenders denying scientific facts and calling Harvard a communist institution are simply embracing a populace that individuals like Billy Sunday and Joseph McCarthy once embraced. The alliance of religion and big business has fully incorporated America’s unfortunate anti-intellectualist culture, which has resulted in millions of people voting against their interest because of their own ignorant hostility towards anything that could be deemed elitist. It is a cycle of ignorance and poverty, and it is exactly what the real elites, like billionaire oil men, aim for. Advertisement: The American writer, Issac Asimov, once said, “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’” Unfortunately, this thread has continued to this day, and individuals like Ted Cruz and Scott Walker are here to remind us that ignorance can be quite competitive with knowledge, as long as there’s money behind it.

www.salon.com

left

GmspuljrGkUuNlHM

test

o5ab4KD83BvmUh9E

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/01/13/virgil-deep-state-strikes-back-permanent-campaign-donald-trump/

The Deep State Strikes Back: The Permanent Campaign Against Donald Trump

2017-01-13

In the first installment of this series , we observed that globalism is an ideology , maybe even a theology . And so of course , globalism generates plenty of passionate support among the planetary elite . And yet passion must be translated into political power . And of course , the globalists have plenty of that , too . In this second installment , we will see how the globalists still seek to get their way , even after losing the 2016 elections . For them , Target # 1 , of course , is Donald Trump . Every Breitbart reader is familiar with the general outlines of the Russia hack story : Beginning in June 2016 , someone or something known as “ Guccifer 2.0 ” was taking credit for hacking the computers of top Democrats and , working through Julian Assange ’ s Wikileaks , doling out juicy information . The hacks were clearly damaging to the Democrats . And because the leaks proved to be true , they had significant repercussions . The revelations forced , for example , the chair of the Democratic National Committee , Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz , to resign last July . Soon , the Democrats developed their counter-strategy , which can be summed up as , It ’ s Donald Trump ’ s fault . That is , whoever and whatever Guccifer was , he or it was doing the hacking to help Trump . So again , Blame Trump ! By the fall , the Democrats had a further point to make : The Russians were doing it . So was it , in fact , the Russian spy agencies FSB , or GRU , that were behind the hacks ? Virgil doesn ’ t know , but he does know this : The Democrats were accusing the Russians , at least at first , without any solid evidence . Meanwhile , at around the same time , the Democrats decided that they themselves should play the Russia Innuendo Game . So beginning in July , rumors began to circulate that an investigation had uncovered bombshell revelations about Trump and the Russians . Yet the evidence was flimsy , at best : it consisted of various statements , attributed to unnamed sources , accusing Trump of various things . In other words , nothing was proven , and so even the Main Stream Media , hungry as it was for anti-Trump hammers , chose not to touch the allegations . The one exception was a vague October 31 item in the left-wing Mother Jones , which reported–perhaps one should say , “ reported ” —that a “ former Western intelligence officer , ” hired first by anti-Trump Republicans , and then by Democrats , had assembled a dossier suggesting that Trump had been “ compromised ” by Russian intelligence . The Mother Jones report was carefully written , mindful that there was no proof and , in fact , no evidence , other than the say-so of one writer , who had been on the payroll of anti-Trump forces . Which is to say , it was nothing—just an opposition-research dump full of unknown unknowns . Indeed , the words could have been for a far-out novel or screenplay . Yet the Mother Jones story did have one specific nugget : We learned that in a letter to FBI Director James Comey , dated October 30 , Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid had attempted , yet again , to stir the anti-Trump pot . As Reid declared : In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community , it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump , his top advisors , and the Russian government—a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States . Yet despite Reid ’ s best efforts , the allegations still got no traction : Media outlets , no matter how pro-Hillary , were just not going to attach their credibility to a report that had no demonstrable basis in fact . Moreover , it ’ s also possible that the Democrats didn ’ t push the anti-Trump story as hard as they could have—they were complacent . That is , they thought Hillary Clinton was on her way to victory , and so why rock the boat by raising allegations that might ricochet in some unforeseen direction ? Against , maybe , Bill Clinton ? As Obama himself has said , he and all his advisers were convinced that Hillary was going to win . And so after the election , Obama & Co. assumed , Clinton 45 could clean up whatever mess had been made . Of course , all that smugness evaporated after Trump ’ s election on November 8 . Ever since Trump ’ s triumph , the anti-Trump drumbeat has grown ever louder . And it ’ s not just Democrats . We have since learned , for example , that in December , Republican Sen. John McCain personally delivered anti-Trump allegations to the FBI . And of course , there could have been other political players—many others—involved in the anti-Trump effort . In fact , it ’ s accurate to say that the vast bulk of DC officialdom is anti-Trump . Here at Breitbart on December 12 , I took a look at this officialdom ; it ’ s been called the “ Deep State. ” That is , the Deep State is the permanent political combine that runs Washington—or at least tries to . As I defined it a month ago : The term “ Deep State ” refers to the complex of bureaucrats , technocrats , and plutocrats that likes things just the way they are and wants to keep them like that—elections be damned . It ’ s obvious that the last thing that the Deep State wants to see is the DC swamp being drained . To them , it ’ s home ! Virgil wrote again about the Deep State vs. Trump on December 19 , noting that the Deep State will soon have its natural leader , Barack Obama : The 44th president won ’ t be going far . Come January , he ’ ll be moving just a mile or so uptown , to the swanky Kalorama neighborhood , where , it ’ s a safe bet , he ’ ll hold court as if he were still president . So the Deep State will still have a rallying point as it plots its next move against the Dreaded Trump . Or should we say , it will have another rallying point , because , in fact , it already has plenty . Virgil might note that this story was written three weeks before Politico revealed the soon-to-be ex-president ’ s future plans . Here ’ s the headline from January 9 : “ Obama retools his political operation for another run : He will use his foundation and an updated Organizing for Action group to try to salvage his legacy and rebuild the Democratic Party. ” In other words , Obama will be a force to be reckoned with . And so in that December 19 piece , Virgil closed with these words , which have proven to be prophetic : The bitter election is over , dear reader , but the real storm is still to come . Since then , the storm has come on many fronts . Aside from the usual anti-Trump media , Deep Staters are pursuing other angles ; for example , the career staff at the US Department of Justice is targeting FBI Director James Comey for his pre-election handling of Hillary Clinton ’ s e-mail case ; it ’ s a safe bet that these careerists , enjoying statutory autonomy within DOJ , will find Comey in violation of something . Meanwhile , anti-Trump lawyers and other activists from across the country are planning to descend on the Capitol for the Inauguration . And we just learned that Deep Staters stationed in Israel have warned their Israeli counterparts not to trust Trump . Yet the Deep State is most active inside the DC Beltway : For example , one energetic Deep State anti-Trumper is Walter Shaub , director of the Office of Government Ethics . Yes , he ’ s a federal employee , but Shaub has turned his supposedly non-partisan office into a partisan machine , advancing his anti-Trump campaign including , even , on Twitter . Interestingly , the research group America ’ s Rising has observed that Shaub , a Democrat who donated to Obama ’ s 2012 re-election campaign , has never seemed bothered by Hillary Clinton ’ s multiple ethical transgressions . As the group puts it : Shaub ’ s history as a Democrat and the double standard he employed as head of the OGE , should give the media pause before taking Shaub ’ s words seriously . And yet of course , Shaub is still in the news all the time , always flailing at Trump . Here , for example , is a January 11 headline in The Hill , describing Shaub ’ s latest attack : “ Federal ethics chief blasts ‘ meaningless ’ Trump business plan. ” And this , from Politico : “ Federal ethics czar delivers broadside against Trump conflicts plan . ” Yet the biggest broadsides , of course , have been over the question of Russian influence in the US . Even if reporters stayed away from scurrilous rumors that couldn ’ t be proven , they nevertheless pursued other angles , notably , that the Russians had a strategy for helping Trump defeat Hillary . In this effort , of course , journos were greatly aided by Deep Staters . For example , in mid-December , Politico Europe added the detail—make that the alleged , as opposed to proven , detail—that Russian leader Vladimir Putin “ personally directed ” the hacking effort , as part of his supposed “ vendetta ” against Hillary Clinton . Is that true ? Who knows . But Politico got the story , it wrote , from “ multiple senior intelligence officials . ” Then , last week , the story heated up even hotter . And the flashpoint was that dubious dossier—the one , as we have noted , that had been floating around for months . Recently , the “ Big Four ” intel chiefs—that would be Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , FBI Director Comey , CIA Director John Brennan , and National Security Agency Director Admiral Mike Rogers—decided that the document was worth taking seriously after all . That is , the “ Western ” operative mentioned by Mother Jones—publicly identified recently as a Briton , Christopher Steele , a former British MI-6 spy—was suddenly given a promotion ; now , he and his info were deemed to be a credible source . So credible , in fact , that the Big Four needed to tell Trump all about it . So last week , the President-elect was briefed on some of the allegations by senior US intelligence officials . And here ’ s what ’ s strange : Even though that quartet of Deep Staters is supposed to be good at keeping secrets , the news of that briefing immediately leaked . As The Washington Post reported on January 10 , one top official said that Trump was briefed on the allegations “ because they were already circulating widely and it was ‘ mostly a courtesy ’ to let him know they were out there . ” To which Virgil can say , that ’ s some kind of “ courtesy ” ! In fact , it seems to have been more like a set-up . Let ’ s think about it : Scurrilous rumors about Trump have been floating around for months , rumbling below the level of newsworthiness , and yet the Intel Quartet says that , as a “ courtesy , ” they will tell Trump about the rumors , and then blab about it to the press . That ’ s not courtesy , that ’ s chutzpah . And so of course , components of the briefing , the saucy parts , became huge news . After all , the Intel Quartet , in telling Trump about the charges , had given them a kind of pseudo-truthiness—and had certainly made them newsworthy . So now , for the MSM , it was open season on Trump . Politico , always the expert at stirring up the Beltway , blared its January 10 headline , “ Trump confronts firestorm of Russia allegations. ” The story quoted Adam Jentleson , a former top aide to Harry Reid , as tweeting out , in all-capital letters , “ THIS IS WHAT HARRY REID WAS REFERRING TO. ” That is , referring back to Reid ’ s October 30 letter to FBI Director Comey . ( We might pause to note that Jentleson is now running a “ war room ” for the Center for American Progress , which is to say , his full time job is now sending out all-caps political blasts . ) CNN ran hard with the Trump story . It was “ breaking news , ” the channel declared , that “ the nation ’ s top intelligence officials ” had briefed both Trump ( and , at other times , Obama and Joe Biden ) on information that “ compromised President-elect Trump . ” Meanwhile , Team Trump hotly denied all of it . On ABC News ’ “ Good Morning America , ” Kellyanne Conway said : Just to smear the president-elect of the United States , we now have intelligence officials divulging information that they are sworn not to divulge . I don ’ t even think this is fake news , I think this is just fake . For his part , Trump was wise to what the Deep State was doing to him . Deriding his enemies as “ sick people , ” he tweeted : Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to “ leak ” into the public . One last shot at me . Are we living in Nazi Germany ? As we have come to expect , that was some tough talk from Trump . And yet his obvious anger aside , the President-elect was also shrewdly firming up his base , which has long believed the worst about the MSM and the Deep State . Indeed , in that January 11 press conference , Trump seized the opportunity to go on the offensive . He not only dismissed the accusations , but he also labeled CNN as “ fake news , ” no doubt provoking loud cheers all across Trump Nation . And the President-elect recalled how he had been set up by the Intel Quartet : “ Every time I meet [ with the officials ] , people are reading about it. ” He added that it ’ s “ very unfair that it happened , very unfair to the American people . ” Thus Trump rallied his support ; on January 12 , Politico Playbook , an e-mail tipsheet for DC insiders and wannabe insiders , had to grudgingly admit , “ For most people who watched Trump yesterday , it was a pretty good performance . ” Yet of course , Trump ’ s harshest critics are , well , still harsh . So it ’ s fair to say that the forces on both sides of the battleline—pro-Trump and anti-Trump—have now redoubled their resolve . Here we can pause to note that the intelligence officials apparently delivered only a dry two-page summary of the allegations ; we can call that the Little Smear . Yet there was also a longer , 35-page heap of allegations , including sexual allegations ; we can call that the Big Smear . The leading player in the Big Smear was BuzzFeed , an online publication founded by one Jonah Peretti , who had earlier learned his trade at The Huffington Post . Yes , the website printed the full 35-page dossier , complete with its sexual salaciousness . ( Once again , we must immediately stipulate that there ’ s zero proof that any of the charges are true . ) Amazingly , at the same time that he published this slime , BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith tweeted out , “ There is serious reason to doubt the allegations . ” Virgil ’ s not a lawyer , but it sure seems to him that Smith ’ s admission meets the legal standard for defamation , including “ reckless disregard for the truth. ” As one legal resource puts it : If the person defamed was a public figure , the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she knew that the statement was false or if he/she acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement . [ emphasis added ] Meanwhile , criticism from others in the media came cascading down on Buzzfeed . Speaking for the MSM , NBC News ’ Chuck Todd put it right in the face of BuzzFeed ’ s Ben Smith : You just published fake news . You made a knowing decision to put out an untruth . Smith answered by saying , “ I think this is a real story about a real document. ” To which we can say , yes , it is a real document , in the sense that it has words on a page . But that doesn ’ t mean it ’ s a true document . As in , every single word on every single page could be a lie—and BuzzFeed offered the reader no help in verifying anything . Meanwhile , other MSM-ers weighed in . The Wall Street Journal reported , in its mild way , “ The Journal hasn ’ t been able to verify the allegations. ” At the same time , two Washington Post media writers , Margaret Sullivan and Erik Wemple , denounced Buzzfeed ’ s decision . And on January 12 , DC veteran Mike Allen–formerly at Politico , now at a new start-up , Axios—dismissed the allegations : Think about the half day of madness that started when BuzzFeed posted , in full , an unsubstantiated , one-source memo , funded by partisans , that claimed acts — too disgusting to print — by the man a week from the Oval Office . That is , Allen was saying , nothing is going to come of this . In the meantime , on the orthodox conservative right , National Review ’ s David French , himself strongly anti-Trump , wrote of the BuzzFeed story : This is ridiculous . How can “ Americans make up their own minds ” when they have no ability to fact-check the allegations ? The public knows nothing about the sources , nothing about the underlying claims , and has no means of discovering the truth . . . . This isn ’ t transparency ; it ’ s malice . BuzzFeed ’ s story is clearly fake news . Any media outlet that does not produce a news story that declares BuzzFeed ’ s story fake news is giving aid and comfort to fake news and furthering its proliferation . This fiasco is exactly why the media ’ s ratings are in the toilet . And here ’ s Glenn Greenwald , writing for The Intercept , hard-hitting as always . Under the headline , “ The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect , Using Unverified Claims , as Democrats Cheer , ” Greenwald declared any publication of the material to be “ an assault on journalism , democracy , and basic human rationality . ” Greenwald ’ s critique notwithstanding , the MSM is now having its cake and eating it too . That is , it can claim “ clean hands ” in not printing the allegations at first , and yet now that they ’ re out , it can happily reprint the allegations ; after all , someone else printed them first , thereby making them “ news. ” Thus it is that casual references to the dossier are now finding their way into MSM stories about the Trump administration , not just stories about the Russia allegations . This is the MSM daisy-chain : a happy circle of anti-Trumpism . Americans might not like it , but MSM-ers sure do . Meanwhile , another acute observer , Matt Drudge , wondered if the Russians were even involved at all . That is , perhaps it was the Deep State itself cranking out the allegations , while throwing the blame at Moscow : Are corrupt US intel agencies blackmailing Trump with their own dirt cleverly tagged to “ Russian ” operatives ? Interestingly , amidst this backlash against the now-notorious bad briefing , one of the briefers , James Clapper , has chosen to distance himself from the others . Late in the evening of January 11 , he issued a statement declaring that the intelligence agencies had “ not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable. ” To which Virgil says : “ Nice try , Mr. Clapper , but the time to speak up about your concerns was before the briefing , or during the briefing , not after the briefing—after the bleep hit the fan . ” Of course , Clapper ’ s retrospective regrets notwithstanding , the Deep State is full speed ahead , still seeking to torpedo Trump . For example , former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook compares the matter to Watergate . The implication is clear enough : Just as the Deep State succeeding in driving Richard Nixon out of office back in 1974 , now today , the Deep State should seek the same fate for Trump . Of course , Trump is not planning on going anywhere ; in fact , it ’ s been reported that staffers are already working on his 2020 re-election campaign . Next : The Deep State opens up another front against Trump .

Second of Three Parts… In the first installment of this series, we observed that globalism is an ideology, maybe even a theology. And so of course, globalism generates plenty of passionate support among the planetary elite. And yet passion must be translated into political power. And of course, the globalists have plenty of that, too. In this second installment, we will see how the globalists still seek to get their way, even after losing the 2016 elections. For them, Target #1, of course, is Donald Trump. 1. The Weaponization of Rumors Every Breitbart reader is familiar with the general outlines of the Russia hack story: Beginning in June 2016, someone or something known as “Guccifer 2.0” was taking credit for hacking the computers of top Democrats and, working through Julian Assange’s Wikileaks, doling out juicy information. The hacks were clearly damaging to the Democrats. And because the leaks proved to be true, they had significant repercussions. The revelations forced, for example, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, to resign last July. Soon, the Democrats developed their counter-strategy, which can be summed up as, It’s Donald Trump’s fault. That is, whoever and whatever Guccifer was, he or it was doing the hacking to help Trump. So again, Blame Trump! By the fall, the Democrats had a further point to make: The Russians were doing it. So was it, in fact, the Russian spy agencies FSB, or GRU, that were behind the hacks? Virgil doesn’t know, but he does know this: The Democrats were accusing the Russians, at least at first, without any solid evidence. Meanwhile, at around the same time, the Democrats decided that they themselves should play the Russia Innuendo Game. So beginning in July, rumors began to circulate that an investigation had uncovered bombshell revelations about Trump and the Russians. Yet the evidence was flimsy, at best: it consisted of various statements, attributed to unnamed sources, accusing Trump of various things. In other words, nothing was proven, and so even the Main Stream Media, hungry as it was for anti-Trump hammers, chose not to touch the allegations. The one exception was a vague October 31 item in the left-wing Mother Jones, which reported–perhaps one should say, “reported”—that a “former Western intelligence officer,” hired first by anti-Trump Republicans, and then by Democrats, had assembled a dossier suggesting that Trump had been “compromised” by Russian intelligence. The Mother Jones report was carefully written, mindful that there was no proof and, in fact, no evidence, other than the say-so of one writer, who had been on the payroll of anti-Trump forces. Which is to say, it was nothing—just an opposition-research dump full of unknown unknowns. Indeed, the words could have been for a far-out novel or screenplay. Yet the Mother Jones story did have one specific nugget: We learned that in a letter to FBI Director James Comey, dated October 30, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid had attempted, yet again, to stir the anti-Trump pot. As Reid declared: In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government—a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States. Yet despite Reid’s best efforts, the allegations still got no traction: Media outlets, no matter how pro-Hillary, were just not going to attach their credibility to a report that had no demonstrable basis in fact. Moreover, it’s also possible that the Democrats didn’t push the anti-Trump story as hard as they could have—they were complacent. That is, they thought Hillary Clinton was on her way to victory, and so why rock the boat by raising allegations that might ricochet in some unforeseen direction? Against, maybe, Bill Clinton? As Obama himself has said, he and all his advisers were convinced that Hillary was going to win. And so after the election, Obama & Co. assumed, Clinton 45 could clean up whatever mess had been made. Of course, all that smugness evaporated after Trump’s election on November 8. 2. The Deep State Makes Its Moves Ever since Trump’s triumph, the anti-Trump drumbeat has grown ever louder. And it’s not just Democrats. We have since learned, for example, that in December, Republican Sen. John McCain personally delivered anti-Trump allegations to the FBI. And of course, there could have been other political players—many others—involved in the anti-Trump effort. In fact, it’s accurate to say that the vast bulk of DC officialdom is anti-Trump. Here at Breitbart on December 12, I took a look at this officialdom; it’s been called the “Deep State.” That is, the Deep State is the permanent political combine that runs Washington—or at least tries to. As I defined it a month ago: The term “Deep State” refers to the complex of bureaucrats, technocrats, and plutocrats that likes things just the way they are and wants to keep them like that—elections be damned. It’s obvious that the last thing that the Deep State wants to see is the DC swamp being drained. To them, it’s home! Virgil wrote again about the Deep State vs. Trump on December 19, noting that the Deep State will soon have its natural leader, Barack Obama: The 44th president won’t be going far. Come January, he’ll be moving just a mile or so uptown, to the swanky Kalorama neighborhood, where, it’s a safe bet, he’ll hold court as if he were still president. So the Deep State will still have a rallying point as it plots its next move against the Dreaded Trump. Or should we say, it will have another rallying point, because, in fact, it already has plenty. Virgil might note that this story was written three weeks before Politico revealed the soon-to-be ex-president’s future plans. Here’s the headline from January 9: “Obama retools his political operation for another run: He will use his foundation and an updated Organizing for Action group to try to salvage his legacy and rebuild the Democratic Party.” In other words, Obama will be a force to be reckoned with. And so in that December 19 piece, Virgil closed with these words, which have proven to be prophetic: The bitter election is over, dear reader, but the real storm is still to come. Since then, the storm has come on many fronts. Aside from the usual anti-Trump media, Deep Staters are pursuing other angles; for example, the career staff at the US Department of Justice is targeting FBI Director James Comey for his pre-election handling of Hillary Clinton’s e-mail case; it’s a safe bet that these careerists, enjoying statutory autonomy within DOJ, will find Comey in violation of something. Meanwhile, anti-Trump lawyers and other activists from across the country are planning to descend on the Capitol for the Inauguration. And we just learned that Deep Staters stationed in Israel have warned their Israeli counterparts not to trust Trump. Yet the Deep State is most active inside the DC Beltway: For example, one energetic Deep State anti-Trumper is Walter Shaub, director of the Office of Government Ethics. Yes, he’s a federal employee, but Shaub has turned his supposedly non-partisan office into a partisan machine, advancing his anti-Trump campaign including, even, on Twitter. Interestingly, the research group America’s Rising has observed that Shaub, a Democrat who donated to Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, has never seemed bothered by Hillary Clinton’s multiple ethical transgressions. As the group puts it: Shaub’s history as a Democrat and the double standard he employed as head of the OGE, should give the media pause before taking Shaub’s words seriously. And yet of course, Shaub is still in the news all the time, always flailing at Trump. Here, for example, is a January 11 headline in The Hill, describing Shaub’s latest attack: “Federal ethics chief blasts ‘meaningless’ Trump business plan.” And this, from Politico: “Federal ethics czar delivers broadside against Trump conflicts plan.” Yet the biggest broadsides, of course, have been over the question of Russian influence in the US. Even if reporters stayed away from scurrilous rumors that couldn’t be proven, they nevertheless pursued other angles, notably, that the Russians had a strategy for helping Trump defeat Hillary. In this effort, of course, journos were greatly aided by Deep Staters. For example, in mid-December, Politico Europe added the detail—make that the alleged, as opposed to proven, detail—that Russian leader Vladimir Putin “personally directed” the hacking effort, as part of his supposed “vendetta” against Hillary Clinton. Is that true? Who knows. But Politico got the story, it wrote, from “multiple senior intelligence officials.” 3. The Battle of the Beltway Then, last week, the story heated up even hotter. And the flashpoint was that dubious dossier—the one, as we have noted, that had been floating around for months. Recently, the “Big Four” intel chiefs—that would be Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and National Security Agency Director Admiral Mike Rogers—decided that the document was worth taking seriously after all. That is, the “Western” operative mentioned by Mother Jones—publicly identified recently as a Briton, Christopher Steele, a former British MI-6 spy—was suddenly given a promotion; now, he and his info were deemed to be a credible source. So credible, in fact, that the Big Four needed to tell Trump all about it. So last week, the President-elect was briefed on some of the allegations by senior US intelligence officials. And here’s what’s strange: Even though that quartet of Deep Staters is supposed to be good at keeping secrets, the news of that briefing immediately leaked. As The Washington Post reported on January 10, one top official said that Trump was briefed on the allegations “because they were already circulating widely and it was ‘mostly a courtesy’ to let him know they were out there.” To which Virgil can say, that’s some kind of “courtesy”! In fact, it seems to have been more like a set-up. Let’s think about it: Scurrilous rumors about Trump have been floating around for months, rumbling below the level of newsworthiness, and yet the Intel Quartet says that, as a “courtesy,” they will tell Trump about the rumors, and then blab about it to the press. That’s not courtesy, that’s chutzpah. And so of course, components of the briefing, the saucy parts, became huge news. After all, the Intel Quartet, in telling Trump about the charges, had given them a kind of pseudo-truthiness—and had certainly made them newsworthy. So now, for the MSM, it was open season on Trump. Politico, always the expert at stirring up the Beltway, blared its January 10 headline, “Trump confronts firestorm of Russia allegations.” The story quoted Adam Jentleson, a former top aide to Harry Reid, as tweeting out, in all-capital letters, “THIS IS WHAT HARRY REID WAS REFERRING TO.” That is, referring back to Reid’s October 30 letter to FBI Director Comey. (We might pause to note that Jentleson is now running a “war room” for the Center for American Progress, which is to say, his full time job is now sending out all-caps political blasts.) CNN ran hard with the Trump story. It was “breaking news,” the channel declared, that “the nation’s top intelligence officials” had briefed both Trump (and, at other times, Obama and Joe Biden) on information that “compromised President-elect Trump.” Meanwhile, Team Trump hotly denied all of it. On ABC News’ “Good Morning America,” Kellyanne Conway said: Just to smear the president-elect of the United States, we now have intelligence officials divulging information that they are sworn not to divulge. I don’t even think this is fake news, I think this is just fake. For his part, Trump was wise to what the Deep State was doing to him. Deriding his enemies as “sick people,” he tweeted: Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to “leak” into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany? As we have come to expect, that was some tough talk from Trump. And yet his obvious anger aside, the President-elect was also shrewdly firming up his base, which has long believed the worst about the MSM and the Deep State. Indeed, in that January 11 press conference, Trump seized the opportunity to go on the offensive. He not only dismissed the accusations, but he also labeled CNN as “fake news,” no doubt provoking loud cheers all across Trump Nation. And the President-elect recalled how he had been set up by the Intel Quartet: “Every time I meet [with the officials], people are reading about it.” He added that it’s “very unfair that it happened, very unfair to the American people.” Thus Trump rallied his support; on January 12, Politico Playbook, an e-mail tipsheet for DC insiders and wannabe insiders, had to grudgingly admit, “For most people who watched Trump yesterday, it was a pretty good performance.” Yet of course, Trump’s harshest critics are, well, still harsh. So it’s fair to say that the forces on both sides of the battleline—pro-Trump and anti-Trump—have now redoubled their resolve. Here we can pause to note that the intelligence officials apparently delivered only a dry two-page summary of the allegations; we can call that the Little Smear. Yet there was also a longer, 35-page heap of allegations, including sexual allegations; we can call that the Big Smear. The leading player in the Big Smear was BuzzFeed, an online publication founded by one Jonah Peretti, who had earlier learned his trade at The Huffington Post. Yes, the website printed the full 35-page dossier, complete with its sexual salaciousness. (Once again, we must immediately stipulate that there’s zero proof that any of the charges are true.) Amazingly, at the same time that he published this slime, BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith tweeted out, “There is serious reason to doubt the allegations.” Virgil’s not a lawyer, but it sure seems to him that Smith’s admission meets the legal standard for defamation, including “reckless disregard for the truth.” As one legal resource puts it: If the person defamed was a public figure, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she knew that the statement was false or if he/she acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement. [emphasis added] Hello, lawsuit? Meanwhile, criticism from others in the media came cascading down on Buzzfeed. Speaking for the MSM, NBC News’ Chuck Todd put it right in the face of BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith: You just published fake news. You made a knowing decision to put out an untruth. Smith answered by saying, “I think this is a real story about a real document.” To which we can say, yes, it is a real document, in the sense that it has words on a page. But that doesn’t mean it’s a true document. As in, every single word on every single page could be a lie—and BuzzFeed offered the reader no help in verifying anything. Meanwhile, other MSM-ers weighed in. The Wall Street Journal reported, in its mild way, “The Journal hasn’t been able to verify the allegations.” At the same time, two Washington Post media writers, Margaret Sullivan and Erik Wemple, denounced Buzzfeed’s decision. And on January 12, DC veteran Mike Allen–formerly at Politico, now at a new start-up, Axios—dismissed the allegations: Think about the half day of madness that started when BuzzFeed posted, in full, an unsubstantiated, one-source memo, funded by partisans, that claimed acts — too disgusting to print — by the man a week from the Oval Office. That is, Allen was saying, nothing is going to come of this. In the meantime, on the orthodox conservative right, National Review’s David French, himself strongly anti-Trump, wrote of the BuzzFeed story: This is ridiculous. How can “Americans make up their own minds” when they have no ability to fact-check the allegations? The public knows nothing about the sources, nothing about the underlying claims, and has no means of discovering the truth. . . . This isn’t transparency; it’s malice. And conservative media watchdog Brent Bozell threw this punch: BuzzFeed’s story is clearly fake news. Any media outlet that does not produce a news story that declares BuzzFeed’s story fake news is giving aid and comfort to fake news and furthering its proliferation. This fiasco is exactly why the media’s ratings are in the toilet. And here’s Glenn Greenwald, writing for The Intercept, hard-hitting as always. Under the headline, “The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer,” Greenwald declared any publication of the material to be “an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality.” Greenwald’s critique notwithstanding, the MSM is now having its cake and eating it too. That is, it can claim “clean hands” in not printing the allegations at first, and yet now that they’re out, it can happily reprint the allegations; after all, someone else printed them first, thereby making them “news.” Thus it is that casual references to the dossier are now finding their way into MSM stories about the Trump administration, not just stories about the Russia allegations. This is the MSM daisy-chain: a happy circle of anti-Trumpism. Americans might not like it, but MSM-ers sure do. Meanwhile, another acute observer, Matt Drudge, wondered if the Russians were even involved at all. That is, perhaps it was the Deep State itself cranking out the allegations, while throwing the blame at Moscow: Are corrupt US intel agencies blackmailing Trump with their own dirt cleverly tagged to “Russian” operatives? Interestingly, amidst this backlash against the now-notorious bad briefing, one of the briefers, James Clapper, has chosen to distance himself from the others. Late in the evening of January 11, he issued a statement declaring that the intelligence agencies had “not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable.” To which Virgil says: “Nice try, Mr. Clapper, but the time to speak up about your concerns was before the briefing, or during the briefing, not after the briefing—after the bleep hit the fan.” Of course, Clapper’s retrospective regrets notwithstanding, the Deep State is full speed ahead, still seeking to torpedo Trump. For example, former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook compares the matter to Watergate. The implication is clear enough: Just as the Deep State succeeding in driving Richard Nixon out of office back in 1974, now today, the Deep State should seek the same fate for Trump. Of course, Trump is not planning on going anywhere; in fact, it’s been reported that staffers are already working on his 2020 re-election campaign. So the Battle of the Beltway will continue. Next: The Deep State opens up another front against Trump.

www.breitbart.com

right

o5ab4KD83BvmUh9E

test

BE85Zzbgo6HaRqgM

fbi

Newsmax

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/andrew-mccabe-trump-fbi/2019/02/14/id/902677/

McCabe Reveals Why he Ordered Trump Obstruction Probe

2019-02-14

Jeffrey Rodack

Andrew McCabe , the former acting director of the FBI , said he ordered obstruction of justice and counterintelligence investigations involving Donald Trump and his ties to Russia , shortly after the president fired James Comey as director of the agency in 2017 , CBS News is reporting . McCabe ’ s comments came during an interview for “ 60 Minutes. ” The show will air the segment on Sunday . `` I was very concerned that I was able to put the Russia case on absolutely solid ground , in an indelible fashion , '' McCabe said . `` That were I removed quickly , or reassigned or fired , that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night without a trace . I wanted to make sure our case was on solid ground and if somebody came in behind me and closed it and tried to walk away from it , they would not be able to do it without creating a record of why they made that decision . ” The `` 60 Minutes '' interview was conducted by correspondent Scott Pelley , who told `` CBS This Morning '' that McCabe confirmed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein really did consider wearing a wire in meetings with Trump . The Justice Department had previously said the offer by Rosenstein was made sarcastically . `` There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment , '' Pelley said . `` These were the eight days from Comey 's firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel . And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what do with the president . '' McCabe was later fired by Jeff Sessions , the attorney general at the time , who cited an investigation claiming McCabe had not been truthful about releasing information to the media .

Andrew McCabe, the former acting director of the FBI, said he ordered obstruction of justice and counterintelligence investigations involving Donald Trump and his ties to Russia, shortly after the president fired James Comey as director of the agency in 2017, CBS News is reporting. McCabe’s comments came during an interview for “60 Minutes.” The show will air the segment on Sunday. "I was very concerned that I was able to put the Russia case on absolutely solid ground, in an indelible fashion," McCabe said. "That were I removed quickly, or reassigned or fired, that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night without a trace. I wanted to make sure our case was on solid ground and if somebody came in behind me and closed it and tried to walk away from it, they would not be able to do it without creating a record of why they made that decision.” The "60 Minutes" interview was conducted by correspondent Scott Pelley, who told "CBS This Morning" that McCabe confirmed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein really did consider wearing a wire in meetings with Trump. The Justice Department had previously said the offer by Rosenstein was made sarcastically. "There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment," Pelley said. "These were the eight days from Comey's firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what do with the president." McCabe was later fired by Jeff Sessions, the attorney general at the time, who cited an investigation claiming McCabe had not been truthful about releasing information to the media.

www.newsmax.com

right

BE85Zzbgo6HaRqgM

test

MB83kUKDcoymg2Hw

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/21/the_tea_party_will_never_understand_the_constitution_what_the_right_misses_about_its_favorite_document/

The Tea Party will never understand the Constitution: What the right misses about its favorite document

2015-04-21

Elias Isquith

With the 2016 election cycle having kicked into first-gear already , any American who has n't inured themselves to the monotonous ( and often ultimately meaningless ) repetition of the word `` Constitution '' is advised to get to self-desensitizing — and quick . Sens . Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have already made a fetishized version of the U.S. 's supreme governing document central to their campaign rhetoric ; and even politicians less beloved by the supposedly Constitution-crazy Tea Party , like Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton , are likely to soon follow suit . That 's how American politics functions now , in the era of the NSA , Guantanamo Bay , lethal drone strikes and endless war . But as that list of questionable policies suggests , there 's an unanswered question lurking behind so much of our happy talk about the Constitution — namely , do we even understand it ? As dozens of polls and public surveys will attest , the answer is , not really . And that 's one of the reasons that Yale Law School professor Akhil Reed Amar has decided to write a multi-book series about the Constitution so many Americans claim to love , but so few seem to understand . `` The Law of the Land : A Grand Tour of our Constitutional Republic , '' released earlier this month , is that project 's latest addition . Recently , ███ spoke over the phone with Amar about the Constitution , his books , and why he sees Abraham Lincoln as perhaps the United States 's real founding father . Our conversation is below and has been edited for clarity and length . So this book is part of a larger , multi-book project on the Constitution . The first was a biography of the document , the second was about its `` unwritten '' provisions , and this is the third . What 's your focus this time ? The third book in this project is a geographical slicing of the story ; ours is a vast republic of massive diversity , and the Constitution looks a little different in different states and regions . I try to show all of that that through 12 stories ... each of which says something general about the United States Constitution but does so through the window of a particular state . It discusses a person or an idea or a case or an event particularly associated with that region that also casts light , more generally , on our Constitutional project . So how did what you call `` brute geography '' influence the way we understand the Constitution today ? The very breadth of the American landmass and its distance from the old world were huge elements in the American founding and in the Civil War experience . The idea of creating an indivisible union in the 1780s , the idea of forming a more perfect union , was an idea powerfully influenced by these two geographic factors : a wide moat between the Old World and the New World ( known as the Atlantic Ocean ) would be able to protect Americans from Old World tyranny in the same way the English Channel protected Britain from much of the militarism of the European Continent ... But in 1787 , as Americans looked around the world , they saw that Britain was free , and Britain was free because England and Scotland had merged , had formed an indivisible , perfect union that would protect liberty because they had gotten rid of land borders on the island and only needed a navy to protect themselves . That worked for England and that would work for America even better , because we 'd have an English Channel times 50 . This will become manifest destiny and the Monroe Doctrine ; we 'll control our hemisphere and we 'll be protected from Europe ... Our Constitution largely succeeds because there 's no major standing army in peacetime for most of American history , and that fact is created by some brute geographic realities . I 'm speaking to you now right around the 150th anniversary of Lincoln 's assassination . He looms very large in your book ; you describe him in some ways as almost prophetic . What made Lincoln 's understanding of the country and the Constitution so profound ? We live in Lincoln 's house . The Framers ' house was divided against itself ; and , because of slavery , it fell . That failure is called the Civil War , and Lincoln rebuilt [ the country ] on a solid anti-slavery foundation , a foundation that would be strengthened after his death by the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment ( which abolished slavery everywhere , irrevocably ) , the Fourteenth Amendment ( which promised racial equality ) and the Fifteenth Amendment ( which promised equal voting rights ) . I begin the book with Lincoln because he transformed the Union . He saved it and transformed it and ... his story was very much influenced by , literally , where he came from . He has a vision of the Constitution that 's very much influenced by Illinois , in particular , and by the Midwest more generally . He comes from a part of the country that was the Northwest Territory , that was always free soil even before the Constitution , and he has a very free-soil vision . The language of the 13th Amendment is borrowed , word-for-word , from the language of the Northwest Ordinance . Lincoln thinks that the nation created the states , which , of course , Robert E. Lee ... could never buy into . Robert E. Lee would say that the states created the Union ; but the Midwest [ perspective ] would say ... before Illinois was a state , it was a territory ; the Union created these new states out of nothing . That 's a very Midwestern perspective on the Constitution . Lincoln is , far and away , the most important constitutional decision-maker of the last two centuries ; and arguably the most important constitutional decision-maker and interpreter ever . But Lincoln was never a judge nor a constitutional scholar . He was a politician . Most people are taught in high school that the most important constitutional decision is Marbury v. Madison , but that 's not even the most important constitutional decision of 1803 . The Louisiana Purchase was far more important than Marbury v. Madison , because it doubled the landmass of America and made sure that the country would survive . When you understand that , you understand that many important constitutional decisions are made not by judges but by presidents . The two most important constitutional decisions ever are Lincoln 's decision to resist [ the South 's ] unilateral secession , and Lincoln 's decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation , which would lead to an end of slavery — that is transformative , and Lincoln made those decisions unilaterally as president . Had these issues reached the U.S. Supreme Court , controlled as it was [ during Lincoln 's time ] by Roger Taney , a fierce opponent of Lincoln , the Court might very well have tried to invalidate Lincoln 's projects . We live in a Constitution utterly transformed by the 13th , 14th , and 15th amendments , and we would have none of those but for Lincoln . Lincoln aside , though , you also argue that geography has played a big role in the Supreme Court — which , of course , is supposed to be the chief interpreter of the Constitution . How did geography influence the Court 's history ? Let 's take the most infamous judicial ruling of all time , the Dred Scott decision of 1857 . It emerges from a Supreme Court that 's profoundly malapportioned : five of the nine justices on the Dred Scott court come from the slave-holding South , even though only a third of the population lives in that region . Part of that is because entire antebellum system is skewed towards the South because of the three-fifths clause , which gives slave states extra clout in the House of Representatives and therefore the Electoral College . Presidents are picking justices , and the presidency tilts towards the South because of the three-fifths clause ; almost all your early presidents are either slave-holding Southerners or `` Northern men of Southern sympathies '' — that is , pro-slavery Northerners . If we view the Constitution and American history with more of a focus on the role played by geography , what are some the implications for U.S. politics today and in the near-future ? One of the things I 'm trying to tell you in this book is how we can see presidential elections and our political polarization in new ways if we 're attentive to states and regions . Our parties are polarized geographically ; that this is not the first time that 's so ( early on , it was the South against the North ; Jefferson against Adams ) . The geographic alignment is remarkably similar to the geographic alignment in Lincoln 's time with this interesting twist : the Democrats have become the party of the North and the coasts and the Republicans have become the party of the former Confederacy . The parties have basically flipped , but it 's the same basic alignment ... One of the other big things I want you to see is how regions and states are hugely important in , for example , presidential politics . I talk about the significance in this book , in particular , of Ohio and Florida in the Electoral College and also of Texas . Is it a coincidence that Marco Rubio comes from Florida ? That Jeb Bush is the governor of Florida who was born in Texas and whose father and brother had their political bases in Texas ? That Rand Paul was born in Texas and his father ran for president from Texas ? That Ted Cruz is from Texas ? That Rick Perry is a former governor of Texas ?

With the 2016 election cycle having kicked into first-gear already, any American who hasn't inured themselves to the monotonous (and often ultimately meaningless) repetition of the word "Constitution" is advised to get to self-desensitizing — and quick. Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have already made a fetishized version of the U.S.'s supreme governing document central to their campaign rhetoric; and even politicians less beloved by the supposedly Constitution-crazy Tea Party, like Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton, are likely to soon follow suit. That's how American politics functions now, in the era of the NSA, Guantanamo Bay, lethal drone strikes and endless war. Advertisement: But as that list of questionable policies suggests, there's an unanswered question lurking behind so much of our happy talk about the Constitution — namely, do we even understand it? As dozens of polls and public surveys will attest, the answer is, not really. And that's one of the reasons that Yale Law School professor Akhil Reed Amar has decided to write a multi-book series about the Constitution so many Americans claim to love, but so few seem to understand. "The Law of the Land: A Grand Tour of our Constitutional Republic," released earlier this month, is that project's latest addition. Recently, Salon spoke over the phone with Amar about the Constitution, his books, and why he sees Abraham Lincoln as perhaps the United States's real founding father. Our conversation is below and has been edited for clarity and length. So this book is part of a larger, multi-book project on the Constitution. The first was a biography of the document, the second was about its "unwritten" provisions, and this is the third. What's your focus this time? Advertisement: The third book in this project is a geographical slicing of the story; ours is a vast republic of massive diversity, and the Constitution looks a little different in different states and regions. I try to show all of that that through 12 stories ... each of which says something general about the United States Constitution but does so through the window of a particular state. It discusses a person or an idea or a case or an event particularly associated with that region that also casts light, more generally, on our Constitutional project. So how did what you call "brute geography" influence the way we understand the Constitution today? The very breadth of the American landmass and its distance from the old world were huge elements in the American founding and in the Civil War experience. The idea of creating an indivisible union in the 1780s, the idea of forming a more perfect union, was an idea powerfully influenced by these two geographic factors: a wide moat between the Old World and the New World (known as the Atlantic Ocean) would be able to protect Americans from Old World tyranny in the same way the English Channel protected Britain from much of the militarism of the European Continent... Advertisement: But in 1787, as Americans looked around the world, they saw that Britain was free, and Britain was free because England and Scotland had merged, had formed an indivisible, perfect union that would protect liberty because they had gotten rid of land borders on the island and only needed a navy to protect themselves. That worked for England and that would work for America even better, because we'd have an English Channel times 50. This will become manifest destiny and the Monroe Doctrine; we'll control our hemisphere and we'll be protected from Europe ... Our Constitution largely succeeds because there's no major standing army in peacetime for most of American history, and that fact is created by some brute geographic realities. Advertisement: I'm speaking to you now right around the 150th anniversary of Lincoln's assassination. He looms very large in your book; you describe him in some ways as almost prophetic. What made Lincoln's understanding of the country and the Constitution so profound? We live in Lincoln's house. The Framers' house was divided against itself; and, because of slavery, it fell. That failure is called the Civil War, and Lincoln rebuilt [the country] on a solid anti-slavery foundation, a foundation that would be strengthened after his death by the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment (which abolished slavery everywhere, irrevocably), the Fourteenth Amendment (which promised racial equality) and the Fifteenth Amendment (which promised equal voting rights). I begin the book with Lincoln because he transformed the Union. He saved it and transformed it and ... his story was very much influenced by, literally, where he came from. He has a vision of the Constitution that's very much influenced by Illinois, in particular, and by the Midwest more generally. He comes from a part of the country that was the Northwest Territory, that was always free soil even before the Constitution, and he has a very free-soil vision. Advertisement: How so? The language of the 13th Amendment is borrowed, word-for-word, from the language of the Northwest Ordinance. Lincoln thinks that the nation created the states, which, of course, Robert E. Lee ... could never buy into. Robert E. Lee would say that the states created the Union; but the Midwest [perspective] would say ... before Illinois was a state, it was a territory; the Union created these new states out of nothing. That's a very Midwestern perspective on the Constitution. Lincoln is, far and away, the most important constitutional decision-maker of the last two centuries; and arguably the most important constitutional decision-maker and interpreter ever. Advertisement: But Lincoln was never a judge nor a constitutional scholar. He was a politician. Most people are taught in high school that the most important constitutional decision is Marbury v. Madison, but that's not even the most important constitutional decision of 1803. The Louisiana Purchase was far more important than Marbury v. Madison, because it doubled the landmass of America and made sure that the country would survive. When you understand that, you understand that many important constitutional decisions are made not by judges but by presidents. The two most important constitutional decisions ever are Lincoln's decision to resist [the South's] unilateral secession, and Lincoln's decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, which would lead to an end of slavery — that is transformative, and Lincoln made those decisions unilaterally as president. Had these issues reached the U.S. Supreme Court, controlled as it was [during Lincoln's time] by Roger Taney, a fierce opponent of Lincoln, the Court might very well have tried to invalidate Lincoln's projects. We live in a Constitution utterly transformed by the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, and we would have none of those but for Lincoln. Advertisement: Lincoln aside, though, you also argue that geography has played a big role in the Supreme Court — which, of course, is supposed to be the chief interpreter of the Constitution. How did geography influence the Court's history? Let's take the most infamous judicial ruling of all time, the Dred Scott decision of 1857. It emerges from a Supreme Court that's profoundly malapportioned: five of the nine justices on the Dred Scott court come from the slave-holding South, even though only a third of the population lives in that region. Part of that is because entire antebellum system is skewed towards the South because of the three-fifths clause, which gives slave states extra clout in the House of Representatives and therefore the Electoral College. Presidents are picking justices, and the presidency tilts towards the South because of the three-fifths clause; almost all your early presidents are either slave-holding Southerners or "Northern men of Southern sympathies" — that is, pro-slavery Northerners. If we view the Constitution and American history with more of a focus on the role played by geography, what are some the implications for U.S. politics today and in the near-future? Advertisement: One of the things I'm trying to tell you in this book is how we can see presidential elections and our political polarization in new ways if we're attentive to states and regions. Our parties are polarized geographically; that this is not the first time that's so (early on, it was the South against the North; Jefferson against Adams). The geographic alignment is remarkably similar to the geographic alignment in Lincoln's time with this interesting twist: the Democrats have become the party of the North and the coasts and the Republicans have become the party of the former Confederacy. The parties have basically flipped, but it's the same basic alignment... One of the other big things I want you to see is how regions and states are hugely important in, for example, presidential politics. I talk about the significance in this book, in particular, of Ohio and Florida in the Electoral College and also of Texas. Is it a coincidence that Marco Rubio comes from Florida? That Jeb Bush is the governor of Florida who was born in Texas and whose father and brother had their political bases in Texas? That Rand Paul was born in Texas and his father ran for president from Texas? That Ted Cruz is from Texas? That Rick Perry is a former governor of Texas?

www.salon.com

left

MB83kUKDcoymg2Hw

test

eaVqBO2c4NSMSyw4

race_and_racism

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-congress-cdc/us-working-with-manufacturers-to-boost-flu-vaccine-availability-top-official-says-idUSKBN23B2HE

Protesters should 'highly consider' coronavirus tests, U.S. health official says

2020-06-04

Michael Erman

NEW YORK ( ███ ) - A top U.S. health official cautioned on Thursday that protests sweeping across the country could increase the spread of the novel coronavirus , particularly in cities that have struggled to control the outbreak , and that participants should “ highly consider ” getting tested . Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Robert Redfield speaks at a hearing on COVID-19 response held by the House subcommittee on Labor , Health and Human Services , Education , and Related Agencies , on Capitol Hill in Washington , D.C. , U.S. , June 4 , 2020 . Al Drago/Pool via ███ Huge crowds have taken to the streets of dozens of cities since the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody set off unrest that has roiled America in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic . Protests have occurred in Minneapolis and Washington , D.C. , where there has been significant transmission of the virus , Robert Redfield , director for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) , testified before a Congressional committee . “ Those individuals that have partaken in these peaceful protests or have been out protesting , and particularly if they ’ re in metropolitan areas that really haven ’ t controlled the outbreak ... we really want those individuals to highly consider being evaluated and get tested , ” Redfield told a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee . “ I do think there is a potential unfortunately for this to be a seeding event , ” he said , referring to spreading the virus . Other public health experts and government officials have also warned the large street protests could cause a spike in new coronavirus cases . Concerns that a second wave of the virus could also spill over into flu season in the fall have heightened fears of the potential pressure on the nation ’ s healthcare system . The CDC is seeking emergency use authorization for a test to detect and differentiate flu from COVID-19 , Redfield said in prepared testimony for the House subcommittee on Labor , Health and Human Services , Education , and Related Agencies . Redfield said in the prepared testimony the CDC is working with drugmakers to maximize the availability of influenza vaccines , and with healthcare providers “ to develop contingency plans so that people can be vaccinated in a safe environment . ” Major flu vaccine makers include British-based GlaxoSmithKline , France ’ s Sanofi and Australia ’ s CSL . U.S. pharmacy chains have been preparing a big push for flu vaccinations in October , hoping to prevent tens of thousands of serious cases that could flood hospitals along with new COVID-19 cases . Redfield also said the World Health Organization ( WHO ) continues to be a “ close colleague ” in public health efforts . President Donald Trump said on Friday the United States will end its relationship with the WHO over the body ’ s handling of the coronavirus pandemic . During Redfield ’ s appearance , Democrats criticized the Trump administration ’ s response to the outbreak , which has led to more than 107,000 U.S. deaths . “ I have such admiration for the work that you and the CDC do , but if you and the CDC are driving this bus , you ’ re taking us in a dangerous direction , ” said Rosa DeLauro , a Democratic congresswoman from Connecticut . Asked about the delay in widely available coronavirus testing long into the U.S. outbreak , Redfield pointed to corporate America . “ It took unfortunately weeks and weeks and weeks before the private sector stepped up and developed what we now have , ” he told the panel , noting that more than 17 million coronavirus tests have now been done in the United States .

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A top U.S. health official cautioned on Thursday that protests sweeping across the country could increase the spread of the novel coronavirus, particularly in cities that have struggled to control the outbreak, and that participants should “highly consider” getting tested. Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Robert Redfield speaks at a hearing on COVID-19 response held by the House subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 4, 2020. Al Drago/Pool via REUTERS Huge crowds have taken to the streets of dozens of cities since the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody set off unrest that has roiled America in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. Protests have occurred in Minneapolis and Washington, D.C., where there has been significant transmission of the virus, Robert Redfield, director for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), testified before a Congressional committee. “Those individuals that have partaken in these peaceful protests or have been out protesting, and particularly if they’re in metropolitan areas that really haven’t controlled the outbreak...we really want those individuals to highly consider being evaluated and get tested,” Redfield told a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee. “I do think there is a potential unfortunately for this to be a seeding event,” he said, referring to spreading the virus. Other public health experts and government officials have also warned the large street protests could cause a spike in new coronavirus cases. Concerns that a second wave of the virus could also spill over into flu season in the fall have heightened fears of the potential pressure on the nation’s healthcare system. The CDC is seeking emergency use authorization for a test to detect and differentiate flu from COVID-19, Redfield said in prepared testimony for the House subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. Redfield said in the prepared testimony the CDC is working with drugmakers to maximize the availability of influenza vaccines, and with healthcare providers “to develop contingency plans so that people can be vaccinated in a safe environment.” Major flu vaccine makers include British-based GlaxoSmithKline, France’s Sanofi and Australia’s CSL. U.S. pharmacy chains have been preparing a big push for flu vaccinations in October, hoping to prevent tens of thousands of serious cases that could flood hospitals along with new COVID-19 cases. Redfield also said the World Health Organization (WHO) continues to be a “close colleague” in public health efforts. President Donald Trump said on Friday the United States will end its relationship with the WHO over the body’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic. During Redfield’s appearance, Democrats criticized the Trump administration’s response to the outbreak, which has led to more than 107,000 U.S. deaths. Slideshow (4 Images) “I have such admiration for the work that you and the CDC do, but if you and the CDC are driving this bus, you’re taking us in a dangerous direction,” said Rosa DeLauro, a Democratic congresswoman from Connecticut. Asked about the delay in widely available coronavirus testing long into the U.S. outbreak, Redfield pointed to corporate America. “It took unfortunately weeks and weeks and weeks before the private sector stepped up and developed what we now have,” he told the panel, noting that more than 17 million coronavirus tests have now been done in the United States.

www.reuters.com

center

eaVqBO2c4NSMSyw4

test

dZLJMAcNZcuKtTvv

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/16/shutdown-showdown-day-16-what-you-need-to-know/

Shutdown showdown Day 16: What you need to know

2013-10-16

( CNN ) - There ’ s a deal ! After a whirlwind couple of days of political jockeying , Senate leaders announced the final terms of a bipartisan compromise to reopen the government and raise the debt limit . Wednesday afternoon . Senators are reading the proposal , and House Republicans and Democrats met separately to review it and consider next steps . Both the Senate and the House are now expected to take it up on Wednesday evening , but it ’ s anyone ’ s guess when they might finish their work . President Barack Obama praised the Senate compromise and urged quick action in Congress with the government ’ s authority to raise money set to expire on Thursday . The stock market responded positively , jumping by 200 points around noon before settling back a bit as Washington appeared to be pulling back from the fiscal brink . But businesses are blaming the Washington tumult for holding back hiring , according to a new survey . It also would raise the debt limit until February 7 to avert a possible default on U.S. debt obligations for the first time . Also , the White House supports a provision in the deal that strengthens verification measures for people getting subsidies under Obamacare . In addition , the Senate agreement would set up budget negotiations between the House and Senate for a long-term spending plan . Cruz wo n't block vote in Senate - even though he opposes deal But how would a Senate plan , which was quickly vocally rejected by House Republicans , pass the House ? CNN ’ s John King explains : “ If you get a scenario where the Senate sends over a plan and Speaker Boehner brings it to the floor and lets the full majority , 435 members of the House rule , most of the House Republicans can vote no . ” Rep. Charlie Dent , R-Pennsylvania , said as much on Tuesday night on CNN . “ I believe that John Boehner will likely be in a position where he will have to essentially pass the bill that is negotiated between senators McConnell and Reid . And I believe the house would first pass it then send it to the senate , ” Dent said . Many Americans , unfortunately , live paycheck to paycheck . Now it looks like the United States of America is doing the same . On Thursday , the nation ’ s treasurer runs out of his ability to confidently pay all our bills . An Obama administration official told CNN ’ s Brianna Keilar that the markets will remain calm as long as a resolution is nearing completion . But if there is still chaos ... That statement gives debt deniers more reason to doubt . Rep. Steve King , R-Iowa , who said on CNN ’ s ‘ New Day ’ that it was a day simply “ picked on a calendar . ” CNN ’ s Richard Quest responded to the debt deniers . “ Why would you want to risk it ? ” Quest asked . Quest also reminded people why the debt ceiling matters : “ The United States is at the core of the global economy and the bond market is at the core of the core . U.S. Treasuries , U.S. debt is in every portfolio , pension fund , used by the banks to trade between each other . You are literally talking about the glue that is holding the financial world together . ” Meanwhile , ratings agency Fitch said that it may downgrade the country 's AAA credit rating to AA+ over the political brinksmanship . 10:00 a.m. : House is in session LIVE House in session 2:00 p.m. : Defense Secretary Leon Panetta talks about the debt limit 2:25 p.m. : President Obama meets with Treasury Secretary Jack Lew Moody ’ s economist Mark Zandi said the government shutdown has cost $ 20 billion so far . Here ’ s what that could have paid for : 33 : Percent of the country ’ s annual expenditure on food stamps 392,000 : Number of household salaries at the $ 51,017 median household income Yep , it ’ s still the law . But for the first time the President addressed the website glitches . In an interview with KCCI , Obama said it “ has had way more glitches than I think are acceptable and we 've got people working around the clock to do that . ” The state of North Carolina has suspended two benefits program for low-income people . The state is not accepting any new applications for a family cash assistance program called “ Work First , ” impacting about 20,000 North Carolinians , most of them children . A separate monetary assistance and health benefits program for refugees has also been suspended .

6 years ago (CNN) - There’s a deal! After a whirlwind couple of days of political jockeying, Senate leaders announced the final terms of a bipartisan compromise to reopen the government and raise the debt limit. Here’s what you need to know: Up to Speed Wednesday afternoon. Senators are reading the proposal, and House Republicans and Democrats met separately to review it and consider next steps. Both the Senate and the House are now expected to take it up on Wednesday evening, but it’s anyone’s guess when they might finish their work. Live blog: Shutdown Day 16 President Barack Obama praised the Senate compromise and urged quick action in Congress with the government’s authority to raise money set to expire on Thursday. The stock market responded positively, jumping by 200 points around noon before settling back a bit as Washington appeared to be pulling back from the fiscal brink. But businesses are blaming the Washington tumult for holding back hiring, according to a new survey. The deal The Senate deal would: Reopen the government, funding it until January 15. It also would raise the debt limit until February 7 to avert a possible default on U.S. debt obligations for the first time. Also, the White House supports a provision in the deal that strengthens verification measures for people getting subsidies under Obamacare. In addition, the Senate agreement would set up budget negotiations between the House and Senate for a long-term spending plan. Cruz won't block vote in Senate - even though he opposes deal What this means But how would a Senate plan, which was quickly vocally rejected by House Republicans, pass the House? CNN’s John King explains: “If you get a scenario where the Senate sends over a plan and Speaker Boehner brings it to the floor and lets the full majority, 435 members of the House rule, most of the House Republicans can vote no.” Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pennsylvania, said as much on Tuesday night on CNN. “I believe that John Boehner will likely be in a position where he will have to essentially pass the bill that is negotiated between senators McConnell and Reid. And I believe the house would first pass it then send it to the senate,” Dent said. Debt deadline decoded Many Americans, unfortunately, live paycheck to paycheck. Now it looks like the United States of America is doing the same. On Thursday, the nation’s treasurer runs out of his ability to confidently pay all our bills. An Obama administration official told CNN’s Brianna Keilar that the markets will remain calm as long as a resolution is nearing completion. But if there is still chaos... That statement gives debt deniers more reason to doubt. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who said on CNN’s ‘New Day’ that it was a day simply “picked on a calendar.” CNN’s Richard Quest responded to the debt deniers. “Why would you want to risk it?” Quest asked. Quest also reminded people why the debt ceiling matters: “The United States is at the core of the global economy and the bond market is at the core of the core. U.S. Treasuries, U.S. debt is in every portfolio, pension fund, used by the banks to trade between each other. You are literally talking about the glue that is holding the financial world together.” Meanwhile, ratings agency Fitch said that it may downgrade the country's AAA credit rating to AA+ over the political brinksmanship. America’s Debt On tap 10:00 a.m.: House is in session LIVE House in session 12:00 p.m.: Senate is in session 2:00 p.m.: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta talks about the debt limit 2:25 p.m.: President Obama meets with Treasury Secretary Jack Lew By the Numbers Moody’s economist Mark Zandi said the government shutdown has cost $20 billion so far. Here’s what that could have paid for: 2: weeks of unemployment insurance: 94: Percent of state national park requests 8: years of capital funding for airports 2: years of school lunch program 33: Percent of the country’s annual expenditure on food stamps 50: Percent of annual Pell Grants 392,000: Number of household salaries at the $51,017 median household income Obamacare Yep, it’s still the law. But for the first time the President addressed the website glitches. In an interview with KCCI, Obama said it “has had way more glitches than I think are acceptable and we've got people working around the clock to do that.” Local impact The state of North Carolina has suspended two benefits program for low-income people. The state is not accepting any new applications for a family cash assistance program called “Work First,” impacting about 20,000 North Carolinians, most of them children. A separate monetary assistance and health benefits program for refugees has also been suspended.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

dZLJMAcNZcuKtTvv

test

l27Jz4IS2j3aXbGK

media_bias

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/04/19/coronavirus-lockdown-protests-shutdown-media-covid-19/

Celebrities and the Media Shouldn't Sneer at Coronavirus Lockdown Protesters

2020-04-19

Eugene Volokh, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Josh Blackman, Peter Suderman, Charles Oliver, Jacob Sullum, Brian Doherty, Ronald Bailey, Christian Britschgi

In their desperation to get back to work , some Americans are taking to the streets to demand that the government end the quarantine . Comedian Patton Oswalt is unsympathetic . `` Anne Frank spent 2 years hiding in an attic and we 've been home for just over a month with Netflix , food delivery & video games and there are people risking viral death by storming state capital buildings & screaming , 'Open Fuddruckers ! ' '' he tweeted on Saturday . This is hardly Oswalt 's first display of smug liberal condescension : His tweet denouncing Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann as a `` leering , privileged little shit '' was one of the most vile celebrity attacks on the wrongly maligned teenager . It may be trivially simple for the Emmy Award-winning comic—and voice of Remy in Pixar 's Ratatouille—to stay at home , watch Netflix , order carry-out , and play video games for a few weeks . ( Writer and podcaster Bridget Phetasy compared Oswalt to Marie Antoinette 's apocryphal indifference toward the hungry masses , tweeting : `` Let them eat kale ! '' ) But many auto mechanics , coffee baristas , and small business owners ca n't afford this so easily . They are watching their financial situations become more and more precarious with each day that extreme social distancing continues . Oswalt suggested that the uncultured rubes are crazy to want Fuddruckers to reopen ; people whose livelihoods depend upon places like Fuddruckers might see things differently . That 's why it 's important for those criticizing misguided protesting efforts—including media figures who increasingly appear to be taking the view that you would have to be a deranged right-winger to want social distancing to end—not to resort to sneering at the less fortunate . ( For example : A guest on MSNBC recently called the protesters , `` the Fox News Nazi confederate death cult rump of the Republican Party . '' ) These are terrifying times , and the prospect of hundreds of thousands of deaths means there is very good ███ for policymakers to proceed cautiously with reopening . But both federal and state governments must consider the long-term practicality of their coronavirus prevention plans , including whether people will be willing to obey stay-at-home orders for much longer . While these efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19 remain broadly popular , some Americans are understandably growing frustrated . Protests have cropped up in several states—most notably Michigan , where opposition to the draconian quarantine dictates of Gov . Gretchen Whitmer ( D–Mich . ) culminated in a drive-through protest of the state capitol last week . Many of the protesters did indeed maintain social distancing , stayed in their cars , or wore masks , though some of the attendees—zanier right-wing types—did not . Political protests , be they left-leaning or right-leaning , always invite an eclectic crowd : from concerned citizens motivated by legitimate frustrations to professional activists desperate to attach a pro- or anti-Trump spin to seemingly any cause . Their tactics , goals , and organizational structure often attract well-deserved criticism : Some of the lockdown protests , for instance , seem to be generically pro-Trump in character , disconnected from the reality that thus far President Donald Trump has supported the shutdowns at every critical juncture . Indeed , it 's quite odd to hear protesters chanting `` Fire Fauci '' while waving MAGA signs : Trump has praised Dr. Anthony Fauci incessantly and never fails to heed his advice , the media 's attempt to create a narrative of mounting tension between the two notwithstanding . But there are legitimate grievances for protesters to air . Whitmer 's stay-at-home orders were , as ███ 's Billy Binion put it , a `` hot mess , '' prohibiting travel between residences ( even to relatively uninhabited areas ) , buying gardening supplies , and motorboats ( but not boats without motors ) . Authorities in New York City have called on people to report each other for failing to abide by the most stringent social distancing measures . People have been stopped , shamed , and arrested for merely going outdoors . Voluntary compliance with social distancing has been remarkable , but forcibly constraining every last person has diminishing returns , and is not a good use of government resources . That does not mean the quarantine protesters are , as conservative pundit Stephen Moore put it , `` modern-day Rosa Parks . '' But some of them are justifiably upset , and their frustration should be neither mocked nor ignored .

In their desperation to get back to work, some Americans are taking to the streets to demand that the government end the quarantine. Comedian Patton Oswalt is unsympathetic. "Anne Frank spent 2 years hiding in an attic and we've been home for just over a month with Netflix, food delivery & video games and there are people risking viral death by storming state capital buildings & screaming, 'Open Fuddruckers!'" he tweeted on Saturday. This is hardly Oswalt's first display of smug liberal condescension: His tweet denouncing Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann as a "leering, privileged little shit" was one of the most vile celebrity attacks on the wrongly maligned teenager. It may be trivially simple for the Emmy Award-winning comic—and voice of Remy in Pixar's Ratatouille—to stay at home, watch Netflix, order carry-out, and play video games for a few weeks. (Writer and podcaster Bridget Phetasy compared Oswalt to Marie Antoinette's apocryphal indifference toward the hungry masses, tweeting: "Let them eat kale!") But many auto mechanics, coffee baristas, and small business owners can't afford this so easily. They are watching their financial situations become more and more precarious with each day that extreme social distancing continues. Oswalt suggested that the uncultured rubes are crazy to want Fuddruckers to reopen; people whose livelihoods depend upon places like Fuddruckers might see things differently. That's why it's important for those criticizing misguided protesting efforts—including media figures who increasingly appear to be taking the view that you would have to be a deranged right-winger to want social distancing to end—not to resort to sneering at the less fortunate. (For example: A guest on MSNBC recently called the protesters, "the Fox News Nazi confederate death cult rump of the Republican Party.") These are terrifying times, and the prospect of hundreds of thousands of deaths means there is very good reason for policymakers to proceed cautiously with reopening. But both federal and state governments must consider the long-term practicality of their coronavirus prevention plans, including whether people will be willing to obey stay-at-home orders for much longer. While these efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19 remain broadly popular, some Americans are understandably growing frustrated. Protests have cropped up in several states—most notably Michigan, where opposition to the draconian quarantine dictates of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D–Mich.) culminated in a drive-through protest of the state capitol last week. Many of the protesters did indeed maintain social distancing, stayed in their cars, or wore masks, though some of the attendees—zanier right-wing types—did not. Political protests, be they left-leaning or right-leaning, always invite an eclectic crowd: from concerned citizens motivated by legitimate frustrations to professional activists desperate to attach a pro- or anti-Trump spin to seemingly any cause. Their tactics, goals, and organizational structure often attract well-deserved criticism: Some of the lockdown protests, for instance, seem to be generically pro-Trump in character, disconnected from the reality that thus far President Donald Trump has supported the shutdowns at every critical juncture. Indeed, it's quite odd to hear protesters chanting "Fire Fauci" while waving MAGA signs: Trump has praised Dr. Anthony Fauci incessantly and never fails to heed his advice, the media's attempt to create a narrative of mounting tension between the two notwithstanding. But there are legitimate grievances for protesters to air. Whitmer's stay-at-home orders were, as Reason's Billy Binion put it, a "hot mess," prohibiting travel between residences (even to relatively uninhabited areas), buying gardening supplies, and motorboats (but not boats without motors). Authorities in New York City have called on people to report each other for failing to abide by the most stringent social distancing measures. People have been stopped, shamed, and arrested for merely going outdoors. Voluntary compliance with social distancing has been remarkable, but forcibly constraining every last person has diminishing returns, and is not a good use of government resources. That does not mean the quarantine protesters are, as conservative pundit Stephen Moore put it, "modern-day Rosa Parks." But some of them are justifiably upset, and their frustration should be neither mocked nor ignored.

www.reason.com

right

l27Jz4IS2j3aXbGK

test

VR0xJVUsT959aIiG

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://www.apnews.com/1ffa8eb5cbb244f3bab1444bfabb9a66

2 dead in attack targeting German synagogue on Yom Kippur

2019-10-09

Geir Moulson, Jens Meyer

Police officers cross a wall at a crime scene in Halle , Germany , Wednesday , Oct. 9 , 2019 after a shooting incident . A gunman fired several shots on Wednesday in the German city of Halle . Police say a person has been arrested after a shooting that left two people dead . ( Sebastian Willnow/dpa via AP ) Police officers cross a wall at a crime scene in Halle , Germany , Wednesday , Oct. 9 , 2019 after a shooting incident . A gunman fired several shots on Wednesday in the German city of Halle . Police say a person has been arrested after a shooting that left two people dead . ( Sebastian Willnow/dpa via AP ) HALLE , Germany ( AP ) — A heavily armed assailant ranting about Jews tried to force his way into a synagogue in Germany on Yom Kippur , Judaism ’ s holiest day , then shot two people to death nearby in an attack Wednesday that was livestreamed on a popular gaming site . The attacker shot at the door of the synagogue in the eastern city of Halle but did not get in as 70 to 80 people inside were observing the holy day . The gunman shouted that Jews were “ the root ” of “ problems ” such as feminism and “ mass immigration , ” according to a group that tracks online extremism . It said a roughly 36-minute video posted online featured the assailant , who spoke a combination of English and German , denying the Holocaust before he shot a woman in the street after failing to enter the synagogue . He then entered a nearby kebab shop and killed another person before fleeing . Germany ’ s top security official , Interior Minister Horst Seehofer , said authorities must assume that it was an anti-Semitic attack , and said prosecutors believe there may be a right-wing extremist motive . He said several people were hurt . The attack “ strikes the Jewish community , Jewish people not just in Germany but particularly in Germany , to the core , ” said the country ’ s main Jewish leader , Josef Schuster . “ It was , I think , only lucky circumstances that prevented a bigger massacre . ” The filming of Wednesday ’ s attack echoed another horrific shooting halfway around the world when a far-right white supremacist in March killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch , New Zealand and livestreamed much of the attack on Facebook . That massacre drew strong criticism of social media giants for not immediately finding and blocking such a violent video . Wednesday ’ s assault followed attacks in the United States over the past year on synagogues in Pittsburgh and Poway , California . The head of Halle ’ s Jewish community , Max Privorozki , told news magazine Der Spiegel that a surveillance camera at the entrance of the synagogue showed a person trying to break into the building . “ The assailant shot several times at the door and also threw several Molotov cocktails , firecrackers or grenades to force his way in , ” he said . “ But the door remained closed — God protected us . The whole thing lasted perhaps five to 10 minutes . ” A video clip shown on regional public broadcaster MDR showed a man in a helmet and an olive-colored top getting out of a car and firing four shots from behind the vehicle from a long-barreled gun . Conrad Roessler said he was in the kebab shop when a man with a helmet and a military jacket threw something that looked like a grenade , which bounced off the doorframe . He said the man then shot into the shop . “ All the customers next to me ran , of course I did too . I think there were five or six of us in there , ” Roessler told n-tv television . “ The man behind me probably died . ” “ I hid in the toilet , ” he added . “ The others looked for the back entrance . I didn ’ t know if there was one . I locked myself quietly in this toilet , and wrote to my family that I love them , and waited for something to happen . ” Schuster offered his condolences to the relatives of “ the two completely uninvolved people ” who were killed and his sympathy to those were wounded . German authorities didn ’ t give any details on the victims . The SITE Intelligence Group said the video on livestreaming site Twitch started with the assailant saying “ my name is Anon and I think the Holocaust never happened. ” He mentioned feminism and “ mass immigration ” and said that “ the root of all these problems is the Jew . ” The video , which apparently was filmed with a head-mounted camera , showed the perpetrator driving up to the synagogue in a car packed with ammunition and what appeared to be home-made explosives . He tried two doors and placed a device at the bottom of a gate , then fired at a woman trying to walk past his parked car . The assailant then fired rounds into the synagogue ’ s door , which didn ’ t open . He drove a short distance to park opposite the kebab shop . He fired at what appeared to be an employee , while customers scrambled away . Twitch said it was “ shocked and saddened ” by the attack . “ We worked with urgency to remove this content and will permanently suspend any accounts found to be posting or reposting content of this abhorrent act , ” it said in an emailed response to a query about Wednesday ’ s events . It wasn ’ t immediately able to confirm who streamed the footage . Twitch , owned by e-commerce giant Amazon , is best known as a site for watching others play video games , sometimes with commentary and tips for viewers . Wednesday ’ s attack appeared to be the first real-world violence livestreamed on Twitch , said Hannah Bloch-Wehba , a law professor at Drexel University . She said it was hard to guess why Twitch was chosen , although she noted that recent attempts by Facebook and Twitter to crack down on such material may be forcing attackers to look for new outlets . Federal prosecutors , who in Germany handle cases involving suspected terrorism or national security , took over the investigation into the attack in Halle . Authorities said shortly after the shooting that a person had been arrested , but advised residents to stay indoors for several hours as they worked to determine whether there were other assailants . They gave no information on the suspect but Der Spiegel and dpa , which cited unidentified security sources , said the suspect is a 27-year-old German citizen from Saxony-Anhalt state , where Halle is located . They identified him only as Stephan B . Synagogues are often protected by police in Germany and have been for many years amid concerns over far-right and Islamic extremism , but Schuster said that there was no police presence outside the Halle synagogue on Wednesday . “ I am convinced that if there had been police protection there , in all probability the assailant would not have been able to attack a second site , ” he said . Security was stepped up at synagogues in other cities after the shooting in Halle . German officials rushed to condemn the attack . Chancellor Angela Merkel visited a synagogue in Berlin on Wednesday evening in a show of solidarity . “ Shots being fired at a synagogue on Yom Kippur , the festival of reconciliation , hits us in the heart , ” German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said on Twitter . “ We must all act against anti-Semitism in our country . ” Anti-Semitism is a top concern in Germany , where reports of anti-Semitic incidents rose 10 % last year , according to Tel Aviv University ’ s Kantor Center and where Merkel ’ s government earlier this year reaffirmed its commitment to protecting Jews who wear skullcaps from anti-Semitic threats . Wednesday ’ s attack drew renewed calls from Jewish groups in the U.S. to step up cooperation in combating anti-Semitism . “ We have been saying for several years that anti-Semitism is real , it ’ s resurgent , it ’ s lethal and it ’ s multi-sourced , ” American Jewish Committee CEO David Harris said . Noting that the attack in Halle comes on the heels of the one-year anniversary of an anti-Semitic shooting that killed 11 worshippers at Pittsburgh ’ s Tree of Life synagogue , he said such attacks “ should be triggering alarm bells . The question is whether they are . ” An earlier version of this story was updated to correct the spelling of the Jewish community leader ’ s surname to Privorozki , not Privorotzki .

Police officers cross a wall at a crime scene in Halle, Germany, Wednesday, Oct. 9, 2019 after a shooting incident. A gunman fired several shots on Wednesday in the German city of Halle. Police say a person has been arrested after a shooting that left two people dead. (Sebastian Willnow/dpa via AP) Police officers cross a wall at a crime scene in Halle, Germany, Wednesday, Oct. 9, 2019 after a shooting incident. A gunman fired several shots on Wednesday in the German city of Halle. Police say a person has been arrested after a shooting that left two people dead. (Sebastian Willnow/dpa via AP) HALLE, Germany (AP) — A heavily armed assailant ranting about Jews tried to force his way into a synagogue in Germany on Yom Kippur, Judaism’s holiest day, then shot two people to death nearby in an attack Wednesday that was livestreamed on a popular gaming site. The attacker shot at the door of the synagogue in the eastern city of Halle but did not get in as 70 to 80 people inside were observing the holy day. The gunman shouted that Jews were “the root” of “problems” such as feminism and “mass immigration,” according to a group that tracks online extremism. It said a roughly 36-minute video posted online featured the assailant, who spoke a combination of English and German, denying the Holocaust before he shot a woman in the street after failing to enter the synagogue. He then entered a nearby kebab shop and killed another person before fleeing. Germany’s top security official, Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, said authorities must assume that it was an anti-Semitic attack, and said prosecutors believe there may be a right-wing extremist motive. He said several people were hurt. The attack “strikes the Jewish community, Jewish people not just in Germany but particularly in Germany, to the core,” said the country’s main Jewish leader, Josef Schuster. “It was, I think, only lucky circumstances that prevented a bigger massacre.” The filming of Wednesday’s attack echoed another horrific shooting halfway around the world when a far-right white supremacist in March killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand and livestreamed much of the attack on Facebook. That massacre drew strong criticism of social media giants for not immediately finding and blocking such a violent video. Wednesday’s assault followed attacks in the United States over the past year on synagogues in Pittsburgh and Poway, California. The head of Halle’s Jewish community, Max Privorozki, told news magazine Der Spiegel that a surveillance camera at the entrance of the synagogue showed a person trying to break into the building. “The assailant shot several times at the door and also threw several Molotov cocktails, firecrackers or grenades to force his way in,” he said. “But the door remained closed — God protected us. The whole thing lasted perhaps five to 10 minutes.” A video clip shown on regional public broadcaster MDR showed a man in a helmet and an olive-colored top getting out of a car and firing four shots from behind the vehicle from a long-barreled gun. Conrad Roessler said he was in the kebab shop when a man with a helmet and a military jacket threw something that looked like a grenade, which bounced off the doorframe. He said the man then shot into the shop. “All the customers next to me ran, of course I did too. I think there were five or six of us in there,” Roessler told n-tv television. “The man behind me probably died.” “I hid in the toilet,” he added. “The others looked for the back entrance. I didn’t know if there was one. I locked myself quietly in this toilet, and wrote to my family that I love them, and waited for something to happen.” Police then came into the shop, he said. Schuster offered his condolences to the relatives of “the two completely uninvolved people” who were killed and his sympathy to those were wounded. German authorities didn’t give any details on the victims. The SITE Intelligence Group said the video on livestreaming site Twitch started with the assailant saying “my name is Anon and I think the Holocaust never happened.” He mentioned feminism and “mass immigration” and said that “the root of all these problems is the Jew.” The video, which apparently was filmed with a head-mounted camera, showed the perpetrator driving up to the synagogue in a car packed with ammunition and what appeared to be home-made explosives. He tried two doors and placed a device at the bottom of a gate, then fired at a woman trying to walk past his parked car. The assailant then fired rounds into the synagogue’s door, which didn’t open. He drove a short distance to park opposite the kebab shop. He fired at what appeared to be an employee, while customers scrambled away. Twitch said it was “shocked and saddened” by the attack. “We worked with urgency to remove this content and will permanently suspend any accounts found to be posting or reposting content of this abhorrent act,” it said in an emailed response to a query about Wednesday’s events. It wasn’t immediately able to confirm who streamed the footage. Twitch, owned by e-commerce giant Amazon, is best known as a site for watching others play video games, sometimes with commentary and tips for viewers. Wednesday’s attack appeared to be the first real-world violence livestreamed on Twitch, said Hannah Bloch-Wehba, a law professor at Drexel University. She said it was hard to guess why Twitch was chosen, although she noted that recent attempts by Facebook and Twitter to crack down on such material may be forcing attackers to look for new outlets. Federal prosecutors, who in Germany handle cases involving suspected terrorism or national security, took over the investigation into the attack in Halle. Authorities said shortly after the shooting that a person had been arrested, but advised residents to stay indoors for several hours as they worked to determine whether there were other assailants. They gave no information on the suspect but Der Spiegel and dpa, which cited unidentified security sources, said the suspect is a 27-year-old German citizen from Saxony-Anhalt state, where Halle is located. They identified him only as Stephan B. Synagogues are often protected by police in Germany and have been for many years amid concerns over far-right and Islamic extremism, but Schuster said that there was no police presence outside the Halle synagogue on Wednesday. “I am convinced that if there had been police protection there, in all probability the assailant would not have been able to attack a second site,” he said. Security was stepped up at synagogues in other cities after the shooting in Halle. German officials rushed to condemn the attack. Chancellor Angela Merkel visited a synagogue in Berlin on Wednesday evening in a show of solidarity. “Shots being fired at a synagogue on Yom Kippur, the festival of reconciliation, hits us in the heart,” German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said on Twitter. “We must all act against anti-Semitism in our country.” Anti-Semitism is a top concern in Germany, where reports of anti-Semitic incidents rose 10% last year, according to Tel Aviv University’s Kantor Center and where Merkel’s government earlier this year reaffirmed its commitment to protecting Jews who wear skullcaps from anti-Semitic threats. Wednesday’s attack drew renewed calls from Jewish groups in the U.S. to step up cooperation in combating anti-Semitism. “We have been saying for several years that anti-Semitism is real, it’s resurgent, it’s lethal and it’s multi-sourced,” American Jewish Committee CEO David Harris said. Noting that the attack in Halle comes on the heels of the one-year anniversary of an anti-Semitic shooting that killed 11 worshippers at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue, he said such attacks “should be triggering alarm bells. The question is whether they are.” ___ Moulson reported from Berlin. Associated Press writers Jake Seiner in New York, Rachel Lerman in Seattle and Fisnik Abrashi in Berlin contributed to this report. ___ An earlier version of this story was updated to correct the spelling of the Jewish community leader’s surname to Privorozki, not Privorotzki.

www.apnews.com

center

VR0xJVUsT959aIiG

test

wZlYQ870GSybiqD2

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/16/welcome_to_libertarian_island_how_silicon_valley_billionaires_are_creating_a_capitalist_nightmare/

Welcome to “Libertarian Island”: How these One Percenters are creating a dystopian nightmare

2015-03-16

Conor Lynch

In the clever science fiction video game Bioshock , an Objectivist business magnate named Andrew Ryan ( recognize those initials ? ) creates an underwater city , where the world 's elite members can flourish free from the controls of government . It is a utopian village that Ayn Rand and her hero John Galt would surely approve of , but unfortunately it ends up becoming a dystopian nightmare after class distinctions form ( what a shocker ) and technological innovation gets out of hand . It was a hell of a video game , for those of you into that kind of thing . But I don ’ t bring up Bioshock to talk about video games . I bring it up because there is currently a similar movement happening in real life , and it is being funded by another rather eccentric businessman , the Paypal billionaire Peter Thiel . As some may already know , Thiel has teamed up with the grandson of libertarian icon Milton Friedman , Patri Friedman , to try and develop a “ seastead , ” or a permanent and autonomous dwelling at sea . Friedman formed the “ Seasteading Institute ” in 2008 , and Thiel has donated more than a million dollars to fund its creation . It is all very utopian , to say the least . But on the website , they claim a floating city could be just years away . The real trick is finding a proper location to build this twenty-first century atlantis . Currently , they are attempting to find a host nation that will allow the floating city somewhat close to land , for the calm waters and ability to easily travel to and from the seastead . The project has been coined “ libertarian island , ” and it reveals a building movement within Silicon Valley ; a sort of free market techno-capitalist faction that seems to come right out of Ayn Rand 's imagination . And as with all utopian ideologies , it is very appealing , especially when you live in a land where everything seems possible , with the proper technological advancements . Tech billionaires like Thiel , Travis Kalanick and Marc Andressen , are leading the libertarian revolution in the land of computers , and it is not a surprising place for this laissez faire ideology to flourish . Silicon Valley is generally considered to have a laid back Californian culture , but behind all of the polite cordialities , there rests a necessary cutthroat attitude . A perfect example of this was Steve Jobs , who was so revered by the community , and much of the world , yet almost psychopathically merciless . The recent anti-trust case against the big tech companies like Google , Apple , and Intel , who colluded not to recruit each others employees , has even lead to speculation as to whether Jobs should be in jail today , if he were still alive . So while Silicon Valley is no doubt a socially progressive place ( i.e . gay marriage ) , if one looks past social beliefs , there is as much ruthlessness as you ’ d expect in any capitalist industry . Look at the offshore tax avoidance , the despicable overseas working conditions , the outright violations of privacy and illegal behavior . There is a very real arrogance within Silicon Valley that seems to care little about rules and regulations . Libertarianism preaches a night-watchmen government that stays out of businesses way , and allows private industries to regulate themselves . It is a utopian ideology , as was communism , that has an almost religious-like faith in the free market , and an absolute distrust of any government . It is a perfect philosophy for a large corporation , like Apple , Google or Facebook . If we lived in an ideal libertarian society , these companies would not have to avoid taxes , because they would be non-existent , and they wouldn ’ t have to worry about annoying restrictions on privacy . In a libertarian society , these companies could regulate their own actions , and surely Google , with their famous “ Don ’ t be evil ” slogan , believes in corporate altruism . In the Valley , innovation and entrepreneurship is everything , so a blind faith in the market is hardly shocking . And last year one of the leading libertarians , Rand Paul , flew out to San Francisco to speak at the Lincoln Labs Reboot Conference , held to “ create and support a community of like-minded individuals who desire to advance liberty in the public square with the use of technology. ” Paul said at the conference , “ use your ingenuity , use your big head to think of solutions the marketplace can figure out , that the idiots and trolls in Washington will never come up with , '' surely earning laughs and pats on the back . Rand Paul has had one on one meetings with Mark Zuckerberg , and the floating island billionaire himself , Peter Thiel . The founder and CEO of Uber , Travis Kalanick is another noted libertarian , who used to have the cover of Ayn Rand ’ s “ The Fountainhead ” as his twitter icon . Kalanick runs Uber just as a devoted follower of Ayn Rand would , continuously fighting regulators and living by what writer Paul Carr has called the “ cult of disruption. ” Carr nicely summarizes the philosophy of this cult : “ In a digitally connected age , there ’ s absolutely no need for public carriage laws ( or hotel laws , or food safety laws , or… or… ) because the market will quickly move to drive out bad actors . If an Uber driver behaves badly , his low star rating will soon push him out of business . ” So basically , with the internet , regulation has become nothing more than a outdated relic of the past , and today consumers truly have the power to make corporations behave by speaking out on social media , or providing negative ratings on Yelp , or filing a petition on Change.com , etc . It is the same old libertarian argument wrapped up in a new millennial cloak , that corporations will act ethically because if they don ’ t , consumers will go elsewhere . As usual , it leaves out important realities that don ’ t sit well with the self-regulation myth . These realities include the irrationality and apathy of consumers , the lack of information available to consumers , and the overall secretive nature of corporations . The problem with self-regulation is that , consumers do not know what goes on at a corporation behind closed doors , so how would they force a company to act ethically if they are not aware of their misdeeds . Had the government not gone after Google for privacy violations , users would have never known . Google and other tech companies have a constant crave for innovation over everything , and bypass things like privacy when they get in its way . Would they control themselves had the government not stepped in ? Another important truth is that many consumers usually continue willfully using products , even if a company has done something that is contrary to their moral beliefs . It is a sort of hypocritical selfishness where one puts comfort or convenience over ethics . Just look at Apple : everyone is aware of the appalling factory conditions and the tax avoidance , but that doesn ’ t stop many people from buying the latest iPhone . When looking at other industries , like oil and gas , the myth of self-regulation is even more comical . The famous oil billionaire Koch brothers , who are also fanatic libertarians , have knowingly avoided regulations , and have hurt people in the process . During the nineties , they were particularly careless , and the bottom line influenced every decision . When pipelines were in bad shape , they would determine whether fixing them or leaving them , and possibly paying off a lawsuit in the future , was more profitable . In 1996 , a pipeline that had been given the second treatment leaked butane into the air , and killed two teenagers who ignited it with the spark of their car ignition . Even if the consumers were completely rational and had access to all information , would it really be worth it to wait for companies to abide ? For example , many libertarians argue that legislation that made seat belts and airbags mandatory in all vehicles was pointless , because the free market would have eventually brought them anyways . But even if this were true , how long would it take , and how many lives could this inaction have caused ? The most damning evidence against the myth of self regulation may very well be history . Before government regulatory agencies like the FDA came around , the safety of workers and consumers were both constantly at stake , as muckrakers like Upton Sinclair described so vividly . More recently , the lack of regulation in the financial industry , particularly in derivatives , contributed to one of the worst economic crises in history , and hurt many people in the process . Libertarians are uninterested in these realities , and believe that all government intervention is useless and stifles innovation , and it is the “ cult of innovation ” that makes the libertarian philosophy particularly popular in the technology obsessed Silicon Valley . In the their world , innovation is more important than privacy or safety , and the best and brightest should not have to play by the rules . While overall , Silicon Valley still supports the Democrats over Republicans , it would not be surprising to see a shift in the coming years . The libertarian philosophy is very attractive to those who worship technology and entrepreneurship , which is nearly all of the techies . And with millions of potential campaign dollars coming out of the valley , it could very well be a problematic territory for liberals in the future .

In the clever science fiction video game Bioshock, an Objectivist business magnate named Andrew Ryan (recognize those initials?) creates an underwater city, where the world's elite members can flourish free from the controls of government. It is a utopian village that Ayn Rand and her hero John Galt would surely approve of, but unfortunately it ends up becoming a dystopian nightmare after class distinctions form (what a shocker) and technological innovation gets out of hand. It was a hell of a video game, for those of you into that kind of thing. But I don’t bring up Bioshock to talk about video games. I bring it up because there is currently a similar movement happening in real life, and it is being funded by another rather eccentric businessman, the Paypal billionaire Peter Thiel. As some may already know, Thiel has teamed up with the grandson of libertarian icon Milton Friedman, Patri Friedman, to try and develop a “seastead,” or a permanent and autonomous dwelling at sea. Friedman formed the “Seasteading Institute” in 2008, and Thiel has donated more than a million dollars to fund its creation. Advertisement: It is all very utopian, to say the least. But on the website, they claim a floating city could be just years away. The real trick is finding a proper location to build this twenty-first century atlantis. Currently, they are attempting to find a host nation that will allow the floating city somewhat close to land, for the calm waters and ability to easily travel to and from the seastead. The project has been coined “libertarian island,” and it reveals a building movement within Silicon Valley; a sort of free market techno-capitalist faction that seems to come right out of Ayn Rand's imagination. And as with all utopian ideologies, it is very appealing, especially when you live in a land where everything seems possible, with the proper technological advancements. Tech billionaires like Thiel, Travis Kalanick and Marc Andressen, are leading the libertarian revolution in the land of computers, and it is not a surprising place for this laissez faire ideology to flourish. Silicon Valley is generally considered to have a laid back Californian culture, but behind all of the polite cordialities, there rests a necessary cutthroat attitude. A perfect example of this was Steve Jobs, who was so revered by the community, and much of the world, yet almost psychopathically merciless. The recent anti-trust case against the big tech companies like Google, Apple, and Intel, who colluded not to recruit each others employees, has even lead to speculation as to whether Jobs should be in jail today, if he were still alive. Advertisement: So while Silicon Valley is no doubt a socially progressive place (i.e. gay marriage), if one looks past social beliefs, there is as much ruthlessness as you’d expect in any capitalist industry. Look at the offshore tax avoidance, the despicable overseas working conditions, the outright violations of privacy and illegal behavior. There is a very real arrogance within Silicon Valley that seems to care little about rules and regulations. Libertarianism preaches a night-watchmen government that stays out of businesses way, and allows private industries to regulate themselves. It is a utopian ideology, as was communism, that has an almost religious-like faith in the free market, and an absolute distrust of any government. It is a perfect philosophy for a large corporation, like Apple, Google or Facebook. If we lived in an ideal libertarian society, these companies would not have to avoid taxes, because they would be non-existent, and they wouldn’t have to worry about annoying restrictions on privacy. In a libertarian society, these companies could regulate their own actions, and surely Google, with their famous “Don’t be evil” slogan, believes in corporate altruism. In the Valley, innovation and entrepreneurship is everything, so a blind faith in the market is hardly shocking. And last year one of the leading libertarians, Rand Paul, flew out to San Francisco to speak at the Lincoln Labs Reboot Conference, held to “create and support a community of like-minded individuals who desire to advance liberty in the public square with the use of technology.” Paul said at the conference, “use your ingenuity, use your big head to think of solutions the marketplace can figure out, that the idiots and trolls in Washington will never come up with," surely earning laughs and pats on the back. Advertisement: Rand Paul has had one on one meetings with Mark Zuckerberg, and the floating island billionaire himself, Peter Thiel. The founder and CEO of Uber, Travis Kalanick is another noted libertarian, who used to have the cover of Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead” as his twitter icon. Kalanick runs Uber just as a devoted follower of Ayn Rand would, continuously fighting regulators and living by what writer Paul Carr has called the “cult of disruption.” Carr nicely summarizes the philosophy of this cult: “In a digitally connected age, there’s absolutely no need for public carriage laws (or hotel laws, or food safety laws, or… or…) because the market will quickly move to drive out bad actors. If an Uber driver behaves badly, his low star rating will soon push him out of business.” So basically, with the internet, regulation has become nothing more than a outdated relic of the past, and today consumers truly have the power to make corporations behave by speaking out on social media, or providing negative ratings on Yelp, or filing a petition on Change.com, etc. It is the same old libertarian argument wrapped up in a new millennial cloak, that corporations will act ethically because if they don’t, consumers will go elsewhere. Advertisement: As usual, it leaves out important realities that don’t sit well with the self-regulation myth. These realities include the irrationality and apathy of consumers, the lack of information available to consumers, and the overall secretive nature of corporations. The problem with self-regulation is that, consumers do not know what goes on at a corporation behind closed doors, so how would they force a company to act ethically if they are not aware of their misdeeds. Had the government not gone after Google for privacy violations, users would have never known. Google and other tech companies have a constant crave for innovation over everything, and bypass things like privacy when they get in its way. Would they control themselves had the government not stepped in? Another important truth is that many consumers usually continue willfully using products, even if a company has done something that is contrary to their moral beliefs. It is a sort of hypocritical selfishness where one puts comfort or convenience over ethics. Just look at Apple: everyone is aware of the appalling factory conditions and the tax avoidance, but that doesn’t stop many people from buying the latest iPhone. When looking at other industries, like oil and gas, the myth of self-regulation is even more comical. The famous oil billionaire Koch brothers, who are also fanatic libertarians, have knowingly avoided regulations, and have hurt people in the process. During the nineties, they were particularly careless, and the bottom line influenced every decision. When pipelines were in bad shape, they would determine whether fixing them or leaving them, and possibly paying off a lawsuit in the future, was more profitable. In 1996, a pipeline that had been given the second treatment leaked butane into the air, and killed two teenagers who ignited it with the spark of their car ignition. Advertisement: Even if the consumers were completely rational and had access to all information, would it really be worth it to wait for companies to abide? For example, many libertarians argue that legislation that made seat belts and airbags mandatory in all vehicles was pointless, because the free market would have eventually brought them anyways. But even if this were true, how long would it take, and how many lives could this inaction have caused? The most damning evidence against the myth of self regulation may very well be history. Before government regulatory agencies like the FDA came around, the safety of workers and consumers were both constantly at stake, as muckrakers like Upton Sinclair described so vividly. More recently, the lack of regulation in the financial industry, particularly in derivatives, contributed to one of the worst economic crises in history, and hurt many people in the process. Libertarians are uninterested in these realities, and believe that all government intervention is useless and stifles innovation, and it is the “cult of innovation” that makes the libertarian philosophy particularly popular in the technology obsessed Silicon Valley. In the their world, innovation is more important than privacy or safety, and the best and brightest should not have to play by the rules. Advertisement: While overall, Silicon Valley still supports the Democrats over Republicans, it would not be surprising to see a shift in the coming years. The libertarian philosophy is very attractive to those who worship technology and entrepreneurship, which is nearly all of the techies. And with millions of potential campaign dollars coming out of the valley, it could very well be a problematic territory for liberals in the future.

www.salon.com

left

wZlYQ870GSybiqD2

test

ANSAJjNxSnJkW41c

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/03/mueller-report-donald-trump-distractions

Trump wants to distract us from the Mueller report. We can't let him

2019-04-03

Andrew Gawthorpe

Since the publication of his attorney general ’ s short report on the outcome of the Mueller investigation , Donald Trump has looked like a president unleashed . He has attacked his enemies , demanded the resignation of journalists who he says peddled “ fake news ” , and advanced controversial policies on health and immigration . With a cloud over his presidency lifted , he is free to act like never before . Meanwhile , Democrats feel under pressure to move on to discussing other issues or risk looking like McCarthyite obsessives . Such , anyway , is the conventional wisdom . But what if it is wrong ? When Trump is caught red-handed in a lie or scandal , he has a time-worn playbook for weathering it . First , he lies about the facts of the matter , attempting to create enough uncertainty to inoculate his base and a portion of the rest of the population against accepting the reality of what has happened . Second , he pivots to attacking his antagonists ( which in the past have included a dead senator , the father of a fallen soldier , and judges of Mexican heritage ) . Finally , he tries to change the subject . Far from Trump emerging into a new phase of his presidency with the release of the Barr report , he has in fact lapsed into this age-old pattern . Phases one and two came quickly , with Trump and his surrogates claiming that the president had been completely exonerated even though Mueller explicitly did not make this judgment . They then accused the media and Democrats of corruptly conspiring to bring down the president . Before we can move on from the Mueller report , we need to know much more But it is the next part of the administration ’ s response , phase three , which is so uniquely Trumpian . The president has frequently managed to survive scandals that might have felled other politicians because he is so adept at changing the conversation by sparking a new furor , which eclipses the old one . The result has been a presidency of serial scandals which can easily induce a sense of numbness in his opponents , while making himself appear invulnerable to any particular one of the hundreds of controversies encircling him . Since the release of the Barr report , Trump has attempted to change the topic in two ways . The first is on healthcare . Last Monday , the Trump administration filed a letter in a Texas court declaring that it would like to see the entirety of the Affordable Care Act – also known as Obamacare – declared unconstitutional . Backing a wacky legal challenge that has been levied against the ACA , the administration is advocating stripping healthcare benefits from tens of millions of Americans with no plan for how to provide them with alternative coverage . Although the move is a sure political loser for Republicans , Trump charged ahead anyway . Second , Trump has stepped up his anti-immigrant rhetoric and threatened to close the US border with Mexico , another self-destructive move which would harm millions of Americans . Nearly $ 1.7bn in commerce flows over the border daily , and automakers and farmers – exactly the Americans who Trump claims to stand up for – would be most affected by the closure . It would also undermine cooperation with Mexico , which is necessary to handle the migrant crisis . For good measure , Trump announced last week that he would cut off aid to Central American countries that need it in order to stem the flow of refugees . Congress must investigate Trump . But it must also be strategic about it | Laurence H Tribe Read more Such self-destructive measures on healthcare and immigration demonstrate that what Trump is really after is headlines , not solutions . The fact that the president is so keen to change the subject now ought to make Democrats think twice about the wisdom of going along with his wishes . Instead , they need to stay focused on obtaining a full copy of the Mueller report and making its contents known to the public . In 2016 , the integrity of America ’ s electoral process was attacked by a foreign power . Since that time , the president and his allies have engaged in a sinister and baffling pattern of behavior designed to hide their own connections to that power . All we know so far is that Mueller was not able to prove that they criminally colluded with Russia , and that he was unable to exonerate the president of criminally obstructing the inquiry . Before we can move on , we need to know much more . This is not about relitigating the 2016 election , as some Republicans claim . It is about establishing the principle that America has a president , not a king , and that the president is bound by the rule of law . It is about returning a bare modicum of accountability to American public life after years of congressional Republicans shirking their constitutional duty to hold the executive branch to account . It is about finding out exactly how American national security was compromised in 2016 , and why the president and his surrogates are so keen to pretend it wasn ’ t . Finally , it is about restoring faith in American government among the public , who polls show are waiting for the final conclusions of Mueller ’ s investigation before they believe that the president is exonerated . Perhaps that ’ s why Donald Trump won ’ t just release the report , and instead wants to change the subject . Democrats shouldn ’ t let him .

Since the publication of his attorney general’s short report on the outcome of the Mueller investigation, Donald Trump has looked like a president unleashed. He has attacked his enemies, demanded the resignation of journalists who he says peddled “fake news”, and advanced controversial policies on health and immigration. With a cloud over his presidency lifted, he is free to act like never before. Meanwhile, Democrats feel under pressure to move on to discussing other issues or risk looking like McCarthyite obsessives. Such, anyway, is the conventional wisdom. But what if it is wrong? When Trump is caught red-handed in a lie or scandal, he has a time-worn playbook for weathering it. First, he lies about the facts of the matter, attempting to create enough uncertainty to inoculate his base and a portion of the rest of the population against accepting the reality of what has happened. Second, he pivots to attacking his antagonists (which in the past have included a dead senator, the father of a fallen soldier, and judges of Mexican heritage). Finally, he tries to change the subject. Far from Trump emerging into a new phase of his presidency with the release of the Barr report, he has in fact lapsed into this age-old pattern. Phases one and two came quickly, with Trump and his surrogates claiming that the president had been completely exonerated even though Mueller explicitly did not make this judgment. They then accused the media and Democrats of corruptly conspiring to bring down the president. Before we can move on from the Mueller report, we need to know much more But it is the next part of the administration’s response, phase three, which is so uniquely Trumpian. The president has frequently managed to survive scandals that might have felled other politicians because he is so adept at changing the conversation by sparking a new furor, which eclipses the old one. The result has been a presidency of serial scandals which can easily induce a sense of numbness in his opponents, while making himself appear invulnerable to any particular one of the hundreds of controversies encircling him. Since the release of the Barr report, Trump has attempted to change the topic in two ways. The first is on healthcare. Last Monday, the Trump administration filed a letter in a Texas court declaring that it would like to see the entirety of the Affordable Care Act – also known as Obamacare – declared unconstitutional. Backing a wacky legal challenge that has been levied against the ACA, the administration is advocating stripping healthcare benefits from tens of millions of Americans with no plan for how to provide them with alternative coverage. Although the move is a sure political loser for Republicans, Trump charged ahead anyway. Second, Trump has stepped up his anti-immigrant rhetoric and threatened to close the US border with Mexico, another self-destructive move which would harm millions of Americans. Nearly $1.7bn in commerce flows over the border daily, and automakers and farmers – exactly the Americans who Trump claims to stand up for – would be most affected by the closure. It would also undermine cooperation with Mexico, which is necessary to handle the migrant crisis. For good measure, Trump announced last week that he would cut off aid to Central American countries that need it in order to stem the flow of refugees. Congress must investigate Trump. But it must also be strategic about it | Laurence H Tribe Read more Such self-destructive measures on healthcare and immigration demonstrate that what Trump is really after is headlines, not solutions. The fact that the president is so keen to change the subject now ought to make Democrats think twice about the wisdom of going along with his wishes. Instead, they need to stay focused on obtaining a full copy of the Mueller report and making its contents known to the public. In 2016, the integrity of America’s electoral process was attacked by a foreign power. Since that time, the president and his allies have engaged in a sinister and baffling pattern of behavior designed to hide their own connections to that power. All we know so far is that Mueller was not able to prove that they criminally colluded with Russia, and that he was unable to exonerate the president of criminally obstructing the inquiry. Before we can move on, we need to know much more. This is not about relitigating the 2016 election, as some Republicans claim. It is about establishing the principle that America has a president, not a king, and that the president is bound by the rule of law. It is about returning a bare modicum of accountability to American public life after years of congressional Republicans shirking their constitutional duty to hold the executive branch to account. It is about finding out exactly how American national security was compromised in 2016, and why the president and his surrogates are so keen to pretend it wasn’t. Finally, it is about restoring faith in American government among the public, who polls show are waiting for the final conclusions of Mueller’s investigation before they believe that the president is exonerated. Perhaps that’s why Donald Trump won’t just release the report, and instead wants to change the subject. Democrats shouldn’t let him.

www.theguardian.com

left

ANSAJjNxSnJkW41c

test

Ntkfs3dwiKa5iyan

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia/trump-accuses-house-intel-panels-top-democrat-of-leaking-information-idUSKBN1FP1P6

Trump accuses House intel panel's top Democrat of leaking information

2018-02-06

Patricia Zengerle

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - A U.S. House of Representatives committee voted unanimously on Monday to approve the release of a classified document that Democrats say will rebut a contentious Republican memo alleging FBI bias against President Donald Trump . The vote will send the 10-page Democratic memo to the White House as soon as Monday night , giving Trump until Friday to decide whether to allow its release . If he declines , after approving the release of the Republican memo despite strong objections by the Federal Bureau of Investigation , it could set up an angry dispute pitting the White House and many of Trump ’ s fellow Republicans in Congress against Democrats , law enforcement and intelligence agencies . A week ago , Republicans , who control a majority on the committee , joined together to block the release of the Democrats ’ memo and approve the Republican memo , despite unanimous Democratic opposition . But Republican committee members said on Monday they were comfortable with releasing the Democratic document now that it had been reviewed by House members . The Republican memo accused senior FBI and Justice Department officials of not revealing that portions of a dossier used in seeking a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrant to eavesdrop on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page were partly paid for by Democrats . Democrats said the Republican memo was intended to undermine Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s criminal probe into possible collusion between Moscow and the Trump campaign , and that Trump might try to use it to justify firing Mueller or Rod Rosenstein , the No . 2 official at Justice , who signed off on at least one warrant application for Page . The dispute , an extraordinary breach between the White House and law enforcement , has also deepened partisan rancor over congressional investigations of Russia and the 2016 U.S. election , prompting concern about lawmakers ’ ability to produce unbiased reports . A ███/Ipsos poll released on Monday showed that nearly three out of four Republicans believed the FBI and Justice Department were trying to undermine Trump , a sharp turn for a party that has historically been a strong backer of law enforcement agencies . Democrats said their document would help set the record straight . “ We think this will help inform the public of the many distortions and inaccuracies in the majority memo , ” Representative Adam Schiff , the committee ’ s top Democrat , told reporters after the House Intelligence Committee ’ s business meeting . He also said Democrats wanted to ensure that the White House would not seek to block all or part of the document , and that any redactions were “ fully explained ” by the FBI or Justice Department . The agencies have had the Democratic document for days , he said . “ We also want to make sure that the White House doesn ’ t redact our memo for political purposes and obviously that ’ s a deep concern , ” Schiff said . Representative Devin Nunes , the committee ’ s Republican chairman who commissioned the Republican memo , declined comment . Representative Mike Conaway , a senior committee Republican , said he wanted the Democratic memo released but did not know how he would respond if Trump sought to block it . House rules could let Democrats request an unusual closed vote in the full House of Representatives on whether to override the president if Trump opposes the memo ’ s release . House intelligence is one of three congressional committees looking into the matter , along with Mueller . Trump , who denies collusion between his campaign and Moscow , and has dismissed the Russia probes as a witch hunt , used social media to express his views on the memos . Trump took to Twitter on Saturday to say the Republican memo vindicated him , and used more tweets on Monday to praise Nunes as a hero and accuse Schiff of leaking “ confidential ” material . Schiff responded by warning Trump against “ tweeting false smears . ” The White House said it was open to releasing the Democratic memo once it goes through a security review .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. House of Representatives committee voted unanimously on Monday to approve the release of a classified document that Democrats say will rebut a contentious Republican memo alleging FBI bias against President Donald Trump. The vote will send the 10-page Democratic memo to the White House as soon as Monday night, giving Trump until Friday to decide whether to allow its release. If he declines, after approving the release of the Republican memo despite strong objections by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, it could set up an angry dispute pitting the White House and many of Trump’s fellow Republicans in Congress against Democrats, law enforcement and intelligence agencies. A week ago, Republicans, who control a majority on the committee, joined together to block the release of the Democrats’ memo and approve the Republican memo, despite unanimous Democratic opposition. But Republican committee members said on Monday they were comfortable with releasing the Democratic document now that it had been reviewed by House members. The Republican memo accused senior FBI and Justice Department officials of not revealing that portions of a dossier used in seeking a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrant to eavesdrop on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page were partly paid for by Democrats. Trump allowed its release to the public last Friday. Democrats said the Republican memo was intended to undermine Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s criminal probe into possible collusion between Moscow and the Trump campaign, and that Trump might try to use it to justify firing Mueller or Rod Rosenstein, the No. 2 official at Justice, who signed off on at least one warrant application for Page. The dispute, an extraordinary breach between the White House and law enforcement, has also deepened partisan rancor over congressional investigations of Russia and the 2016 U.S. election, prompting concern about lawmakers’ ability to produce unbiased reports. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Monday showed that nearly three out of four Republicans believed the FBI and Justice Department were trying to undermine Trump, a sharp turn for a party that has historically been a strong backer of law enforcement agencies. ‘DISTORTIONS AND INACCURACIES’ Democrats said their document would help set the record straight. “We think this will help inform the public of the many distortions and inaccuracies in the majority memo,” Representative Adam Schiff, the committee’s top Democrat, told reporters after the House Intelligence Committee’s business meeting. He also said Democrats wanted to ensure that the White House would not seek to block all or part of the document, and that any redactions were “fully explained” by the FBI or Justice Department. The agencies have had the Democratic document for days, he said. “We also want to make sure that the White House doesn’t redact our memo for political purposes and obviously that’s a deep concern,” Schiff said. Representative Devin Nunes, the committee’s Republican chairman who commissioned the Republican memo, declined comment. Representative Mike Conaway, a senior committee Republican, said he wanted the Democratic memo released but did not know how he would respond if Trump sought to block it. House rules could let Democrats request an unusual closed vote in the full House of Representatives on whether to override the president if Trump opposes the memo’s release. House intelligence is one of three congressional committees looking into the matter, along with Mueller. Russia denies trying to influence the election. FILE PHOTO: Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democratic member on the House Intelligence Committee, arrives to watch U.S. President Donald Trump deliver his State of the Union address to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S. January 30, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts Trump, who denies collusion between his campaign and Moscow, and has dismissed the Russia probes as a witch hunt, used social media to express his views on the memos. Trump took to Twitter on Saturday to say the Republican memo vindicated him, and used more tweets on Monday to praise Nunes as a hero and accuse Schiff of leaking “confidential” material. Schiff responded by warning Trump against “tweeting false smears.” The White House said it was open to releasing the Democratic memo once it goes through a security review.

www.reuters.com

center

Ntkfs3dwiKa5iyan

test

o4GtP8bu2Grv4KyW

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-election/trump-jr-met-gulf-princes-emissary-in-2016-who-offered-campaign-help-idUSKCN1IK0S1

Trump Jr. met Gulf princes' emissary in 2016 who offered campaign help

2018-05-20

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - Donald Trump Jr. , the U.S. president ’ s eldest son , met in August 2016 with an envoy representing the crown princes of United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia . The meeting was first reported by the New York Times on Saturday and confirmed by an attorney representing Trump Jr . The meeting was a chance for the envoy to offer help to the Trump presidential campaign , according to The New York Times . The newspaper said the meeting , held on Aug. 3 , 2016 , was arranged by Erik Prince , the founder and former head of private military contractor Blackwater , who attended the meeting . Joel Zamel , a co-founder of an Israeli consulting firm , was also in attendance . Alan Futerfas , Trump Jr. ’ s attorney , said on Saturday that nothing came of the meeting . “ Prior to the 2016 election , Donald Trump Jr. recalls a meeting with Erik Prince , George Nader and another individual who may be Joel Zamel , ” Futerfas said in an emailed statement . “ They pitched Mr. Trump Jr. on a social media platform or marketing strategy . He was not interested and that was the end of it . ” A company connected to Zamel also worked on a proposal for a “ covert multimillion-dollar online manipulation campaign ” to help Trump , utilizing thousands of fake social media accounts , the New York Times report said . The envoy , Lebanese-American businessman George Nader , told Trump , Jr. that the crown princes of Saudi Arabia and the UAE were eager to help his father win the 2016 presidential election , the paper said . Since 1974 , the United States has barred foreign nationals from giving money to political campaigns and it later barred them from donating to political parties . The campaign financing laws also prohibit foreign nationals from coordinating with a campaign and from buying an ad that explicitly calls for the election or defeat of a candidate . The Saudi and UAE embassies in Washington did not immediately respond to requests for comment . The Wall Street Journal last month reported that investigators working for U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller had met with Zamel , and that Mueller ’ s team was looking into his firm ’ s work and his relationship with Nader . Mueller is investigating whether Russia meddled in the presidential election and if Moscow colluded with the Trump campaign , as well as whether Trump committed obstruction of justice by trying to thwart the U.S. Department of Justice probe . Trump has denied any collusion with Russia and has called the Mueller investigation a “ witch hunt . ” The New York Times report said the meetings are an indication that other countries besides Russia may have offered help to Trump ’ s presidential campaign . Mueller ’ s investigators have questioned witnesses in Washington , New York , Atlanta , Tel Aviv and elsewhere regarding possible foreign help to the campaign , the report said . Peter Carr , a spokesman for Mueller ’ s team , declined to comment on the report . Zamel ’ s attorney , Marc Mukasey , said in a statement to ███ that his client “ offered nothing to the Trump campaign , received nothing from the Trump campaign , delivered nothing to the Trump campaign and was not solicited by , or asked to do anything for , the Trump campaign . ” FILE PHOTO - Donald Trump Jr. enters the annual White House Easter Egg Roll with Vanessa Trump lagging behind him on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington , April 2 , 2018 . ███/Leah Millis “ Media reports about Mr. Zamel ’ s engaging in ‘ social media manipulation ’ are uninformed , ” Mukasey added . “ Mr . Zamel ’ s companies harvest publicly available information for lawful use . ” Kathryn Ruemmler , Nader ’ s lawyer , told the paper that her client “ has fully cooperated with the U.S. special counsel ’ s investigation and will continue to do so . ” Erik Prince , who is also the brother of U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos , could not be immediately reached for comment .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Donald Trump Jr., the U.S. president’s eldest son, met in August 2016 with an envoy representing the crown princes of United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. The meeting was first reported by the New York Times on Saturday and confirmed by an attorney representing Trump Jr. The meeting was a chance for the envoy to offer help to the Trump presidential campaign, according to The New York Times. The newspaper said the meeting, held on Aug. 3, 2016, was arranged by Erik Prince, the founder and former head of private military contractor Blackwater, who attended the meeting. Joel Zamel, a co-founder of an Israeli consulting firm, was also in attendance. Alan Futerfas, Trump Jr.’s attorney, said on Saturday that nothing came of the meeting. “Prior to the 2016 election, Donald Trump Jr. recalls a meeting with Erik Prince, George Nader and another individual who may be Joel Zamel,” Futerfas said in an emailed statement. “They pitched Mr. Trump Jr. on a social media platform or marketing strategy. He was not interested and that was the end of it.” A company connected to Zamel also worked on a proposal for a “covert multimillion-dollar online manipulation campaign” to help Trump, utilizing thousands of fake social media accounts, the New York Times report said. The envoy, Lebanese-American businessman George Nader, told Trump, Jr. that the crown princes of Saudi Arabia and the UAE were eager to help his father win the 2016 presidential election, the paper said. Since 1974, the United States has barred foreign nationals from giving money to political campaigns and it later barred them from donating to political parties. The campaign financing laws also prohibit foreign nationals from coordinating with a campaign and from buying an ad that explicitly calls for the election or defeat of a candidate. The Saudi and UAE embassies in Washington did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Wall Street Journal last month reported that investigators working for U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller had met with Zamel, and that Mueller’s team was looking into his firm’s work and his relationship with Nader. Mueller is investigating whether Russia meddled in the presidential election and if Moscow colluded with the Trump campaign, as well as whether Trump committed obstruction of justice by trying to thwart the U.S. Department of Justice probe. Trump has denied any collusion with Russia and has called the Mueller investigation a “witch hunt.” The New York Times report said the meetings are an indication that other countries besides Russia may have offered help to Trump’s presidential campaign. Mueller’s investigators have questioned witnesses in Washington, New York, Atlanta, Tel Aviv and elsewhere regarding possible foreign help to the campaign, the report said. Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller’s team, declined to comment on the report. Zamel’s attorney, Marc Mukasey, said in a statement to Reuters that his client “offered nothing to the Trump campaign, received nothing from the Trump campaign, delivered nothing to the Trump campaign and was not solicited by, or asked to do anything for, the Trump campaign.” FILE PHOTO - Donald Trump Jr. enters the annual White House Easter Egg Roll with Vanessa Trump lagging behind him on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, April 2, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis “Media reports about Mr. Zamel’s engaging in ‘social media manipulation’ are uninformed,” Mukasey added. “Mr. Zamel’s companies harvest publicly available information for lawful use.” Kathryn Ruemmler, Nader’s lawyer, told the paper that her client “has fully cooperated with the U.S. special counsel’s investigation and will continue to do so.” Erik Prince, who is also the brother of U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, could not be immediately reached for comment.

www.reuters.com

center

o4GtP8bu2Grv4KyW

test

fLcLqrF2k2hp0hpZ

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-washington-seattle-mayor/seattle-mayor-facing-sexual-abuse-allegations-says-he-will-resign-idUSKCN1BN2TA

Seattle mayor, facing sexual abuse allegations, says he will resign

2017-09-12

Eric M. Johnson

SEATTLE ( ███ ) - Seattle Mayor Ed Murray resigned on Tuesday after months of accusations that he committed child sexual abuse in the 1970s and 1980s . Murray still denies any wrongdoing but his decision to resign effective from 5 p.m. local time on Wednesday , likely ends the political career of Seattle ’ s first openly gay mayor , a member of the Democratic party who championed the state ’ s same-sex marriage law and has been an outspoken critic of U.S. President Donald Trump . “ While the allegations against me are not true , it is important that my personal issues do not affect the ability of our city government to conduct the public ’ s business , ” Murray , 62 , said in a written statement . “ To the people of this special city and to my dedicated staff , I am sorry for this painful situation , ” Murray said . A spokesman said the mayor , who also served nearly two decades in the Washington state legislature , would not take questions from reporters . Murray said Seattle City Council President Bruce Harrell would take his place as mayor , at least temporarily , and “ will decide in the following five days whether he will fill out the remainder of my term . ” In April , a 46-year-old man sued Murray , claiming Murray paid the man for sex with him and other boys when he was a homeless , drug-addicted teenager in the 1980s , though the lawsuit was later dropped . The Seattle Times newspaper reported at the time that two other men had previously accused Murray of abusing them when they were teenagers in the 1980s . In July , the paper reported that a child welfare report filed with the state of Oregon said Murray sexually abused his teenage foster son in the 1980s . The mayor has vehemently denied all of those accusations , at times suggesting that they were politically motivated , and refused repeated calls to step down , but in May said he would not seek re-election . His resignation announcement came hours after a younger cousin , Joseph Dyer , told the Seattle Times in a story published on Tuesday that Murray molested him repeatedly when he was a teenager in the 1970s . Dyer said that Murray was also accused of abusing a boy at the Catholic group home where he worked , but was not prosecuted after agreeing to leave town . Murray denied those allegations , blaming them on a “ family rift . ”

SEATTLE (Reuters) - Seattle Mayor Ed Murray resigned on Tuesday after months of accusations that he committed child sexual abuse in the 1970s and 1980s. FILE PHOTO: Seattle Mayor Ed Murray speaks during a rally at the beginning of the March For Science in Seattle, Washington, U.S. April 22, 2017. REUTERS/David Ryder Murray still denies any wrongdoing but his decision to resign effective from 5 p.m. local time on Wednesday, likely ends the political career of Seattle’s first openly gay mayor, a member of the Democratic party who championed the state’s same-sex marriage law and has been an outspoken critic of U.S. President Donald Trump. “While the allegations against me are not true, it is important that my personal issues do not affect the ability of our city government to conduct the public’s business,” Murray, 62, said in a written statement. “To the people of this special city and to my dedicated staff, I am sorry for this painful situation,” Murray said. A spokesman said the mayor, who also served nearly two decades in the Washington state legislature, would not take questions from reporters. Murray said Seattle City Council President Bruce Harrell would take his place as mayor, at least temporarily, and “will decide in the following five days whether he will fill out the remainder of my term.” In April, a 46-year-old man sued Murray, claiming Murray paid the man for sex with him and other boys when he was a homeless, drug-addicted teenager in the 1980s, though the lawsuit was later dropped. The Seattle Times newspaper reported at the time that two other men had previously accused Murray of abusing them when they were teenagers in the 1980s. In July, the paper reported that a child welfare report filed with the state of Oregon said Murray sexually abused his teenage foster son in the 1980s. The mayor has vehemently denied all of those accusations, at times suggesting that they were politically motivated, and refused repeated calls to step down, but in May said he would not seek re-election. His resignation announcement came hours after a younger cousin, Joseph Dyer, told the Seattle Times in a story published on Tuesday that Murray molested him repeatedly when he was a teenager in the 1970s. Dyer said that Murray was also accused of abusing a boy at the Catholic group home where he worked, but was not prosecuted after agreeing to leave town. Murray denied those allegations, blaming them on a “family rift.”

www.reuters.com

center

fLcLqrF2k2hp0hpZ

test

e5gxSfCtS3y4AS7m

race_and_racism

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/news/trump-addresses-west-point-grads-amid-tension-with-military/

As US seethes over race, Trump calls out ‘evil of slavery’

President Donald Trump has urged West Point ’ s graduating class to “ never forget ” the legacy of soldiers before them who fought a bloody war to end slavery As US seethes over race , Trump calls out ‘ evil of slavery ’ By DARLENE SUPERVILLEAssociated PressThe Associated PressWEST POINT . N.Y . WEST POINT . N.Y. ( AP ) — As the nation continues to grapple with its racial past , President Donald Trump urged West Point ’ s graduating class Saturday to “ never forget ” the legacy of soldiers before them who fought a bloody war to “ extinguish the evil of slavery . ” Trump ’ s appeal to remember history came as his own relationship with the military is under strain from the unrelenting criticism he and Pentagon leaders have faced over their response to protests that erupted after George Floyd ’ s death in Minneapolis . It also came hours after Trump made what amounted to a rare concession for him : He rescheduled a campaign rally planned for Tulsa , Oklahoma , on June 19 . The day marks the end of slavery in the U.S. , and Tulsa was the scene of a fiery white-on-black attack in 1921 . “ What has historically made America unique is the durability of its institutions against the passions and prejudices of the moment , ” Trump told more than 1,100 graduates at an unusual outdoor ceremony held during a pandemic . “ When times are turbulent , when the road is rough , what matters most is that which is permanent , timeless , enduring and eternal . ” In the past two weeks , Trump has yelled at Defense Secretary Mark Esper for publicly opposing his call to deploy active-duty troops to quell the protests stemming from the killing of Floyd , who was black , by a white Minneapolis police officer . Trump also shut down Esper ’ s attempt to begin a public debate on removing the names of Confederate Army officers — some of whom trained at West Point — from military bases , an idea gaining momentum across the country . Gen. Mark Milley , the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman , risked Trump ’ s ire Thursday by declaring he had made “ a mistake ” by accompanying Trump on a June 1 walk through Lafayette Square . It ended with the president posing with a Bible outside a boarded-up St. John ’ s Church . Milley ’ s comments amounted to an extraordinary expression of regret by Trump ’ s chief military adviser , who said his appearance led to the perception of the military becoming embroiled in politics , which in his view — one shared by Esper — is a threat to democracy . The events have stirred debate within the military and among retired officers . More than 500 West Point graduates from classes spanning six decades signed an open letter reminding the Class of 2020 of its commitment to avoid partisan politics . The letter , published this week on Medium , also alluded to the problems Esper and Milley encountered at the White House after Floyd ’ s death . “ Sadly , the government has threatened to use the Army in which you serve as a weapon against fellow Americans engaging in these legitimate protests , ” they wrote . “ Worse , military leaders , who took the same oath you take today , have participated in politically charged events . The principle of civilian control is central to the military profession . But that principle does not imply blind obedience . ” During the commencement ceremony , protesters denounced the president from boats and kayaks along the nearby Hudson River . Trump also used his first West Point address to remind the newly commissioned officers of the academy ’ s history and storied generals like Douglas MacArthur and Dwight D. Eisenhower . “ It was on this soil that American patriots held the most vital fortress in our war for independence , ” Trump said . He said the U.S. Military Academy “ gave us the men and women who fought and won a bloody war to extinguish the evil of slavery within one lifetime of our founding . ’ ’ “ This is your history . This is the legacy that each of you inherits , ” Trump continued , adding that it was bought with American blood spilled in battle . “ You must never forget it . ” Trump , however , was incorrect to say women had been trained at West Point for the anti-slavery fight ; they were not allowed to become cadets until 1976 . His remarks also overlooked numerous West Point graduates who served in the Confederacy , including President Jefferson Davis , Gen. Robert E. Lee and Gen. Braxton Bragg . Some are now seeking the removal of Bragg ’ s name from North Carolina ’ s Fort Bragg . In the speech , Trump leaned into his “ America first ” brand of foreign policy without uttering the phrase , telling the Army ’ s newest officers their job is “ not to rebuild foreign nations , but to defend and defend strongly our nation from our foreign enemies . ” “ It is not the duty of U.S. troops to solve ancient conflicts in faraway lands that many people have never heard of. ” He said America is not the “ policeman of the world , ” but warned adversaries that it will “ never , ever hesitate ” to act when its people are threatened . He thanked those in the military who helped the country respond to the coronavirus , once again calling it an “ invisible enemy ” from China . The president stressed the unity of a graduating class that came “ from every race , religion , color and creed. ” The class also includes citizens of 11 other countries , including Bosnia-Herzegovina , South Korea and Tanzania . Trump highlighted bigger defense budgets under his watch but falsely said he had destroyed 100 % of the Islamic State caliphate in the Middle East ; the group still poses a threat to the U.S . He noted he had directed the killing of two terrorist leaders and had created the Space Force . Trump also remembered a cadet who died in an accident last year and whose father is a Secret Service agent , and noted that both he and the Army share a birthday Sunday . Trump will turn 74 , while the Army marks its 254th year of existence . Esper did not attend , but emphasized the principles of duty , honor and country in a video message , saying they will help guide the new officers “ in challenging times and in the face of new and emerging threats . ” Trump ’ s appearance at West Point had been criticized as a political move that would put the graduates at risk since the academy is located up the Hudson River from New York City , the epicenter of the U.S. coronavirus outbreak . The Army defended the move , saying the cadets had to return to campus anyway for final medical checks , equipment and training . They had been home since spring break in early March .. For the ceremony , the newly commissioned second lieutenants wore face masks as they marched onto the parade field , but removed them after sitting for the socially distant ceremony required by the pandemic . Instead of shaking hands with the president , they exchanged salutes . Family and friends were not allowed to attend and had to watch online . At the end of the ceremony , five hulking helicopters flew low and slow over the field as the graduates tossed their white dress caps into the air .

President Donald Trump has urged West Point’s graduating class to “never forget” the legacy of soldiers before them who fought a bloody war to end slavery As US seethes over race, Trump calls out ‘evil of slavery’ By DARLENE SUPERVILLEAssociated PressThe Associated PressWEST POINT. N.Y. WEST POINT. N.Y. (AP) — As the nation continues to grapple with its racial past, President Donald Trump urged West Point’s graduating class Saturday to “never forget” the legacy of soldiers before them who fought a bloody war to “extinguish the evil of slavery.” Trump’s appeal to remember history came as his own relationship with the military is under strain from the unrelenting criticism he and Pentagon leaders have faced over their response to protests that erupted after George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis. It also came hours after Trump made what amounted to a rare concession for him: He rescheduled a campaign rally planned for Tulsa, Oklahoma, on June 19. The day marks the end of slavery in the U.S., and Tulsa was the scene of a fiery white-on-black attack in 1921. “What has historically made America unique is the durability of its institutions against the passions and prejudices of the moment,” Trump told more than 1,100 graduates at an unusual outdoor ceremony held during a pandemic. “When times are turbulent, when the road is rough, what matters most is that which is permanent, timeless, enduring and eternal.” In the past two weeks, Trump has yelled at Defense Secretary Mark Esper for publicly opposing his call to deploy active-duty troops to quell the protests stemming from the killing of Floyd, who was black, by a white Minneapolis police officer. Trump also shut down Esper’s attempt to begin a public debate on removing the names of Confederate Army officers — some of whom trained at West Point — from military bases, an idea gaining momentum across the country. Gen. Mark Milley, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, risked Trump’s ire Thursday by declaring he had made “a mistake” by accompanying Trump on a June 1 walk through Lafayette Square. It ended with the president posing with a Bible outside a boarded-up St. John’s Church. Milley’s comments amounted to an extraordinary expression of regret by Trump’s chief military adviser, who said his appearance led to the perception of the military becoming embroiled in politics, which in his view — one shared by Esper — is a threat to democracy. The events have stirred debate within the military and among retired officers. More than 500 West Point graduates from classes spanning six decades signed an open letter reminding the Class of 2020 of its commitment to avoid partisan politics. The letter, published this week on Medium, also alluded to the problems Esper and Milley encountered at the White House after Floyd’s death. “Sadly, the government has threatened to use the Army in which you serve as a weapon against fellow Americans engaging in these legitimate protests,” they wrote. “Worse, military leaders, who took the same oath you take today, have participated in politically charged events. The principle of civilian control is central to the military profession. But that principle does not imply blind obedience.” During the commencement ceremony, protesters denounced the president from boats and kayaks along the nearby Hudson River. Trump also used his first West Point address to remind the newly commissioned officers of the academy’s history and storied generals like Douglas MacArthur and Dwight D. Eisenhower. “It was on this soil that American patriots held the most vital fortress in our war for independence,” Trump said. He said the U.S. Military Academy “gave us the men and women who fought and won a bloody war to extinguish the evil of slavery within one lifetime of our founding.’’ “This is your history. This is the legacy that each of you inherits,” Trump continued, adding that it was bought with American blood spilled in battle. “You must never forget it.” Trump, however, was incorrect to say women had been trained at West Point for the anti-slavery fight; they were not allowed to become cadets until 1976. His remarks also overlooked numerous West Point graduates who served in the Confederacy, including President Jefferson Davis, Gen. Robert E. Lee and Gen. Braxton Bragg. Some are now seeking the removal of Bragg’s name from North Carolina’s Fort Bragg. In the speech, Trump leaned into his “America first” brand of foreign policy without uttering the phrase, telling the Army’s newest officers their job is “not to rebuild foreign nations, but to defend and defend strongly our nation from our foreign enemies.” “It is not the duty of U.S. troops to solve ancient conflicts in faraway lands that many people have never heard of.” He said America is not the “policeman of the world,” but warned adversaries that it will “never, ever hesitate” to act when its people are threatened. He thanked those in the military who helped the country respond to the coronavirus, once again calling it an “invisible enemy” from China. The president stressed the unity of a graduating class that came “from every race, religion, color and creed.” The class also includes citizens of 11 other countries, including Bosnia-Herzegovina, South Korea and Tanzania. Trump highlighted bigger defense budgets under his watch but falsely said he had destroyed 100% of the Islamic State caliphate in the Middle East; the group still poses a threat to the U.S. He noted he had directed the killing of two terrorist leaders and had created the Space Force. Trump also remembered a cadet who died in an accident last year and whose father is a Secret Service agent, and noted that both he and the Army share a birthday Sunday. Trump will turn 74, while the Army marks its 254th year of existence. Esper did not attend, but emphasized the principles of duty, honor and country in a video message, saying they will help guide the new officers “in challenging times and in the face of new and emerging threats.” Trump’s appearance at West Point had been criticized as a political move that would put the graduates at risk since the academy is located up the Hudson River from New York City, the epicenter of the U.S. coronavirus outbreak. The Army defended the move, saying the cadets had to return to campus anyway for final medical checks, equipment and training. They had been home since spring break in early March.. For the ceremony, the newly commissioned second lieutenants wore face masks as they marched onto the parade field, but removed them after sitting for the socially distant ceremony required by the pandemic. Instead of shaking hands with the president, they exchanged salutes. Family and friends were not allowed to attend and had to watch online. At the end of the ceremony, five hulking helicopters flew low and slow over the field as the graduates tossed their white dress caps into the air. ___ AP National Security Writer Robert Burns and Associated Press writer Michael Hill in Albany, N.Y., contributed to this report.

www.breitbart.com

right

e5gxSfCtS3y4AS7m

test

nVJB70QrzbwZKSle

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-comey-book/fired-fbi-director-comey-says-trump-morally-unfit-abc-news-interview-idUSKBN1HM0O5

Fired FBI director Comey says Trump 'morally unfit': ABC News interview

2018-04-16

Amanda Becker

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - Former FBI director James Comey said in an ABC News interview on Sunday that U.S. President Donald Trump is a dangerous , “ morally unfit ” leader doing “ tremendous damage ” to institutional and cultural norms . Comey , fired by Trump in May last year , was worried the president may be open to blackmail by Russia given claims he was present when prostitutes urinated on each other during a 2013 Moscow visit . Comey ’ s firing came as the Federal Bureau of Investigation was probing possible connections between Trump ’ s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia ’ s meddling in the U.S. election . Russia has denied interfering in the election and Trump has denied any collusion or improper activity . Comey said in the exclusive interview with ABC News ’ George Stephanopoulos , which aired at 10 p.m. on Sunday , that it is “ possible , but I don ’ t know ” whether Russia has evidence to back up the allegations about Trump ’ s Moscow trip . Trump told Comey that he had not stayed overnight in the Moscow hotel and that the claims related to the prostitutes were not true , Comey said . “ A person ... who talks about and treats women like they ’ re pieces of meat , who lies constantly about matters big and small and insists the American people believe it , that person ’ s not fit to be president of the United States , on moral grounds . And that ’ s not a policy statement , ” Comey said . Comey has a tell-all book , “ A Higher Loyalty , ” due out on Tuesday . The book ’ s imminent release - and the slated ABC News interview - prompted Trump to hurl a new set of insults at Comey earlier on Sunday , challenging accusations made in the book , and insisting that he never pressed Comey to be loyal to him . “ Slippery James Comey , a man who always ends up badly and out of whack ( he is not smart ! ) , will go down as the WORST FBI Director in history , by far ! ” Trump wrote early on Sunday in one of five Twitter posts aimed directly at Comey . ███ and other news outlets have obtained copies of Comey ’ s book before its formal release . In it , Comey wrote that Trump , in a private meeting , pressed the then-FBI director for his loyalty . A copy of former FBI director James Comey 's book `` A Higher Loyalty '' is seen in New York City , New York , U.S. April 13 , 2018 . ███/Soren Larson Comey told ABC News that the title of the book came from that “ bizarre conversation ” he had with Trump at the White House in January 2017 , shortly after his inauguration . “ He asked for my loyalty personally as the F.B.I . director . My loyalty ’ s supposed to be to the American people and to the institution , ” Comey said in the interview . The FBI has long tried to operate as an independent law enforcement agency . “ I never asked Comey for Personal Loyalty . I hardly even knew this guy . Just another of his many lies , ” Trump said on Twitter . Comey is now a crucial witness for Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation into whether Trump has tried to obstruct the Russia probe . Comey told ABC News that he believes there is “ certainly some evidence of obstruction of justice . ” Comey also defended his decision to publicly disclose the FBI ’ s re-opening of its investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton ’ s handling of email when she was secretary of state . The Clinton probe was already public , Comey said , whereas the FBI ’ s examination of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia was in its early stages . It did not become publicly known until after the 2016 presidential election . Despite his myriad of reservations about Trump , Comey told ABC News that he did not believe the U.S. Congress should impeach him , as it would let the American people “ off the hook ” for something “ they ’ re duty bound to do directly . ” “ People in this country need to stand up and go to the voting booth and vote their values , ” he said . U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan , interviewed on NBC ’ s “ Meet the Press ” on Sunday morning , expressed qualified support for Comey . Asked whether Comey was a man of integrity , the Republican speaker said : “ As far as I know , ” but added that he did not know him well . Asked about Trump ’ s use last week of the words “ slime ball ” to describe Comey , Ryan said : “ I don ’ t use words like that . ” Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said the ABC interview reaffirms that Comey ’ s “ higher loyalty is to himself . ” “ He has no credibility and President Trump was right to follow through on the bipartisan calls for him to be fired , ” McDaniel said in a statement . ( Refiles to add dropped article “ A ” from book title , paragraph 9 . )

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former FBI director James Comey said in an ABC News interview on Sunday that U.S. President Donald Trump is a dangerous, “morally unfit” leader doing “tremendous damage” to institutional and cultural norms. Comey, fired by Trump in May last year, was worried the president may be open to blackmail by Russia given claims he was present when prostitutes urinated on each other during a 2013 Moscow visit. Comey’s firing came as the Federal Bureau of Investigation was probing possible connections between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia’s meddling in the U.S. election. Russia has denied interfering in the election and Trump has denied any collusion or improper activity. Comey said in the exclusive interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, which aired at 10 p.m. on Sunday, that it is “possible, but I don’t know” whether Russia has evidence to back up the allegations about Trump’s Moscow trip. Trump told Comey that he had not stayed overnight in the Moscow hotel and that the claims related to the prostitutes were not true, Comey said. “A person ... who talks about and treats women like they’re pieces of meat, who lies constantly about matters big and small and insists the American people believe it, that person’s not fit to be president of the United States, on moral grounds. And that’s not a policy statement,” Comey said. “He is morally unfit to be president,” he added. Comey has a tell-all book, “A Higher Loyalty,” due out on Tuesday. The book’s imminent release - and the slated ABC News interview - prompted Trump to hurl a new set of insults at Comey earlier on Sunday, challenging accusations made in the book, and insisting that he never pressed Comey to be loyal to him. “Slippery James Comey, a man who always ends up badly and out of whack (he is not smart!), will go down as the WORST FBI Director in history, by far!” Trump wrote early on Sunday in one of five Twitter posts aimed directly at Comey. Reuters and other news outlets have obtained copies of Comey’s book before its formal release. In it, Comey wrote that Trump, in a private meeting, pressed the then-FBI director for his loyalty. A copy of former FBI director James Comey's book "A Higher Loyalty" is seen in New York City, New York, U.S. April 13, 2018. REUTERS/Soren Larson Comey told ABC News that the title of the book came from that “bizarre conversation” he had with Trump at the White House in January 2017, shortly after his inauguration. “He asked for my loyalty personally as the F.B.I. director. My loyalty’s supposed to be to the American people and to the institution,” Comey said in the interview. The FBI has long tried to operate as an independent law enforcement agency. “I never asked Comey for Personal Loyalty. I hardly even knew this guy. Just another of his many lies,” Trump said on Twitter. Comey is now a crucial witness for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether Trump has tried to obstruct the Russia probe. Comey told ABC News that he believes there is “certainly some evidence of obstruction of justice.” Comey also defended his decision to publicly disclose the FBI’s re-opening of its investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s handling of email when she was secretary of state. The Clinton probe was already public, Comey said, whereas the FBI’s examination of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia was in its early stages. It did not become publicly known until after the 2016 presidential election. Despite his myriad of reservations about Trump, Comey told ABC News that he did not believe the U.S. Congress should impeach him, as it would let the American people “off the hook” for something “they’re duty bound to do directly.” “People in this country need to stand up and go to the voting booth and vote their values,” he said. U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, interviewed on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday morning, expressed qualified support for Comey. Asked whether Comey was a man of integrity, the Republican speaker said: “As far as I know,” but added that he did not know him well. Asked about Trump’s use last week of the words “slime ball” to describe Comey, Ryan said: “I don’t use words like that.” Slideshow (2 Images) Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said the ABC interview reaffirms that Comey’s “higher loyalty is to himself.” “He has no credibility and President Trump was right to follow through on the bipartisan calls for him to be fired,” McDaniel said in a statement. (Refiles to add dropped article “A” from book title, paragraph 9.)

www.reuters.com

center

nVJB70QrzbwZKSle

test

ImFQYe5RMkolu5Oi

national_defense

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/11/donald-trump-north-korea-tweet-military-locked-loaded

Donald Trump warns North Korea that US is ‘locked and loaded’

2017-08-11

Julian Borger

China ’ s president , Xi Jinping , has told Donald Trump in a phone call that all sides should avoid rhetoric or action that would worsen tensions on the Korean peninsula , according to Chinese state media . Reports quoted Xi as saying : “ At present , the relevant parties must maintain restraint and avoid words and deeds that would exacerbate the tension on the Korean peninsula . ” Trump has pushed China to pressure North Korea to halt a nuclear weapons programme that is nearing the capability of targeting the United States . China is the North ’ s biggest economic partner and source of aid . Trump on Friday went further to turn the crisis into a personal battle of wills between him and Kim Jong-un , warning the North Korean leader he would “ truly regret ” hostile acts against US territory or US allies . Donald Trump loyalists eager to back up his rhetoric on North Korea Read more The warning came a few hours after an early morning tweet from the president that claimed US military options were “ locked and loaded ” for use if Pyongyang “ acted unwisely ” . The tweet triggered worldwide alarm and a rebuke from the German chancellor , Angela Merkel , who said : “ I consider an escalation of rhetoric the wrong answer . ” But Trump stood by his words when asked about them at his golf resort in New Jersey . “ I hope they are going to fully understand the gravity of what I said , and what I said is what I mean , ” he said . “ Those words are very , very easy to understand . ” Trump then issued an ultimatum to Kim Jong-un himself . “ This man will not get away with what he ’ s doing , ” he said . “ If he utters one threat in the form of an overt threat … or if he does anything in respect to Guam or anyplace else that ’ s an American territory or an American ally , he will truly regret it and he will regret it fast . ” Boris Johnson , the UK foreign secretary , said on Twitter that Britain was working with the US and other countries in the region to end the diplomatic crisis . He said the international community stood “ shoulder to shoulder in ensuring North Korea stops its aggressive acts ” , adding : Boris Johnson ( @ BorisJohnson ) The North Korean regime is the cause of this problem and they must fix it The North Korean leadership has warned it will launch four missiles at the waters around US Pacific territory of Guam as a warning to the US if it persists with its practice sorties by long-range bombers based on the island . Despite gung-ho language from the US president , there was no change in US deployments in the region or a change in the alert status of US forces . And it was reported on Friday that the Trump administration had reopened a channel of communication between US and North Korean diplomats at the UN . According to the Associated Press , the “ New York channel ” had been broken off by North Korea in protest against sanctions in 2016 , but it was revived this year between Joseph Yun , the US envoy for North Korea policy , and Pak Song-il , a senior North Korean diplomat at the country ’ s UN mission . The US state department said it had no comment on the report . It had previously been reported that there had been diplomatic contacts about US detainees in North Korea , but the new AP account said the talks addressed wider issues , although such contacts had so far failed to moderate the exchange of threats between the leaders of the two countries . Asked about the report on Friday , Trump said : “ Well , we don ’ t want to talk about progress , we don ’ t want to talk about back channels . “ We want to talk about a country that has misbehaved for many many years – decades , actually – through numerous administrations , and they didn ’ t want to take on the issue and I had no choice but to take it on , and I ’ m taking it on . And we ’ ll either be very , very successful quickly or we ’ re going to be very , very successful in a different way , quickly . ” As for Merkel ’ s criticism earlier in the day , Trump said : “ Maybe she ’ s speaking for Germany ; let her speak for Germany . She ’ s a friend of mine , she ’ s a very good person , a very good woman , she ’ s a friend of Ivanka . Perhaps she is referring to Germany . She ’ s certainly not referring to the United States , that I can tell you . ” In his comments , Trump made it clear that domestic political considerations played a role in shaping his rhetoric . “ If somebody else uttered the exact same words that I uttered , they ’ d say : ‘ What a great statement , what a wonderful statement , ’ ” Trump said . “ But I will tell you , we have tens of millions of people in this country that are so happy with what I am saying , because they say , ‘ Finally , we have a president that ’ s sticking up for our nation and frankly , sticking up for our friends and our allies . ’ ” Speaking to reporters in California , the US defence secretary , James Mattis , said a conflict on the Korean peninsula would be “ catastrophic ” and stressed that US diplomats should take the lead in resolving the crisis . Mattis pointed to a UN security council vote at the weekend for more sanctions against North Korea as a sign that diplomacy was making progress . Quick guide Are US defences strong enough to ward off North Korean missiles ? Show Hide What kind of anti-missile defences does the US possess ? The US has various anti-missile options , some designed to take down missiles at short-range and others for medium-to-long-range . The US relies heavily on the US Patriot missile and the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence ( THAAD ) . The US deployed THAAD to South Korea this year to defend against medium-range missiles . There is a three-phased defence system : ground-based missiles on the Korean peninsula ; US naval ships stationed in the Pacific ; and two bases in Alaska and California that can launch an estimated 36 interceptors . Is the US system robust enough to stop a North Korean missile attack ? No air defence system offers anything like a complete guarantee of success . The Pentagon offer repeated assurances that air defence systems would be more than a match for any North Korean attack . But when missile defence systems have been put to the test over the last few decades , the performance has been far from reassuring . The US provided anti-missile defence systems to Israel and Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War as protection against Iraq 's Scud missiles . It was initially claimed that they had shot down 41 of 42 missiles fired by Iraq . But eventually it was acknowledged that only a few missiles had been hit . Recent tests of interceptors have provided little comfort – with success rates of around 50 % on average . The Pentagon celebrated in May when it destroyed a mock warhead over the Pacific but overall the performance has been spotty . Since the newest intercept system was introduced in 2004 only four of nine intercept attempts have been successful . Of the five tests since 2010 , only two have been successful . However , Friday ’ s tweet , sent out by Trump at about 7.30am from his golf resort in Bedminster , New Jersey , put the emphasis back on the use of force : Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) Military solutions are now fully in place , locked and loaded , should North Korea act unwisely . Hopefully Kim Jong Un will find another path ! A White House official later played down the significance of the tweet , saying there were continuously updated military contingency plans for any global crisis . “ This isn ’ t anything new , ” the official said , according to CNN . The contingency plan for war on the Korean peninsula , Oplan 5027 , envisages a build-up of the US military , including half the US navy and more than 1,000 aircraft in the region , over 90 days . More than 200,000 US civilians would also have to be evacuated . Later on Friday morning , the president retweeted US Pacific command , which had posted pictures of B-1B Lancer heavy bombers on exercises over the Pacific with the Japanese and South Korean air forces on 7 August , accompanied by text saying the planes were ready to fulfil the “ ready to fight tonight ” mission of US forces in South Korea , “ if called upon to do so ” . Trump ’ s messages continued a war of words between the president and North Korea that ignited on Tuesday when Trump , following reports of a breakthrough in Pyongyang ’ s weapons programme , threatened to unleash “ fire and fury like the world has never seen ” on North Korea if the regime continued to threaten the US . Kim Jong-un ’ s government responded the next day by deriding Trump ’ s remarks as a “ lot of nonsense ” and publishing detailed plans to launch missiles to land in the waters around the US Pacific territory of Guam . Pyongyang has warned that continued practice sorties by B-1B bombers over South Korea would trigger the launch of the four Hwasong-12 intermediate-range missiles that would be aimed at the waters around their base on Guam . “ This grave situation requires the KPA [ Korean People ’ s Army ] to closely watch Guam , the outpost and beachhead for invading the DPRK , and necessarily take practical actions of significance to neutralise it , ” a KPA spokesman said on the state news service . It added that the missile launch , if ordered , would aim “ to contain the US major military bases on Guam , including the Andersen air force base , in which the US strategic bombers , which get on the nerves of the DPRK and threaten and blackmail it through their frequent visits to the sky above South Korea , are stationed , and to send a serious warning signal to the US ” . The B-1 bombers have been modified so as to be non-nuclear capable , but the North Korean statement identifies them as “ nuclear strategic bombers ” , one of many examples of misperceptions and overheated rhetoric that fog the Korean standoff . “ The United States should think carefully about authorizing further B-1 flights . Leadership may decide to defy the North Korean threat , but should make that decision consciously and take measures to limit the risk of that action , ” said Adam Mount , an expert on North Korea at the Center for American Progress . The Guam authorities issued new emergency guidelines on Friday that included advice of what to do in the event of a nuclear attack . “ Do not look at the flash or fireball – it can blind you , ” the fact sheet said . “ Take cover behind anything that might offer protection . ” Asked about the potential for military confrontation , Mattis told reporters it was his responsibility to prepare “ military options should they be needed ” . But he warned : “ The tragedy of war is well enough known ; it doesn ’ t need another characterisation , beyond the fact that it would be catastrophic . ” Alongside its missiles and nuclear warheads , North Korea has thousands of pieces of heavy artillery , capable of inflicting devastating damage on Seoul . The US has about 35,000 troops stationed in South Korea and 40,000 in Japan . They have not been put on a higher alert or redeployed in recent days despite the heated rhetoric . Malcolm Nance , a former naval intelligence officer , said that there had been none of the normal indicators of heightened alert at US bases in the region . “ We are not ready for even a small action size of Libya much less Korean War 2.0 , ” Nance said in a tweet . “ This talk of Locked & Loaded is irresponsible madness . ” Donald Trump loyalists eager to back up his rhetoric on North Korea Read more However , large-scale air , sea and land exercises are planned for later this month , which could ratchet tensions up further . Trump was due to interrupt his working holiday for a lightning visit to Washington on Monday , according to one report . But it was not clear whether the trip was connected to the North Korean stand-off , and there are secure facilities at his Bedminster golf club where he can discuss national security matters . The North Korean military has said its planned missile test aimed at the sea around Guam will be ready for launch on orders of the country ’ s leader from mid-August . In his remarks , however , Mattis repeatedly underlined the role of diplomacy and non-military pressure on Pyongyang , and the key roles played by the secretary of state , Rex Tillerson , and the US envoy to the United Nations , Nikki Haley . “ You can see the American effort is diplomatically led , ” Mattis said . He added : “ It has diplomatic traction . It is gaining diplomatic results . And I want to stay right there right now . ”

China’s president, Xi Jinping, has told Donald Trump in a phone call that all sides should avoid rhetoric or action that would worsen tensions on the Korean peninsula, according to Chinese state media. Reports quoted Xi as saying: “At present, the relevant parties must maintain restraint and avoid words and deeds that would exacerbate the tension on the Korean peninsula.” Trump has pushed China to pressure North Korea to halt a nuclear weapons programme that is nearing the capability of targeting the United States. China is the North’s biggest economic partner and source of aid. Trump on Friday went further to turn the crisis into a personal battle of wills between him and Kim Jong-un, warning the North Korean leader he would “truly regret” hostile acts against US territory or US allies. Donald Trump loyalists eager to back up his rhetoric on North Korea Read more The warning came a few hours after an early morning tweet from the president that claimed US military options were “locked and loaded” for use if Pyongyang “acted unwisely”. The tweet triggered worldwide alarm and a rebuke from the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, who said: “I consider an escalation of rhetoric the wrong answer.” But Trump stood by his words when asked about them at his golf resort in New Jersey. “I hope they are going to fully understand the gravity of what I said, and what I said is what I mean,” he said. “Those words are very, very easy to understand.” Trump then issued an ultimatum to Kim Jong-un himself. “This man will not get away with what he’s doing,” he said. “If he utters one threat in the form of an overt threat … or if he does anything in respect to Guam or anyplace else that’s an American territory or an American ally, he will truly regret it and he will regret it fast.” Boris Johnson, the UK foreign secretary, said on Twitter that Britain was working with the US and other countries in the region to end the diplomatic crisis. He said the international community stood “shoulder to shoulder in ensuring North Korea stops its aggressive acts”, adding: Boris Johnson (@BorisJohnson) The North Korean regime is the cause of this problem and they must fix it The North Korean leadership has warned it will launch four missiles at the waters around US Pacific territory of Guam as a warning to the US if it persists with its practice sorties by long-range bombers based on the island. Despite gung-ho language from the US president, there was no change in US deployments in the region or a change in the alert status of US forces. And it was reported on Friday that the Trump administration had reopened a channel of communication between US and North Korean diplomats at the UN. According to the Associated Press, the “New York channel” had been broken off by North Korea in protest against sanctions in 2016, but it was revived this year between Joseph Yun, the US envoy for North Korea policy, and Pak Song-il, a senior North Korean diplomat at the country’s UN mission. The US state department said it had no comment on the report. It had previously been reported that there had been diplomatic contacts about US detainees in North Korea, but the new AP account said the talks addressed wider issues, although such contacts had so far failed to moderate the exchange of threats between the leaders of the two countries. Asked about the report on Friday, Trump said: “Well, we don’t want to talk about progress, we don’t want to talk about back channels. “We want to talk about a country that has misbehaved for many many years – decades, actually – through numerous administrations, and they didn’t want to take on the issue and I had no choice but to take it on, and I’m taking it on. And we’ll either be very, very successful quickly or we’re going to be very, very successful in a different way, quickly.” As for Merkel’s criticism earlier in the day, Trump said: “Maybe she’s speaking for Germany; let her speak for Germany. She’s a friend of mine, she’s a very good person, a very good woman, she’s a friend of Ivanka. Perhaps she is referring to Germany. She’s certainly not referring to the United States, that I can tell you.” In his comments, Trump made it clear that domestic political considerations played a role in shaping his rhetoric. “If somebody else uttered the exact same words that I uttered, they’d say: ‘What a great statement, what a wonderful statement,’” Trump said. “But I will tell you, we have tens of millions of people in this country that are so happy with what I am saying, because they say, ‘Finally, we have a president that’s sticking up for our nation and frankly, sticking up for our friends and our allies.’” Speaking to reporters in California, the US defence secretary, James Mattis, said a conflict on the Korean peninsula would be “catastrophic” and stressed that US diplomats should take the lead in resolving the crisis. Mattis pointed to a UN security council vote at the weekend for more sanctions against North Korea as a sign that diplomacy was making progress. Quick guide Are US defences strong enough to ward off North Korean missiles? Show Hide What kind of anti-missile defences does the US possess? The US has various anti-missile options, some designed to take down missiles at short-range and others for medium-to-long-range. The US relies heavily on the US Patriot missile and the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence (THAAD). The US deployed THAAD to South Korea this year to defend against medium-range missiles. There is a three-phased defence system: ground-based missiles on the Korean peninsula; US naval ships stationed in the Pacific; and two bases in Alaska and California that can launch an estimated 36 interceptors. Is the US system robust enough to stop a North Korean missile attack? No air defence system offers anything like a complete guarantee of success. The Pentagon offer repeated assurances that air defence systems would be more than a match for any North Korean attack. But when missile defence systems have been put to the test over the last few decades, the performance has been far from reassuring. The US provided anti-missile defence systems to Israel and Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War as protection against Iraq's Scud missiles. It was initially claimed that they had shot down 41 of 42 missiles fired by Iraq. But eventually it was acknowledged that only a few missiles had been hit. Recent tests of interceptors have provided little comfort – with success rates of around 50% on average. The Pentagon celebrated in May when it destroyed a mock warhead over the Pacific but overall the performance has been spotty. Since the newest intercept system was introduced in 2004 only four of nine intercept attempts have been successful. Of the five tests since 2010, only two have been successful. However, Friday’s tweet, sent out by Trump at about 7.30am from his golf resort in Bedminster, New Jersey, put the emphasis back on the use of force: Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) Military solutions are now fully in place,locked and loaded,should North Korea act unwisely. Hopefully Kim Jong Un will find another path! A White House official later played down the significance of the tweet, saying there were continuously updated military contingency plans for any global crisis. “This isn’t anything new,” the official said, according to CNN. The contingency plan for war on the Korean peninsula, Oplan 5027, envisages a build-up of the US military, including half the US navy and more than 1,000 aircraft in the region, over 90 days. More than 200,000 US civilians would also have to be evacuated. Later on Friday morning, the president retweeted US Pacific command, which had posted pictures of B-1B Lancer heavy bombers on exercises over the Pacific with the Japanese and South Korean air forces on 7 August, accompanied by text saying the planes were ready to fulfil the “ready to fight tonight” mission of US forces in South Korea, “if called upon to do so”. Trump’s messages continued a war of words between the president and North Korea that ignited on Tuesday when Trump, following reports of a breakthrough in Pyongyang’s weapons programme, threatened to unleash “fire and fury like the world has never seen” on North Korea if the regime continued to threaten the US. Kim Jong-un’s government responded the next day by deriding Trump’s remarks as a “lot of nonsense” and publishing detailed plans to launch missiles to land in the waters around the US Pacific territory of Guam. Pyongyang has warned that continued practice sorties by B-1B bombers over South Korea would trigger the launch of the four Hwasong-12 intermediate-range missiles that would be aimed at the waters around their base on Guam. “This grave situation requires the KPA [Korean People’s Army] to closely watch Guam, the outpost and beachhead for invading the DPRK, and necessarily take practical actions of significance to neutralise it,” a KPA spokesman said on the state news service. It added that the missile launch, if ordered, would aim “to contain the US major military bases on Guam, including the Andersen air force base, in which the US strategic bombers, which get on the nerves of the DPRK and threaten and blackmail it through their frequent visits to the sky above South Korea, are stationed, and to send a serious warning signal to the US”. The B-1 bombers have been modified so as to be non-nuclear capable, but the North Korean statement identifies them as “nuclear strategic bombers”, one of many examples of misperceptions and overheated rhetoric that fog the Korean standoff. “The United States should think carefully about authorizing further B-1 flights. Leadership may decide to defy the North Korean threat, but should make that decision consciously and take measures to limit the risk of that action,” said Adam Mount, an expert on North Korea at the Center for American Progress. The Guam authorities issued new emergency guidelines on Friday that included advice of what to do in the event of a nuclear attack. “Do not look at the flash or fireball – it can blind you,” the fact sheet said. “Take cover behind anything that might offer protection.” Asked about the potential for military confrontation, Mattis told reporters it was his responsibility to prepare “military options should they be needed”. But he warned: “The tragedy of war is well enough known; it doesn’t need another characterisation, beyond the fact that it would be catastrophic.” Alongside its missiles and nuclear warheads, North Korea has thousands of pieces of heavy artillery, capable of inflicting devastating damage on Seoul. The US has about 35,000 troops stationed in South Korea and 40,000 in Japan. They have not been put on a higher alert or redeployed in recent days despite the heated rhetoric. Malcolm Nance, a former naval intelligence officer, said that there had been none of the normal indicators of heightened alert at US bases in the region. “We are not ready for even a small action size of Libya much less Korean War 2.0,” Nance said in a tweet. “This talk of Locked & Loaded is irresponsible madness.” Donald Trump loyalists eager to back up his rhetoric on North Korea Read more However, large-scale air, sea and land exercises are planned for later this month, which could ratchet tensions up further. Trump was due to interrupt his working holiday for a lightning visit to Washington on Monday, according to one report. But it was not clear whether the trip was connected to the North Korean stand-off, and there are secure facilities at his Bedminster golf club where he can discuss national security matters. The North Korean military has said its planned missile test aimed at the sea around Guam will be ready for launch on orders of the country’s leader from mid-August. In his remarks, however, Mattis repeatedly underlined the role of diplomacy and non-military pressure on Pyongyang, and the key roles played by the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, and the US envoy to the United Nations, Nikki Haley. “You can see the American effort is diplomatically led,” Mattis said. He added: “It has diplomatic traction. It is gaining diplomatic results. And I want to stay right there right now.”

www.theguardian.com

left

ImFQYe5RMkolu5Oi

test

WcqWBFSGwKxfdFom

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/29/gop_is_melting_down_the_real_sotu_story/

GOP is melting down: The real SOTU story

2014-01-29

Joan Walsh

President Obama ’ s staff hyped his State of the Union address as promising a bold new reliance on executive action , and really , who could blame the guy ? Tuesday came the bizarre news that there were going to be four – four -- different GOP replies to the State of the Union address . To work with Republicans Obama would need actual Republican leaders , and instead he ’ s dealing with hundreds of freelance potentates and kooks . The GOP is splintering in real time , and that ’ s a bigger story than anything the president said in his 70-minute address . Sen. Rand Paul even gave what was billed as “ the Rand Paul response ” -- as though he ’ s his own political party , and maybe he is -- in which he billed African-American GOP columnist Star Parker as the answer to poverty . ( More on that in a second . ) Meanwhile , waiting for the president on the floor , Rep. Joe “ You lie ” Wilson snapped pictures of Duck Dynasty ’ s Willie Robertson , who also frolicked with Rep. Paul Ryan . Still , there was a strange disconnect between what the president ’ s advance people advanced , and what he actually said . Obama did announce one bold decision that will actually change lives : an executive order to increase the minimum wage for federal contract workers . But for a speech that was promoted by staff as a bold take-charge moment for a president tired of being thwarted by the GOP , and derided in advance as the equivalent of a martial law declaration by the right , it was unexpectedly conciliatory and short on concrete action . Apart from the minimum wage order , Obama mostly outlined a bully-pulpit approach to the next year : He ’ s “ pulling together ” all sorts of “ new partnerships ” and “ summits ” and “ calling on Congress ” and “ cutting red tape ” and proposing a new federally backed type of IRA called , yes , myRa . Obama may have talked toughest to his fellow Democrats in the Senate when he promised , appropriately , to veto a bill that would tighten sanctions on Iran . Another SOTU leak revealed an internal split over whether Obama should stress “ income inequality ” or “ opportunity , ” and revealed that “ opportunity ” won because apparently income inequality is a big downer and sounds like class warfare . In the end , the president did mention income inequality while stressing “ ladders of opportunity , ” but the preliminary hype made me more sensitive to his disappointing storytelling : Obama blamed the decline of opportunity and the rise of inequality on “ massive shifts in technology and global competition , ” but left out the deliberate shift of wealth and power from the majority to the top 1 percent , and the deliberate dismantling of “ ladders of opportunity ” that began under Ronald Reagan and continue through today . Overall , it was a well-delivered but tepid and still disappointingly cautious speech . He made a great joke about “ Mad Men ” policies toward women , but given the way Republicans have escalated the War on Women just this week thanks to Mike Huckabee and Rand Paul , he missed opportunities to highlight his party ’ s superiority , especially given the House voting for more restrictions on abortion just hours earlier . Once again , though , as throughout his career , the president is blessed by having lame enemies . In her SOTU response , Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers ironically decried government `` controlling '' our healthcare while of course ignoring her role in the earlier House vote on controlling women ’ s bodies . Rand Paul avoided craziness about Monica Lewinsky but he advanced warmed-over enterprise rhetoric from the 1980s in his straight-to-YouTube extravaganza . Its highlight was a bizarre tribute to Star Parker , who by her own account went from welfare fraud to Republican stardom . `` I want Star Parker ’ s story to be the rule , not the exception , '' Paul said bizarrely . Also `` Federal Reserve , '' `` Milton Friedman '' and `` Solyndra . '' The four random GOP rebuttals and the party ’ s shrill response only made Obama ’ s speech seem better as the minutes pass .

President Obama’s staff hyped his State of the Union address as promising a bold new reliance on executive action, and really, who could blame the guy? Tuesday came the bizarre news that there were going to be four – four -- different GOP replies to the State of the Union address. To work with Republicans Obama would need actual Republican leaders, and instead he’s dealing with hundreds of freelance potentates and kooks. The GOP is splintering in real time, and that’s a bigger story than anything the president said in his 70-minute address. Sen. Rand Paul even gave what was billed as “the Rand Paul response” -- as though he’s his own political party, and maybe he is -- in which he billed African-American GOP columnist Star Parker as the answer to poverty. (More on that in a second.) Meanwhile, waiting for the president on the floor, Rep. Joe “You lie” Wilson snapped pictures of Duck Dynasty’s Willie Robertson, who also frolicked with Rep. Paul Ryan. Advertisement: Still, there was a strange disconnect between what the president’s advance people advanced, and what he actually said. Obama did announce one bold decision that will actually change lives: an executive order to increase the minimum wage for federal contract workers. But for a speech that was promoted by staff as a bold take-charge moment for a president tired of being thwarted by the GOP, and derided in advance as the equivalent of a martial law declaration by the right, it was unexpectedly conciliatory and short on concrete action. Apart from the minimum wage order, Obama mostly outlined a bully-pulpit approach to the next year: He’s “pulling together” all sorts of “new partnerships” and “summits” and “calling on Congress” and “cutting red tape” and proposing a new federally backed type of IRA called, yes, myRa. Obama may have talked toughest to his fellow Democrats in the Senate when he promised, appropriately, to veto a bill that would tighten sanctions on Iran. Another SOTU leak revealed an internal split over whether Obama should stress “income inequality” or “opportunity,” and revealed that “opportunity” won because apparently income inequality is a big downer and sounds like class warfare. In the end, the president did mention income inequality while stressing “ladders of opportunity,” but the preliminary hype made me more sensitive to his disappointing storytelling: Obama blamed the decline of opportunity and the rise of inequality on “massive shifts in technology and global competition,” but left out the deliberate shift of wealth and power from the majority to the top 1 percent, and the deliberate dismantling of “ladders of opportunity” that began under Ronald Reagan and continue through today. Advertisement: Overall, it was a well-delivered but tepid and still disappointingly cautious speech. He made a great joke about “Mad Men” policies toward women, but given the way Republicans have escalated the War on Women just this week thanks to Mike Huckabee and Rand Paul, he missed opportunities to highlight his party’s superiority, especially given the House voting for more restrictions on abortion just hours earlier. Once again, though, as throughout his career, the president is blessed by having lame enemies. In her SOTU response, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers ironically decried government "controlling" our healthcare while of course ignoring her role in the earlier House vote on controlling women’s bodies. Rand Paul avoided craziness about Monica Lewinsky but he advanced warmed-over enterprise rhetoric from the 1980s in his straight-to-YouTube extravaganza. Its highlight was a bizarre tribute to Star Parker, who by her own account went from welfare fraud to Republican stardom. "I want Star Parker’s story to be the rule, not the exception," Paul said bizarrely. Also "Federal Reserve," "Milton Friedman" and "Solyndra." The four random GOP rebuttals and the party’s shrill response only made Obama’s speech seem better as the minutes pass.

www.salon.com

left

WcqWBFSGwKxfdFom

test

fyC8tQSsQhdvdXS7

supreme_court

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/04/24/scotus-will-hear-oral-argument-on-travel-ban-wednesday/

SCOTUS Will Hear Oral Argument on Travel Ban Wednesday

2018-04-24

Ian Mason

The U.S. Supreme Court will host oral arguments Wednesday in the case that may be the most consequential yet for the Trump administration ’ s agenda . The case , Trump v. Hawaii , will decide the ultimate fate of President Donald Trump ’ s third travel ban , which prohibits travel from six Muslim-majority countries and North Korea . The nine justices will hear 30 minutes of argument from each side : the government , represented by Solicitor General Noel Francisco , and the assembled plaintiffs , represented by President Barack Obama ’ s one-time acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal . The ban ’ s opponents , including the state of Hawaii and the George Soros-funded International Refugee Assistance Project , have tried to characterize it as a “ Muslim Ban ” and are challenging it on both First Amendment Establishment Clause and statutory grounds , using language of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( INA ) . The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Fourth circuits have both already agreed with these opponents , striking down the bans repeatedly on statutory and constitutional grounds respectively . The Fourth Circuit was ruling on a similar case whose ultimate outcome will likely be determined by the outcome of this one . Throughout the litigation in the lower courts , the bans ’ opponents have sought to include President Trump ’ s words during and after the 2016 presidential campaign as evidence the ban is motivated by anti-Muslim animus and that this renders them illegal . The travel ban case is the only one scheduled for arguments Wednesday . They should begin shortly after 10:00 a.m. Eastern time . The Supreme Court building is expected to be packed with press , lawyers , and members of the public , hoping to see the arguments , lining up some hours before . The case has attracted an immense amount of popular attention and dozens of amicus briefs on both sides , but especially on the plaintiffs ’ . Libertarian groups like the Cato Institute have lined up with leftist organizations to urge the justices to invalidate the ban , which was a major campaign promise of Trump ’ s . None of the organizations who filed amicus briefs have been granted time for oral arguments . A decision in the case is expected some time in June . The case is Trump v. Hawaii , No . 17-965 at the Supreme Court of the United States .

The U.S. Supreme Court will host oral arguments Wednesday in the case that may be the most consequential yet for the Trump administration’s agenda. The case, Trump v. Hawaii, will decide the ultimate fate of President Donald Trump’s third travel ban, which prohibits travel from six Muslim-majority countries and North Korea. The nine justices will hear 30 minutes of argument from each side: the government, represented by Solicitor General Noel Francisco, and the assembled plaintiffs, represented by President Barack Obama’s one-time acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal. The ban’s opponents, including the state of Hawaii and the George Soros-funded International Refugee Assistance Project, have tried to characterize it as a “Muslim Ban” and are challenging it on both First Amendment Establishment Clause and statutory grounds, using language of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Fourth circuits have both already agreed with these opponents, striking down the bans repeatedly on statutory and constitutional grounds respectively. The Fourth Circuit was ruling on a similar case whose ultimate outcome will likely be determined by the outcome of this one. Throughout the litigation in the lower courts, the bans’ opponents have sought to include President Trump’s words during and after the 2016 presidential campaign as evidence the ban is motivated by anti-Muslim animus and that this renders them illegal. The travel ban case is the only one scheduled for arguments Wednesday. They should begin shortly after 10:00 a.m. Eastern time. The Supreme Court building is expected to be packed with press, lawyers, and members of the public, hoping to see the arguments, lining up some hours before. The case has attracted an immense amount of popular attention and dozens of amicus briefs on both sides, but especially on the plaintiffs’. Libertarian groups like the Cato Institute have lined up with leftist organizations to urge the justices to invalidate the ban, which was a major campaign promise of Trump’s. None of the organizations who filed amicus briefs have been granted time for oral arguments. A decision in the case is expected some time in June. The case is Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965 at the Supreme Court of the United States.

www.breitbart.com

right

fyC8tQSsQhdvdXS7

test

L88hDNWIPd5DCtG7

media_bias

Reason

http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/07/cnn-accused-bias-against-third-parties

CNN Accused of Bias Against Third Parties By a Post-Debate Focus Group Participant

2016-10-07

Anthony Fisher, Peter Suderman, Noah Shepardson, Jonathan H. Adler, Mike Riggs, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Jacob Sullum, Shikha Dalmia, Eugene Volokh

During and after Tuesday 's Vice Presidential Debate , CNN hosted a 28-person focus group of self-identified `` undecided voters '' at the University of Richmond ( Va. ) . One of the participants in this group—Justin Smith—later complained on his Facebook page that CNN 's Pamela Brown had asked the group if they now intended to vote for Donald Trump , Hillary Clinton , or an unnamed third party candidate . In Smith 's telling , two supported Trump , five supported Clinton , and 12 indicated they would vote for a third party candidate . But , Smith tells ███ , the producers then told the focus group they were going to `` reshoot '' the segment , only this time they replaced `` third party candidate '' as an option with `` undecided . '' Smith says this caused confusion among the panel , leading some who had just raised their hands for `` third party '' to now raise their hands for `` undecided . '' An important difference between the two questions : the cameras were only airing live on CNN during the `` undecided '' question , whereas the `` third party '' question was taped . Watch the segment that aired live—with `` undecided '' as an option as opposed to `` third party '' —below : Smith 's Facebook post has caused a bit of a stir online , with accusations that CNN is censoring third party supporters to favor a narrative in which the only opinions worth considering are from voters who support Trump , Clinton , or have not yet decided between the two . The Intercept 's Glenn Greenwald weighed in on Twitter this morning , offering his opinion that `` If this account is accurate , it comes pretty close to actual fraud . '' Though he has a `` Evan McMullin for President '' poster as his Facebook profile cover page , Smith tells ███ he is an undecided voter , it 's just that he has n't decided which third party candidate he will vote for . He calls himself a constitutional conservative and insists he will absolutely not vote for Trump and Clinton . For a while , he had considered voting for Constitution Party candidate Darrell Castle , but he 's not on the ballot in Virginia , so Smith is now on the fence between voting for McMullin or Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson . Smith says CNN producers told the focus group they would be taping certain questions as segments that might be used by CNN shows the next morning—a common TV news practice . Smith added that each of the questions they had been asked as a group had been taped twice . As a former cable TV news producer myself , I can attest that shooting more `` packages '' than you 're likely to need is standard operating procedure . It 's entirely possible that there was no nefarious intent on the part of CNN behind the creation of a taped package which included third party as a voting option . But the fact is , when the cameras went live , Brown did n't give the group the option of choosing a `` third party . '' Live TV viewers were left with the impression that the majority of the focus group was undecided between Trump , Clinton , and no one else . `` I was shocked that they would purposely not put it out there that people were supporting a third party , '' Smith told ███ , adding , `` Intentionally covering that up…I ca n't imagine what their narrative is . '' Is it just an odd turn of events that the `` undecided '' question went out on live TV while the `` third party '' question went to tape ? It 's not clear whether the latter ever aired the next morning and I have n't been able to find a clip of it on CNN 's website , but sometimes producers are left with more content than they can use . It 's also important to note that CNN has n't ignored third parties this election cycle ; they have aired two Libertarian town halls in recent months , after all . However , editorial choices—such as deciding which questions get aired with the most viewers watching immediately after a debate , while others may or may not get airtime at all—matter . By prioritizing the idea that undecided voters are only choosing between Trump and Clinton , especially knowing that a great many of them are not undecided between the two but had in fact just affirmatively rejected the binary choice moments earlier , CNN ( unwittingly or not ) helped perpetuate a narrative that third party supporters are just undecideds who have n't yet come around to the correct line of thinking .

During and after Tuesday's Vice Presidential Debate, CNN hosted a 28-person focus group of self-identified "undecided voters" at the University of Richmond (Va.). One of the participants in this group—Justin Smith—later complained on his Facebook page that CNN's Pamela Brown had asked the group if they now intended to vote for Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or an unnamed third party candidate. In Smith's telling, two supported Trump, five supported Clinton, and 12 indicated they would vote for a third party candidate. But, Smith tells Reason, the producers then told the focus group they were going to "reshoot" the segment, only this time they replaced "third party candidate" as an option with "undecided." Smith says this caused confusion among the panel, leading some who had just raised their hands for "third party" to now raise their hands for "undecided." An important difference between the two questions: the cameras were only airing live on CNN during the "undecided" question, whereas the "third party" question was taped. Watch the segment that aired live—with "undecided" as an option as opposed to "third party"—below: Smith's Facebook post has caused a bit of a stir online, with accusations that CNN is censoring third party supporters to favor a narrative in which the only opinions worth considering are from voters who support Trump, Clinton, or have not yet decided between the two. The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald weighed in on Twitter this morning, offering his opinion that "If this account is accurate, it comes pretty close to actual fraud." Though he has a "Evan McMullin for President" poster as his Facebook profile cover page, Smith tells Reason he is an undecided voter, it's just that he hasn't decided which third party candidate he will vote for. He calls himself a constitutional conservative and insists he will absolutely not vote for Trump and Clinton. For a while, he had considered voting for Constitution Party candidate Darrell Castle, but he's not on the ballot in Virginia, so Smith is now on the fence between voting for McMullin or Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. Smith says CNN producers told the focus group they would be taping certain questions as segments that might be used by CNN shows the next morning—a common TV news practice. Smith added that each of the questions they had been asked as a group had been taped twice. As a former cable TV news producer myself, I can attest that shooting more "packages" than you're likely to need is standard operating procedure. It's entirely possible that there was no nefarious intent on the part of CNN behind the creation of a taped package which included third party as a voting option. But the fact is, when the cameras went live, Brown didn't give the group the option of choosing a "third party." Live TV viewers were left with the impression that the majority of the focus group was undecided between Trump, Clinton, and no one else. "I was shocked that they would purposely not put it out there that people were supporting a third party," Smith told Reason, adding, "Intentionally covering that up…I can't imagine what their narrative is." CNN did not respond to requests for comment. Is it just an odd turn of events that the "undecided" question went out on live TV while the "third party" question went to tape? It's not clear whether the latter ever aired the next morning and I haven't been able to find a clip of it on CNN's website, but sometimes producers are left with more content than they can use. It's also important to note that CNN hasn't ignored third parties this election cycle; they have aired two Libertarian town halls in recent months, after all. However, editorial choices—such as deciding which questions get aired with the most viewers watching immediately after a debate, while others may or may not get airtime at all—matter. By prioritizing the idea that undecided voters are only choosing between Trump and Clinton, especially knowing that a great many of them are not undecided between the two but had in fact just affirmatively rejected the binary choice moments earlier, CNN (unwittingly or not) helped perpetuate a narrative that third party supporters are just undecideds who haven't yet come around to the correct line of thinking.

www.reason.com

right

L88hDNWIPd5DCtG7

test

A2BlJyl1jQYEdPmB

politics

Guest Writer - Left

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/11/why-we-need-a-new-democratic-party_partner/

OPINION: Why we need a new Democratic Party

2016-11-11

Robert Reich Blog

As a first step , I believe it necessary for the members and leadership of the Democratic National Committee to step down and be replaced by people who are determined to create a party that represents America – including all those who feel powerless and disenfranchised , and who have been left out of our politics and left behind in our economy . The Democratic Party as it is now constituted has become a giant fundraising machine , too often reflecting the goals and values of the moneyed interests . This must change . The election of 2016 has repudiated it . We need a people ’ s party – a party capable of organizing and mobilizing Americans in opposition to Donald Trump ’ s Republican party , which is about to take over all three branches of the U.S. government . We need a New Democratic Party that will fight against intolerance and widening inequality . What happened in America Tuesday should not be seen as a victory for hatefulness over decency . It is more accurately understood as a repudiation of the American power structure . At the core of that structure are the political leaders of both parties , their political operatives , and fundraisers ; the major media , centered in New York and Washington DC ; the country ’ s biggest corporations , their top executives , and Washington lobbyists and trade associations ; the biggest Wall Street banks , their top officers , traders , hedge-fund and private-equity managers , and their lackeys in Washington ; and the wealthy individuals who invest directly in politics . At the start of the 2016 election cycle , this power structure proclaimed Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush shoo-ins for the nominations of the Democratic and Republican parties . After all , both of these individuals had deep bases of funders , well-established networks of political insiders , experienced political advisers and all the political name recognition any candidate could possibly want . But a funny thing happened on the way to the White House . The presidency was won by Donald Trump , who made his fortune marketing office towers and casinos , and , more recently , starring in a popular reality-television program , and who has never held elective office or had anything to do with the Republican party . Hillary Clinton narrowly won the popular vote , but not enough of the states and their electors secure a victory . Hillary Clinton ’ s defeat is all the more remarkable in that her campaign vastly outspent the Trump campaign on television and radio advertisements , and get-out-the-vote efforts . Moreover , her campaign had the support in the general election not of only the kingpins of the Democratic party but also many leading Republicans , including most of the politically active denizens of Wall Street and the top executives of America ’ s largest corporations , and even former Republican president George HW Bush . Her campaign team was run by seasoned professionals who knew the ropes . She had the visible and forceful backing of Barack Obama , whose popularity has soared in recent months , and his popular wife . And , of course , she had her husband . Trump , by contrast , was shunned by the power structure . Mitt Romney , the Republican presidential candidate in 2012 , actively worked against Trump ’ s nomination . Many senior Republicans refused to endorse him , or even give him their support . The Republican National Committee did not raise money for Trump to the extent it had for other Republican candidates for president . There had been hints of the political earthquake to come . Trump had won the Republican primaries , after all . More tellingly , Clinton had been challenged in the Democratic primaries by the unlikeliest of candidates – a 74-year-old Jewish senator from Vermont who described himself as a democratic socialist and who was not even a Democrat . Bernie Sanders went on to win 22 states and 47 percent of the vote in those primaries . Sanders ’ major theme was that the country ’ s political and economic system was rigged in favor of big corporations , Wall Street and the very wealthy . The power structure of America wrote off Sanders as an aberration , and , until recently , didn ’ t take Trump seriously . A respected political insider recently told me most Americans were largely content with the status quo . “ The economy is in good shape , ” he said . “ Most Americans are better off than they ’ ve been in years . ” Recent economic indicators may be up , but those indicators don ’ t reflect the insecurity most Americans continue to feel , nor the seeming arbitrariness and unfairness they experience . Nor do the major indicators show the linkages many Americans see between wealth and power , stagnant or declining real wages , soaring CEO pay , and the undermining of democracy by big money . Median family income is lower now than it was 16 years ago , adjusted for inflation . Workers without college degrees – the old working class – have fallen furthest . Most economic gains , meanwhile , have gone to top . These gains have translated into political power to elicit bank bailouts , corporate subsidies , special tax loopholes , favorable trade deals and increasing market power without interference by anti-monopoly enforcement – all of which have further reduced wages and pulled up profits . Wealth , power and crony capitalism fit together . Americans know a takeover has occurred , and they blame the establishment for it . The Democratic party once represented the working class . But over the last three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers , bundlers , analysts , and pollsters who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in “ swing ” suburbs . Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years , and for four of those years had control of both houses of Congress . But in that time they failed to reverse the decline in working-class wages and economic security . Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well . They stood by as corporations hammered trade unions , the backbone of the white working class – failing to reform labor laws to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violate them , or help workers form unions with simple up-or-down votes . Partly as a result , union membership sank from 22 percent of all workers when Bill Clinton was elected president to less than 12 percenttoday , and the working class lost bargaining leverage to get a share of the economy ’ s gains . Bill Clinton and Obama also allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify – with the result that large corporations have grown far larger , and major industries more concentrated . The unsurprising result of this combination – more trade , declining unionization and more industry concentration – has been to shift political and economic power to big corporations and the wealthy , and to shaft the working class . This created an opening for Donald Trump ’ s authoritarian demagoguery , and his presidency . Now Americans have rebelled by supporting someone who wants to fortify America against foreigners as well as foreign-made goods . The power structure understandably fears that Trump ’ s isolationism will stymie economic growth . But most Americans couldn ’ t care less about growth because for years they have received few of its benefits , while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages . The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans . Perhaps it also doesn ’ t wish to understand , because that would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump . Robert Reich , one of the nation ’ s leading experts on work and the economy , is Chancellor ’ s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley . He has served in three national administrations , most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton . Time Magazine has named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century . He has written 13 books , including his latest best-seller , “ Aftershock : The Next Economy and America ’ s Future ; ” “ The Work of Nations , ” which has been translated into 22 languages ; and his newest , an e-book , “ Beyond Outrage. ” His syndicated columns , television appearances , and public radio commentaries reach millions of people each week . He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine , and Chairman of the citizen ’ s group Common Cause . His new movie `` Inequality for All '' is in Theaters . His widely-read blog can be found at www.robertreich.org .

This originally appeared on Robert Reich’s blog. As a first step, I believe it necessary for the members and leadership of the Democratic National Committee to step down and be replaced by people who are determined to create a party that represents America – including all those who feel powerless and disenfranchised, and who have been left out of our politics and left behind in our economy. Advertisement: The Democratic Party as it is now constituted has become a giant fundraising machine, too often reflecting the goals and values of the moneyed interests. This must change. The election of 2016 has repudiated it. We need a people’s party – a party capable of organizing and mobilizing Americans in opposition to Donald Trump’s Republican party, which is about to take over all three branches of the U.S. government. We need a New Democratic Party that will fight against intolerance and widening inequality. What happened in America Tuesday should not be seen as a victory for hatefulness over decency. It is more accurately understood as a repudiation of the American power structure. At the core of that structure are the political leaders of both parties, their political operatives, and fundraisers; the major media, centered in New York and Washington DC; the country’s biggest corporations, their top executives, and Washington lobbyists and trade associations; the biggest Wall Street banks, their top officers, traders, hedge-fund and private-equity managers, and their lackeys in Washington; and the wealthy individuals who invest directly in politics. Advertisement: At the start of the 2016 election cycle, this power structure proclaimed Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush shoo-ins for the nominations of the Democratic and Republican parties. After all, both of these individuals had deep bases of funders, well-established networks of political insiders, experienced political advisers and all the political name recognition any candidate could possibly want. But a funny thing happened on the way to the White House. The presidency was won by Donald Trump, who made his fortune marketing office towers and casinos, and, more recently, starring in a popular reality-television program, and who has never held elective office or had anything to do with the Republican party. Hillary Clinton narrowly won the popular vote, but not enough of the states and their electors secure a victory. Hillary Clinton’s defeat is all the more remarkable in that her campaign vastly outspent the Trump campaign on television and radio advertisements, and get-out-the-vote efforts. Moreover, her campaign had the support in the general election not of only the kingpins of the Democratic party but also many leading Republicans, including most of the politically active denizens of Wall Street and the top executives of America’s largest corporations, and even former Republican president George HW Bush. Her campaign team was run by seasoned professionals who knew the ropes. She had the visible and forceful backing of Barack Obama, whose popularity has soared in recent months, and his popular wife. And, of course, she had her husband. Advertisement: Trump, by contrast, was shunned by the power structure. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate in 2012, actively worked against Trump’s nomination. Many senior Republicans refused to endorse him, or even give him their support. The Republican National Committee did not raise money for Trump to the extent it had for other Republican candidates for president. What happened? Advertisement: There had been hints of the political earthquake to come. Trump had won the Republican primaries, after all. More tellingly, Clinton had been challenged in the Democratic primaries by the unlikeliest of candidates – a 74-year-old Jewish senator from Vermont who described himself as a democratic socialist and who was not even a Democrat. Bernie Sanders went on to win 22 states and 47 percent of the vote in those primaries. Sanders’ major theme was that the country’s political and economic system was rigged in favor of big corporations, Wall Street and the very wealthy. The power structure of America wrote off Sanders as an aberration, and, until recently, didn’t take Trump seriously. A respected political insider recently told me most Americans were largely content with the status quo. “The economy is in good shape,” he said. “Most Americans are better off than they’ve been in years.” Recent economic indicators may be up, but those indicators don’t reflect the insecurity most Americans continue to feel, nor the seeming arbitrariness and unfairness they experience. Nor do the major indicators show the linkages many Americans see between wealth and power, stagnant or declining real wages, soaring CEO pay, and the undermining of democracy by big money. Advertisement: Median family income is lower now than it was 16 years ago, adjusted for inflation. Workers without college degrees – the old working class – have fallen furthest. Most economic gains, meanwhile, have gone to top. These gains have translated into political power to elicit bank bailouts, corporate subsidies, special tax loopholes, favorable trade deals and increasing market power without interference by anti-monopoly enforcement – all of which have further reduced wages and pulled up profits. Wealth, power and crony capitalism fit together. Americans know a takeover has occurred, and they blame the establishment for it. The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in “swing” suburbs. Advertisement: Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for four of those years had control of both houses of Congress. But in that time they failed to reverse the decline in working-class wages and economic security. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well. They stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the white working class – failing to reform labor laws to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violate them, or help workers form unions with simple up-or-down votes. Partly as a result, union membership sank from 22 percent of all workers when Bill Clinton was elected president to less than 12 percenttoday, and the working class lost bargaining leverage to get a share of the economy’s gains. Bill Clinton and Obama also allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify – with the result that large corporations have grown far larger, and major industries more concentrated. The unsurprising result of this combination – more trade, declining unionization and more industry concentration – has been to shift political and economic power to big corporations and the wealthy, and to shaft the working class. This created an opening for Donald Trump’s authoritarian demagoguery, and his presidency. Now Americans have rebelled by supporting someone who wants to fortify America against foreigners as well as foreign-made goods. The power structure understandably fears that Trump’s isolationism will stymie economic growth. But most Americans couldn’t care less about growth because for years they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages. Advertisement: The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also doesn’t wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump. Robert Reich, one of the nation’s leading experts on work and the economy, is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. Time Magazine has named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written 13 books, including his latest best-seller, “Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future;” “The Work of Nations,” which has been translated into 22 languages; and his newest, an e-book, “Beyond Outrage.” His syndicated columns, television appearances, and public radio commentaries reach millions of people each week. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, and Chairman of the citizen’s group Common Cause. His new movie "Inequality for All" is in Theaters. His widely-read blog can be found at www.robertreich.org.

www.salon.com

left

A2BlJyl1jQYEdPmB

test

lEKn1AVTVu8wGvVL

fbi

American Spectator

http://spectator.org/former-u-s-attorney-agents-see-fbi-chief-comey-as-a-dirty-cop/

Former U.S. Attorney: Agents See FBI Chief Comey as a ‘Dirty Cop’

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

James Comey presides over an FBI in revolt over his leadership , a former U.S. attorney tells The ███ , and pursues “ paranoid , delusional , and vindictive ” measures to prevent negative information leaking out to the public . “ I know that inside the FBI there is a revolt , ” Joseph diGenova tells The ███ . “ There is a revolt against the director . The people inside the bureau believe the director is a dirty cop . They believe that he threw the [ Hillary Clinton email ] case . They do not know what he was promised in return . But the people inside the bureau who were involved in the case and who knew about the case are talking to former FBI people expressing their disgust at the conduct of the director . ” The loss of faith in the bureau chief stems in part from a dishonest rendering of the decision not to indict Mrs. Clinton as unanimous rather than unilateral and in part from the bureau ’ s decision to destroy evidence in the case and grant blanket immunity to Clinton underlings for no possible prosecutorial purpose . “ There is a consensus among the employees that the director has lost all credibility and that he can not lead the bureau , ” diGenova explains . “ They are comparing him to L. Patrick Gray , the disgraced former FBI director who threw Watergate papers into the Potomac River . The resistance to the director has made the agency incapable of action . It has been described to me as a depression within the agency unlike anything that anyone has ever seen within the bureau . The director ’ s public explanation for the unorthodox investigation are viewed by people in the bureau as sophomoric and embarrassing . ” Comey maintained in July that he came to the decision to recommend not indicting Clinton for the inclusion of classified material in 110 emails stored on a private server based on an “ entirely apolitical and professional ” investigation despite conceding that others in a similar spot would face “ consequences ” and that “ evidence of potential violations ” existed . He insisted then , “ No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear . ” But agents trained to sniff out malfeasance smell something rotten here . “ When the director said that it was a unanimous decision not to recommend prosecution , that was a lie , ” diGenova points out . “ In fact , the people involved in the case were outraged at his decision , which he made by himself . When people realized that he was lying publicly about their role and when they knew he had approved of the destruction of laptops that were subject to congressional subpoena , that flipped the switch . ” Critics of the FBI and the broader handling of the case by the Justice Department remain skeptical over investigators ’ ostensible belief in Clinton ’ s claim that she “ lost ” 13 Blackberry devices and did not understand that documents marked “ C ” meant confidential . Decisions to grant Clinton aide Cheryl Mills attorney-client privilege in a case involving her , to destroy her laptop and with it any evidence desired by Congress , and to limit the investigation ’ s search to documents from before January 31 , 2015 to obstruct any possible obstruction of justice case against Mills also similarly baffled . Direct evidence of Clinton hiding public business on a private server ( and thereby making it easier for enemy governments to see what the American government could not ) and “ bleaching ” her hard drive after the story became public presented the FBI clear evidence of wrongdoing . But authorities sought to protect rather than prosecute the malefactors . “ The director ’ s public explanation for the unorthodox investigation are viewed by people in the bureau as sophomoric and embarrassing , ” diGenova notes . “ The people in the bureau anticipate that there will be subpoenas for their testimony . Comey in a telephone conference with special agents in charge around the country , within the last few days , warned that if they received a phone inquiry about the investigation , or any inquiry about the investigation , they were ordered to report the call and the caller to the director ’ s office . ” DiGenova describes such control tactics as something out of J. Edgar Hoover ’ s FBI . Yet , it ’ s Hoover ’ s successor , L. Patrick Gray , who offers the clearest parallel to Comey . As diGenova puts it , “ There is a Deep Throat . ” Agents involved in the case now fear congressional subpoenas thanks to Comey ’ s head-scratching handling of the case . DiGenova met this week with figures requesting attorneys for FBI officials . The former independent counsel and U.S. attorney affirms his willingness to serve in that capacity and to represent potential whistleblowers . “ These people are trained to be loyal , honest , and forthright , ” diGenova points out . “ What [ Comey ] did was force them to corrupt their oath of office . They have had enough . ”

James Comey presides over an FBI in revolt over his leadership, a former U.S. attorney tells The American Spectator, and pursues “paranoid, delusional, and vindictive” measures to prevent negative information leaking out to the public. “I know that inside the FBI there is a revolt,” Joseph diGenova tells The American Spectator. “There is a revolt against the director. The people inside the bureau believe the director is a dirty cop. They believe that he threw the [Hillary Clinton email] case. They do not know what he was promised in return. But the people inside the bureau who were involved in the case and who knew about the case are talking to former FBI people expressing their disgust at the conduct of the director.” The loss of faith in the bureau chief stems in part from a dishonest rendering of the decision not to indict Mrs. Clinton as unanimous rather than unilateral and in part from the bureau’s decision to destroy evidence in the case and grant blanket immunity to Clinton underlings for no possible prosecutorial purpose. “There is a consensus among the employees that the director has lost all credibility and that he cannot lead the bureau,” diGenova explains. “They are comparing him to L. Patrick Gray, the disgraced former FBI director who threw Watergate papers into the Potomac River. The resistance to the director has made the agency incapable of action. It has been described to me as a depression within the agency unlike anything that anyone has ever seen within the bureau. The director’s public explanation for the unorthodox investigation are viewed by people in the bureau as sophomoric and embarrassing.” Comey maintained in July that he came to the decision to recommend not indicting Clinton for the inclusion of classified material in 110 emails stored on a private server based on an “entirely apolitical and professional” investigation despite conceding that others in a similar spot would face “consequences” and that “evidence of potential violations” existed. He insisted then, “No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.” But agents trained to sniff out malfeasance smell something rotten here. “When the director said that it was a unanimous decision not to recommend prosecution, that was a lie,” diGenova points out. “In fact, the people involved in the case were outraged at his decision, which he made by himself. When people realized that he was lying publicly about their role and when they knew he had approved of the destruction of laptops that were subject to congressional subpoena, that flipped the switch.” Critics of the FBI and the broader handling of the case by the Justice Department remain skeptical over investigators’ ostensible belief in Clinton’s claim that she “lost” 13 Blackberry devices and did not understand that documents marked “C” meant confidential. Decisions to grant Clinton aide Cheryl Mills attorney-client privilege in a case involving her, to destroy her laptop and with it any evidence desired by Congress, and to limit the investigation’s search to documents from before January 31, 2015 to obstruct any possible obstruction of justice case against Mills also similarly baffled. Direct evidence of Clinton hiding public business on a private server (and thereby making it easier for enemy governments to see what the American government could not) and “bleaching” her hard drive after the story became public presented the FBI clear evidence of wrongdoing. But authorities sought to protect rather than prosecute the malefactors. “The director’s public explanation for the unorthodox investigation are viewed by people in the bureau as sophomoric and embarrassing,” diGenova notes. “The people in the bureau anticipate that there will be subpoenas for their testimony. Comey in a telephone conference with special agents in charge around the country, within the last few days, warned that if they received a phone inquiry about the investigation, or any inquiry about the investigation, they were ordered to report the call and the caller to the director’s office.” DiGenova describes such control tactics as something out of J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI. Yet, it’s Hoover’s successor, L. Patrick Gray, who offers the clearest parallel to Comey. As diGenova puts it, “There is a Deep Throat.” Agents involved in the case now fear congressional subpoenas thanks to Comey’s head-scratching handling of the case. DiGenova met this week with figures requesting attorneys for FBI officials. The former independent counsel and U.S. attorney affirms his willingness to serve in that capacity and to represent potential whistleblowers. “These people are trained to be loyal, honest, and forthright,” diGenova points out. “What [Comey] did was force them to corrupt their oath of office. They have had enough.”

www.spectator.org

right

lEKn1AVTVu8wGvVL

test

PQRZamBn7jGMYyVS

justice_department

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-doj-clears-president-violating-campaign-finance-law/story?id=65849857

Trump's DOJ clears president of violating campaign finance law in Ukraine-Biden call

Alexander Mallin

Trump 's DOJ clears president of violating campaign finance law in Ukraine-Biden call The Department of Justice determined the call did n't run afoul of the law . The Department of Justice revealed Wednesday that the whistleblower complaint related to President Trump 's controversial phone call with the Ukrainian president sparked a referral to the DOJ 's criminal division about whether Trump potentially violated campaign finance law . However , the criminal division , after reviewing the matter , determined there was no campaign finance violation and `` has concluded the matter , '' a DOJ spokesperson Kerri Kupec said Wednesday . The news comes as Trump faces an impeachment inquiry in the House and a growing number of House Democrats who support such an investigation . A Justice Department official told reporters that the DOJ spoke to `` knowledgeable people in the White House '' but their determination that there was no criminal violation was primarily based off a memorandum of the call , released by the White House . Questions regarding the Trump Administration 's hold-up of military aid was not a factor in their investigation at all , the official explained , saying they see that as more of a foreign policy issue . Further explaining the DOJ 's handling of the referral , the official said the criminal division concluded that the information they had gathered did not amount to a criminal violation of campaign finance law because nothing `` of value '' was clearly promised or exchange as a result of the call . The official said there was no disagreement among the prosecutors in the criminal division , even among career prosecutors , that the call did not amount to a potential campaign finance violation . The Assistant AG for the Criminal Division made the `` final call '' to conclude the matter , and said Attorney General William Barr was `` not involved in the analysis by the criminal division . '' There was no consideration for the AG to formally recuse himself from the matter , the official said , and no consideration of the appointment of a special counsel . And the DOJ 's Office of Legal Counsel ( OLC ) opinion that a sitting president could not be indicted did not play a role in the DOJ 's review , the officials said . U.S. Attorney General William Barr participates in a ceremony in the East Room of the White House , Sept. 9 , 2019 . Erin Scott/Reuters According to an opinion drafted by the OLC in this case , the DNI Inspector General Michael Atkinson [ ICIG ] believed the whistleblower constituted a potential `` urgent concern '' related to whether the president was illegally soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 election . `` According to the ICIG , statements made by the President during the call could be viewed as soliciting a foreign campaign contribution in violation of the campaign-finance laws , '' the OLC opinion said . `` In the ICIG ’ s view , the complaint addresses an “ urgent concern ” for purposes of triggering statutory procedures that require expedited reporting of agency misconduct to the congressional intelligence committees . '' In the memorandum of the call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy , Trump repeatedly invoked Barr , saying he would have him , along with his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani , get in touch with Zelenskiy to investigate how Ukraine may have been involved in the origins of the Russia investigation before turning to press him on investigating former Vice President Joe Biden 's son , Hunter . In 2014 , the former vice president pushed for the dismissal of a top Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating an oil company that had taken on Biden 's son as a board member . Joe Biden has denied wrongdoing and other international leaders have suggested that his move was appropriate . `` There 's a lot of talk about Biden 's son , that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that , '' Trump said , according to the memorandum of the call , which is not verbatim . `` So whatever you can do with the attorney general that could be great . '' The Ukrainian president responded by assuring Trump that a new prosecutor would `` look into the situation . '' `` He or she will look into the situation , specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue , '' he said , according to the memo . `` I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it , '' Trump promised , according to the memo . In the same breath , Trump assures Zelenskiy `` your economy is going to get better and better I predict , '' the memo says . In a statement , the DOJ spokesperson , Kupec said that the president never followed through in contacting Barr about the matter . `` The President has not spoken with the Attorney General about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son , '' Kupec said . `` The President has not asked the Attorney General to contact Ukraine – on this or any other matter . The Attorney General has not communicated with Ukraine – on this or any other subject . Nor has the Attorney General discussed this matter , or anything relating to Ukraine , with Rudy Giuliani . '' DOJ officials also said that AG Barr has never been instructed by the president or anyone in the White House to investigate Biden . The OLC opinion released by DOJ noted the complainant heard from `` unnamed White House officials '' about the call between Trump and Zelenskiy rather than having first-hand information . It said that after the DNI inspector general reviewed the complaint he `` found 'some indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of the Complainant in favor of a rival political candidate , '' but `` concluded that the complaint 's allegations nonetheless appeared credible . '' The OLC notes it did not evaluate whether the call was concerning , but reasoned it did not require reporting to Congress because Trump is not a member of the intelligence community and the complaint involved potentially privileged communications .

Trump's DOJ clears president of violating campaign finance law in Ukraine-Biden call The Department of Justice determined the call didn't run afoul of the law. The Department of Justice revealed Wednesday that the whistleblower complaint related to President Trump's controversial phone call with the Ukrainian president sparked a referral to the DOJ's criminal division about whether Trump potentially violated campaign finance law. However, the criminal division, after reviewing the matter, determined there was no campaign finance violation and "has concluded the matter," a DOJ spokesperson Kerri Kupec said Wednesday. The news comes as Trump faces an impeachment inquiry in the House and a growing number of House Democrats who support such an investigation. A Justice Department official told reporters that the DOJ spoke to "knowledgeable people in the White House" but their determination that there was no criminal violation was primarily based off a memorandum of the call, released by the White House. Questions regarding the Trump Administration's hold-up of military aid was not a factor in their investigation at all, the official explained, saying they see that as more of a foreign policy issue. Further explaining the DOJ's handling of the referral, the official said the criminal division concluded that the information they had gathered did not amount to a criminal violation of campaign finance law because nothing "of value" was clearly promised or exchange as a result of the call. The official said there was no disagreement among the prosecutors in the criminal division, even among career prosecutors, that the call did not amount to a potential campaign finance violation. The Assistant AG for the Criminal Division made the "final call" to conclude the matter, and said Attorney General William Barr was "not involved in the analysis by the criminal division." There was no consideration for the AG to formally recuse himself from the matter, the official said, and no consideration of the appointment of a special counsel. And the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president could not be indicted did not play a role in the DOJ's review, the officials said. U.S. Attorney General William Barr participates in a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, Sept. 9, 2019. Erin Scott/Reuters According to an opinion drafted by the OLC in this case, the DNI Inspector General Michael Atkinson [ICIG] believed the whistleblower constituted a potential "urgent concern" related to whether the president was illegally soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 election. "According to the ICIG, statements made by the President during the call could be viewed as soliciting a foreign campaign contribution in violation of the campaign-finance laws," the OLC opinion said. "In the ICIG’s view, the complaint addresses an “urgent concern” for purposes of triggering statutory procedures that require expedited reporting of agency misconduct to the congressional intelligence committees." In the memorandum of the call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Trump repeatedly invoked Barr, saying he would have him, along with his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, get in touch with Zelenskiy to investigate how Ukraine may have been involved in the origins of the Russia investigation before turning to press him on investigating former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter. In 2014, the former vice president pushed for the dismissal of a top Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating an oil company that had taken on Biden's son as a board member. Joe Biden has denied wrongdoing and other international leaders have suggested that his move was appropriate. "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that," Trump said, according to the memorandum of the call, which is not verbatim. "So whatever you can do with the attorney general that could be great." Rudy Giuliani speaks at an event outside the United Nations Headquarters in New York on Sept. 24, 2019. Angela Weiss/AFP/Getty Images The Ukrainian president responded by assuring Trump that a new prosecutor would "look into the situation." "He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue," he said, according to the memo. "I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it," Trump promised, according to the memo. In the same breath, Trump assures Zelenskiy "your economy is going to get better and better I predict," the memo says. Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden exits after making remarks about the DNI Whistleblower Report as well as President Trumps ongoing abuse of power at the Hotel DuPont on Sept. 24, 2019 in Wilmington, Del. William Thomas Cain/Getty Images In a statement, the DOJ spokesperson, Kupec said that the president never followed through in contacting Barr about the matter. "The President has not spoken with the Attorney General about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son," Kupec said. "The President has not asked the Attorney General to contact Ukraine – on this or any other matter. The Attorney General has not communicated with Ukraine – on this or any other subject. Nor has the Attorney General discussed this matter, or anything relating to Ukraine, with Rudy Giuliani." DOJ officials also said that AG Barr has never been instructed by the president or anyone in the White House to investigate Biden. The OLC opinion released by DOJ noted the complainant heard from "unnamed White House officials" about the call between Trump and Zelenskiy rather than having first-hand information. It said that after the DNI inspector general reviewed the complaint he "found 'some indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of the Complainant in favor of a rival political candidate," but "concluded that the complaint's allegations nonetheless appeared credible." The OLC notes it did not evaluate whether the call was concerning, but reasoned it did not require reporting to Congress because Trump is not a member of the intelligence community and the complaint involved potentially privileged communications.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

PQRZamBn7jGMYyVS

test

dWGEvx7WzmvzIrbw

palestine

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51292865

Trump Middle East plan: Palestinians reject 'conspiracy'

Palestinians have dismissed US President Donald Trump 's new Middle East peace plan as a `` conspiracy '' . The plan envisages a Palestinian state and the recognition of Israeli sovereignty over West Bank settlements . Mr Trump said Jerusalem would remain Israel 's `` undivided '' capital , but the Palestinian capital would `` include areas of East Jerusalem '' . Reacting to Tuesday 's announcement , Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Jerusalem was `` not for sale '' . `` All our rights are not for sale and are not for bargain , '' he added . Thousands of Palestinian protesters held a `` day of rage '' in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday , while the Israeli military deployed reinforcements in the occupied West Bank . The blueprint , which aims to solve one of the world 's longest-running conflicts , was drafted under the stewardship of President Trump 's son-in-law Jared Kushner . Standing alongside Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Tuesday , Mr Trump said his proposals `` could be the last opportunity '' for Palestinians . Reports said Mr Netanyahu was planning to press ahead with annexing 30 % of the occupied West Bank , with a cabinet vote due on Sunday . Israel has settled about 400,000 Jews in West Bank settlements , with another 200,000 living in East Jerusalem . The settlements are considered illegal under international law , although Israel disputes this . Speaking on Tuesday , he said it was `` impossible for any Palestinian , Arab , Muslim or Christian child to accept '' a Palestinian state without Jerusalem as its capital . `` We say a thousand times , no , no , no , '' he said . `` We rejected this deal from the start and our stance was correct . '' The militant Palestinian Islamist group Hamas , which controls the Gaza Strip , also rejected the deal which it said aimed `` to liquidate the Palestinian national project '' . The UN said it remained committed to a two-state solution based on the boundaries in place before the 1967 war , when Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza . The Israeli prime minister described Mr Trump 's plan as the `` deal of the century '' . `` May God bless us all with security , prosperity and peace ! '' he added . A spokesman for UN Secretary General António Guterres called for a peace deal on the basis of UN resolutions , international law and bilateral agreements . The Arab League said it would hold an urgent meeting on Saturday . British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab urged the Palestinians to give the plans `` genuine and fair consideration and explore whether they might prove a first step on the road back to negotiations '' . The US will recognise Israeli sovereignty over swathes of the West Bank , including Jewish settlements and much of the Jordan river valley The move will `` more than double the Palestinian territory and provide a Palestinian capital in eastern Jerusalem '' , where Mr Trump says the US will open an embassy . The Palestine Liberation Organisation ( PLO ) said the plan would give Palestinians control over 15 % of what it called `` historic Palestine '' Jerusalem `` will remain Israel 's undivided capital '' . The Palestinians insist East Jerusalem be the capital of their future state `` No Palestinians or Israelis will be uprooted from their homes '' - suggesting that existing Jewish settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank will remain Israel will work with Jordan to ensure the status quo governing the key holy site in Jerusalem known to Jews as the Temple Mount and al-Haram al-Sharif to Muslims is preserved . Jordan runs the religious trust that administers the site Territory allocated to Palestinians in Mr Trump 's map `` will remain open and undeveloped for a period of four years '' . During that time , Palestinians can study the deal , negotiate with Israel , and `` achieve the criteria for statehood '' Mr Trump also indicated that the West Bank would not be cut in half under the plan . `` We will also work to create a contiguous territory within the future Palestinian state , for when the conditions for statehood are met , including the firm rejection of terrorism , '' he said . Until now all of the most difficult aspects of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal - the so-called final status issues - like borders ; the future of Israeli settlements in the West Bank ; the long-term status of Jerusalem ; and the fate of Palestinian refugees , were to be left for face-to-face talks between the Israelis and Palestinians themselves . Not any longer . The deal proposed by President Trump and enthusiastically endorsed by Prime Minister Netanyahu essentially frames all of these issues in Israel 's favour . The Palestinians were not just absent from this meeting - they have boycotted the Trump administration ever since it unilaterally moved its embassy to Jerusalem . But they have essentially been presented with an ultimatum - accept the Trump parameters or else , and they have been given some four years to come around . While President Trump is offering the Palestinians a state it would be a much truncated one . No Jewish settlers will be uprooted and Israeli sovereignty will apparently be extended to the settlement blocs and the Jordan Valley . The Palestinians might have a capital in the East Jerusalem suburbs . This `` take it or leave it offer '' will appal many long-standing students of the region . The question now is not so much what benefit this deal might bring but how much damage it may do by over-turning Palestinian aspirations . The Palestinians broke off contacts with the Trump administration in December 2017 , after Mr Trump recognised Jerusalem as Israel 's capital and move the US embassy to the city from Tel Aviv . Since then , the US has ended both bilateral aid for Palestinians and contributions for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees ( UNRWA ) . In November , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the US had abandoned its four-decades-old position that Jewish settlements in the West Bank were inconsistent with international law . Of all the conflicts in the Middle East , that between Israel and the Palestinians has been the most intractable . Although the two sides signed a peace accord in 1993 , more than a quarter of a century on they are arguably as far apart as ever . Jerusalem : Both Israel and the Palestinians hold competing claims to the city . Israel , which occupied the formerly Jordanian-held eastern part in 1967 , regards the whole of Jerusalem as its capital . The Palestinians insist on East Jerusalem - home to about 350,000 of their community - as their future capital Palestinian statehood : The Palestinians want an independent state of their own , comprising the West Bank , Gaza and East Jerusalem . Israeli prime ministers have publicly accepted the notion of a Palestinian state alongside Israel - but not what form it should take . Benjamin Netanyahu has said any Palestinian state should be demilitarised with the powers to govern itself but not to threaten Israel . Recognition : Israel insists that any peace deal must include Palestinian recognition of it as the `` nation-state of the Jewish people '' , arguing that without this Palestinians will continue to press their own national claims to the land , causing the conflict to endure . The Palestinians say what Israel calls itself is its own business , but to recognise it as the Jewish state will discriminate against Israel 's Arab population of Palestinian origin , who are Muslims , Christians and Druze . Borders : Both sides have fundamentally different ideas as to where the boundaries of a potential Palestinian state should be . The Palestinians insist on borders based on ceasefire lines which separated Israel and East Jerusalem , the West Bank and Gaza between 1949 and 1967 . Israel says those lines are militarily indefensible and were never intended to be permanent . It has not said where borders should be , other than making clear its own eastern border should be along the Jordan River . Settlements : Since 1967 , Israel has built about 140 settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem , as well as 121 outposts - settlements built without the government 's authorisation . Settlements are considered illegal by most of the international community , though Israel disputes this . Palestinians say all settlements must be removed for a Palestinian state to be viable . Mr Netanyahu has vowed not only to never to uproot any settlements but to bring them under Israeli sovereignty . Refugees : The UN says its agencies support about 5.5 million Palestinian refugees in the Middle East ( the Palestinian Authority says there are up to 6 million ) , including the descendants of people who fled or were expelled by Jewish forces from what became Israel in the 1948-49 war . Palestinians insist on their right to return to their former homes , but Israel says they are not entitled to , noting that such a move would overwhelm it demographically and lead to its end as a Jewish state .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas says the "conspiracy deal won't pass" Palestinians have dismissed US President Donald Trump's new Middle East peace plan as a "conspiracy". The plan envisages a Palestinian state and the recognition of Israeli sovereignty over West Bank settlements. Mr Trump said Jerusalem would remain Israel's "undivided" capital, but the Palestinian capital would "include areas of East Jerusalem". Reacting to Tuesday's announcement, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Jerusalem was "not for sale". "All our rights are not for sale and are not for bargain," he added. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Why the ancient city of Jerusalem is so important Thousands of Palestinian protesters held a "day of rage" in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday, while the Israeli military deployed reinforcements in the occupied West Bank. The blueprint, which aims to solve one of the world's longest-running conflicts, was drafted under the stewardship of President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner. Standing alongside Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Tuesday, Mr Trump said his proposals "could be the last opportunity" for Palestinians. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption President Trump: "No Palestinians or Israelis will be uprooted from their homes" Reports said Mr Netanyahu was planning to press ahead with annexing 30% of the occupied West Bank, with a cabinet vote due on Sunday. Israel has settled about 400,000 Jews in West Bank settlements, with another 200,000 living in East Jerusalem. The settlements are considered illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this. What did Mr Abbas say? Speaking on Tuesday, he said it was "impossible for any Palestinian, Arab, Muslim or Christian child to accept" a Palestinian state without Jerusalem as its capital. "We say a thousand times, no, no, no," he said. "We rejected this deal from the start and our stance was correct." The militant Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, also rejected the deal which it said aimed "to liquidate the Palestinian national project". The UN said it remained committed to a two-state solution based on the boundaries in place before the 1967 war, when Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza. And Mr Netanyahu? The Israeli prime minister described Mr Trump's plan as the "deal of the century". Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Netanyahu: Trump's peace plan is "the deal of the century" Israel "will not miss this opportunity", Mr Netanyahu said. "May God bless us all with security, prosperity and peace!" he added. How about international reactions? A spokesman for UN Secretary General António Guterres called for a peace deal on the basis of UN resolutions, international law and bilateral agreements. Image copyright AFP Image caption Palestinian protesters carried pictures of Mahmoud Abbas through the streets of Ramallah on Tuesday The Arab League said it would hold an urgent meeting on Saturday. British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab urged the Palestinians to give the plans "genuine and fair consideration and explore whether they might prove a first step on the road back to negotiations". What are Trump's key proposals? The US will recognise Israeli sovereignty over swathes of the West Bank, including Jewish settlements and much of the Jordan river valley The move will "more than double the Palestinian territory and provide a Palestinian capital in eastern Jerusalem", where Mr Trump says the US will open an embassy. The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) said the plan would give Palestinians control over 15% of what it called "historic Palestine" Jerusalem "will remain Israel's undivided capital". The Palestinians insist East Jerusalem be the capital of their future state "No Palestinians or Israelis will be uprooted from their homes" - suggesting that existing Jewish settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank will remain Israel will work with Jordan to ensure the status quo governing the key holy site in Jerusalem known to Jews as the Temple Mount and al-Haram al-Sharif to Muslims is preserved. Jordan runs the religious trust that administers the site Territory allocated to Palestinians in Mr Trump's map "will remain open and undeveloped for a period of four years". During that time, Palestinians can study the deal, negotiate with Israel, and "achieve the criteria for statehood" Mr Trump also indicated that the West Bank would not be cut in half under the plan. "We will also work to create a contiguous territory within the future Palestinian state, for when the conditions for statehood are met, including the firm rejection of terrorism," he said. A plan that overturns Palestinian aspirations Until now all of the most difficult aspects of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal - the so-called final status issues - like borders; the future of Israeli settlements in the West Bank; the long-term status of Jerusalem; and the fate of Palestinian refugees, were to be left for face-to-face talks between the Israelis and Palestinians themselves. Not any longer. The deal proposed by President Trump and enthusiastically endorsed by Prime Minister Netanyahu essentially frames all of these issues in Israel's favour. The Palestinians were not just absent from this meeting - they have boycotted the Trump administration ever since it unilaterally moved its embassy to Jerusalem. But they have essentially been presented with an ultimatum - accept the Trump parameters or else, and they have been given some four years to come around. While President Trump is offering the Palestinians a state it would be a much truncated one. No Jewish settlers will be uprooted and Israeli sovereignty will apparently be extended to the settlement blocs and the Jordan Valley. The Palestinians might have a capital in the East Jerusalem suburbs. This "take it or leave it offer" will appal many long-standing students of the region. The question now is not so much what benefit this deal might bring but how much damage it may do by over-turning Palestinian aspirations. What's the background? Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Is Palestinian-Israel peace plan out of reach? The Palestinians broke off contacts with the Trump administration in December 2017, after Mr Trump recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move the US embassy to the city from Tel Aviv. Since then, the US has ended both bilateral aid for Palestinians and contributions for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). In November, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the US had abandoned its four-decades-old position that Jewish settlements in the West Bank were inconsistent with international law. What are the issues at stake? Of all the conflicts in the Middle East, that between Israel and the Palestinians has been the most intractable. Although the two sides signed a peace accord in 1993, more than a quarter of a century on they are arguably as far apart as ever. Jerusalem: Both Israel and the Palestinians hold competing claims to the city. Israel, which occupied the formerly Jordanian-held eastern part in 1967, regards the whole of Jerusalem as its capital. The Palestinians insist on East Jerusalem - home to about 350,000 of their community - as their future capital Palestinian statehood: The Palestinians want an independent state of their own, comprising the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Israeli prime ministers have publicly accepted the notion of a Palestinian state alongside Israel - but not what form it should take. Benjamin Netanyahu has said any Palestinian state should be demilitarised with the powers to govern itself but not to threaten Israel. Recognition: Israel insists that any peace deal must include Palestinian recognition of it as the "nation-state of the Jewish people", arguing that without this Palestinians will continue to press their own national claims to the land, causing the conflict to endure. The Palestinians say what Israel calls itself is its own business, but to recognise it as the Jewish state will discriminate against Israel's Arab population of Palestinian origin, who are Muslims, Christians and Druze. Borders: Both sides have fundamentally different ideas as to where the boundaries of a potential Palestinian state should be. The Palestinians insist on borders based on ceasefire lines which separated Israel and East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza between 1949 and 1967. Israel says those lines are militarily indefensible and were never intended to be permanent. It has not said where borders should be, other than making clear its own eastern border should be along the Jordan River. Settlements: Since 1967, Israel has built about 140 settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as 121 outposts - settlements built without the government's authorisation. Settlements are considered illegal by most of the international community, though Israel disputes this. Palestinians say all settlements must be removed for a Palestinian state to be viable. Mr Netanyahu has vowed not only to never to uproot any settlements but to bring them under Israeli sovereignty. Refugees: The UN says its agencies support about 5.5 million Palestinian refugees in the Middle East (the Palestinian Authority says there are up to 6 million), including the descendants of people who fled or were expelled by Jewish forces from what became Israel in the 1948-49 war. Palestinians insist on their right to return to their former homes, but Israel says they are not entitled to, noting that such a move would overwhelm it demographically and lead to its end as a Jewish state.

www.bbc.com

center

dWGEvx7WzmvzIrbw

test

iZMWqqPVKECNZcNn

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-poll/republican-support-for-trump-rises-after-racially-charged-tweets-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1UB2UD

Republican support for Trump rises after racially charged tweets: Reuters/Ipsos poll

2019-07-17

Chris Kahn

NEW YORK ( ███ ) - Support for U.S. President Donald Trump increased slightly among Republicans after he lashed out on Twitter over the weekend in a racially charged attack on four minority Democratic congresswomen , a ███/Ipsos public opinion poll shows . The national survey , conducted on Monday and Tuesday after Trump told the lawmakers they should “ go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came , ” showed his net approval among members of his Republican Party rose by 5 percentage points to 72 % , compared with a similar poll that ran last week . Trump , who is seeking re-election next year , has lost support , however , with Democrats and independents since the Sunday tweetstorm . Among independents , about three out of 10 said they approved of Trump , down from four out of 10 a week ago . His net approval - the percentage who approve minus the percentage who disapprove - dropped by 2 points among Democrats in the poll . Trump ’ s overall approval remained unchanged over the past week . According to the poll , 41 % of the U.S. public said they approved of his performance in office , while 55 % disapproved . The results showed strong Republican backing for Trump as the Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives passed a symbolic resolution on Tuesday , largely along party lines , to condemn him for “ racist comments ” against the four Democratic lawmakers . All four U.S. representatives - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York , Ilhan Omar of Minnesota , Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan - are U.S. citizens . Three were born in the United States . The public response to Trump ’ s statements appeared to be a little better for him than in 2017 , after the president said there were “ very fine people ” on both sides of a deadly white nationalist rally in Charlottesville , Virginia . In that instance , Trump ’ s net approval dropped by about 10 points a week after the Charlottesville rally . This time , while Democrats and some independents may see clear signs of racial intolerance woven throughout Trump ’ s tweets , Republicans are hearing a different message , said Vincent Hutchings , a political science and African-American studies professor at the University of Michigan . “ To Republicans , Trump is simply saying : ‘ Hey , if you don ’ t like America , you can leave , ” Hutchings said . “ That is not at all controversial . If you already support Trump , then it ’ s very easy to interpret his comments that way . ” By criticizing liberal members of the House , Trump is “ doing exactly what Republicans want him to do , ” Hutchings said . “ He ’ s taking on groups that they oppose . ” The ███/Ipsos poll was conducted online in English and gathered responses from 1,113 adults , including 478 Democrats and 406 Republicans in the United States . It has a credibility interval , a measure of precision , of 3 percentage points for the entire group and 5 points for Democrats or Republicans .

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Support for U.S. President Donald Trump increased slightly among Republicans after he lashed out on Twitter over the weekend in a racially charged attack on four minority Democratic congresswomen, a Reuters/Ipsos public opinion poll shows. The national survey, conducted on Monday and Tuesday after Trump told the lawmakers they should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,” showed his net approval among members of his Republican Party rose by 5 percentage points to 72%, compared with a similar poll that ran last week. Trump, who is seeking re-election next year, has lost support, however, with Democrats and independents since the Sunday tweetstorm. Among independents, about three out of 10 said they approved of Trump, down from four out of 10 a week ago. His net approval - the percentage who approve minus the percentage who disapprove - dropped by 2 points among Democrats in the poll. Trump’s overall approval remained unchanged over the past week. According to the poll, 41% of the U.S. public said they approved of his performance in office, while 55% disapproved. The results showed strong Republican backing for Trump as the Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives passed a symbolic resolution on Tuesday, largely along party lines, to condemn him for “racist comments” against the four Democratic lawmakers. All four U.S. representatives - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan - are U.S. citizens. Three were born in the United States. The public response to Trump’s statements appeared to be a little better for him than in 2017, after the president said there were “very fine people” on both sides of a deadly white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. In that instance, Trump’s net approval dropped by about 10 points a week after the Charlottesville rally. This time, while Democrats and some independents may see clear signs of racial intolerance woven throughout Trump’s tweets, Republicans are hearing a different message, said Vincent Hutchings, a political science and African-American studies professor at the University of Michigan. FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, U.S., July 16, 2019. REUTERS/Leah Millis/File Photo “To Republicans, Trump is simply saying: ‘Hey, if you don’t like America, you can leave,” Hutchings said. “That is not at all controversial. If you already support Trump, then it’s very easy to interpret his comments that way.” By criticizing liberal members of the House, Trump is “doing exactly what Republicans want him to do,” Hutchings said. “He’s taking on groups that they oppose.” The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online in English and gathered responses from 1,113 adults, including 478 Democrats and 406 Republicans in the United States. It has a credibility interval, a measure of precision, of 3 percentage points for the entire group and 5 points for Democrats or Republicans.

www.reuters.com

center

iZMWqqPVKECNZcNn

test

6H7cOi0g7NqViGqc

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/af5f2437b470984c26d8acb6b66ac807

NASCAR rallies around Wallace as FBI investigates noose

2020-06-22

Jenna Fryer

Driver Bubba Wallace , right , is overcome with emotion as he and team owner Richard Petty walk to his car in the pits of the Talladega Superspeedway prior to the start of the NASCAR Cup Series auto race at the Talladega Superspeedway in Talladega Ala. , Monday June 22 , 2020 . In an extraordinary act of solidarity with NASCAR ’ s only Black driver , dozens of drivers pushed the car belonging to Bubba Wallace to the front of the field before Monday ’ s race as FBI agents nearby tried to find out who left a noose in his garage stall over the weekend . ( AP Photo/John Bazemore ) Driver Bubba Wallace , right , is overcome with emotion as he and team owner Richard Petty walk to his car in the pits of the Talladega Superspeedway prior to the start of the NASCAR Cup Series auto race at the Talladega Superspeedway in Talladega Ala. , Monday June 22 , 2020 . In an extraordinary act of solidarity with NASCAR ’ s only Black driver , dozens of drivers pushed the car belonging to Bubba Wallace to the front of the field before Monday ’ s race as FBI agents nearby tried to find out who left a noose in his garage stall over the weekend . ( AP Photo/John Bazemore ) Bubba Wallace steered the No . 43 to the front of pit road , NASCAR champion Kyle Busch pushing the famous car on one side and close friend Ryan Blaney pushing on the other . The entire 40-driver field and their crew members followed . After the car came to a stop , Wallace climbed out , sat on the window ledge and sobbed . Richard Petty , his Hall of Fame team owner , gently placed a hand on Wallace ’ s shoulder . As federal authorities descended on Talladega Superspeedway on Monday to investigate the discovery of a noose in Wallace ’ s garage stall , the entire industry rallied around the Cup Series ’ only Black driver . “ The news has disturbed us all and of course we want justice and know who and why , ” said seven-time NASCAR champion Jimmie Johnson . “ And we want to stand with our friend . ” The 82-year-old Petty , at his first race since the coronavirus pandemic began and at Talladega on race day for the first time in more than 10 years , stood side by side with Wallace during the national anthem before Monday ’ s rain-postponed event . Everyone stood behind the car while Brad Keselowski held the American flag at the front of the display of solidarity . The idea to stand with Wallace started with Johnson , while former series champion Kevin Harvick suggested they all push the car to the front of the grid , Wallace said . One by one , after the anthem , they hugged Wallace . He then had a long embrace with Petty . If not for a shortage of fuel , Wallace might have had a chance to race for the win . A late stop for gas led to a 14th-place finish but felt like a win for Wallace . He went to the fence and slapped hands through the wiring with a group of fans , many wearing “ I Can ’ t Breathe ” shirts as they cheered . He apologized for not wearing a mandatory mask but didn ’ t put it on because “ I wanted to show whoever it was , you are not going to take away my smile . ” “ This sport is changing , ” he said . “ The pre-race deal was probably one of the hardest things I ’ ve ever had to witness in my life . From all the supporters , from drivers to crew members , everybody here , the bad-ass fan base , thank you guys for coming out . This is truly incredible and I ’ m glad to be a part of this sport . ” It was Wallace who successfully pushed the stock car series to ban the Confederate flag at its venues less than two weeks ago and he was the target when the noose was found hanging in the Richard Petty Motorsports garage stall Sunday afternoon at the Alabama track . A member of Wallace ’ s crew reported it to NASCAR , and by Monday morning U.S. Attorney Jay Town said his office , the FBI and the Justice Department ’ s Civil Rights Division were involved . “ Regardless of whether federal charges can be brought , this type of action has no place in our society , ” Town said . NASCAR President Steve Phelps said security has been stepped up for Wallace — his team was also granted unusual access to its car Monday morning to ensure it had not been tampered with overnight — and the FBI was “ currently on site ” at the track . He said the FBI director had told agents in Birmingham to “ use all their resources ” to find the perpetrator . “ Unequivocally they will be banned from this sport for life , ” Phelps said . “ There is no room for this at all . We won ’ t tolerate it . They won ’ t be here . I don ’ t care who they are , they will not be here . ” NASCAR has tried to distance itself from the Confederate flag for years at the risk of alienating a core group of its fan base . At Wallace ’ s urging , it went ahead with the ban as the nation grapples with social unrest largely tied to George Floyd , an unarmed Black man who died in the custody of Minneapolis police . NASCAR has not outlined how it will enforce the restriction and this week ’ s race at Talladega , in the heart of the South , presented the series with its biggest test in the early going . Disgruntled fans with Confederate flags drove past the main entrance to the track all weekend and a plane flew above the track Sunday pulling a banner of the flag that read “ Defund NASCAR . ” Alabama Gov . Kay Ivey said she was “ shocked and appalled ” by the “ vile act ” against Wallace . “ There is no place for this disgusting display of hatred in our state , ” Ivey said . “ Bubba Wallace is one of us ; he is a native of Mobile and on behalf of all Alabamians , I apologize to Bubba Wallace as well as to his family and friends for the hurt this has caused and regret the mark this leaves on our state . ” Petty said in a statement he was “ enraged ” by the “ filthy act ” of racism . Retired champion Jeff Gordon called it a “ cowardly ” act while retired champion and current team owner Tony Stewart seethed in a social media post : “ Angry . Outraged . Disappointed . Those words don ’ t fully describe how I feel . # IStandWithBubba and I ’ ll damn sure stand up to anyone who engages in this kind of behavior . ” Phelps said he was the one who told Wallace about the noose . “ It was a difficult moment for Bubba , a difficult moment for me , ” he said . “ He ’ s handled it with the grace that he has handled everything that ’ s happened over the last few weeks . ” The 26-year-old Wallace said after the noose was discovered : “ T his will not break me , I will not give in nor will I back down . I will continue to proudly stand for what I believe in . ” Wallace has previously worn a shirt that says “ I Can ’ t Breathe ” over his firesuit and sported a Black Lives Matter paint scheme in a race last month in Martinsville , Virginia . Talladega is one of the more raucous stops on the NASCAR schedule , but the pandemic prompted the series , like all sports , to ban or sharply limit fans . Up to 5,000 fans were allowed in , but there were far fewer than that Monday and none of them had access to the the infield or the Cup Series garage . Under strict new health guidelines , a very limited number of people can access the garage . That would include crew members for each of the 40 teams , NASCAR employees , Talladega staff members and any contracted safety crews or security guards . Phelps declined to discuss whether cameras in the garage area might have captured anything of value but noted NASCAR has an approved list of who is allowed access that has been turned over to authorities . “ It will be part of what the FBI is looking at , ” he said

Driver Bubba Wallace, right, is overcome with emotion as he and team owner Richard Petty walk to his car in the pits of the Talladega Superspeedway prior to the start of the NASCAR Cup Series auto race at the Talladega Superspeedway in Talladega Ala., Monday June 22, 2020. In an extraordinary act of solidarity with NASCAR’s only Black driver, dozens of drivers pushed the car belonging to Bubba Wallace to the front of the field before Monday’s race as FBI agents nearby tried to find out who left a noose in his garage stall over the weekend. (AP Photo/John Bazemore) Driver Bubba Wallace, right, is overcome with emotion as he and team owner Richard Petty walk to his car in the pits of the Talladega Superspeedway prior to the start of the NASCAR Cup Series auto race at the Talladega Superspeedway in Talladega Ala., Monday June 22, 2020. In an extraordinary act of solidarity with NASCAR’s only Black driver, dozens of drivers pushed the car belonging to Bubba Wallace to the front of the field before Monday’s race as FBI agents nearby tried to find out who left a noose in his garage stall over the weekend. (AP Photo/John Bazemore) Bubba Wallace steered the No. 43 to the front of pit road, NASCAR champion Kyle Busch pushing the famous car on one side and close friend Ryan Blaney pushing on the other. The entire 40-driver field and their crew members followed . After the car came to a stop, Wallace climbed out, sat on the window ledge and sobbed. Richard Petty, his Hall of Fame team owner, gently placed a hand on Wallace’s shoulder. As federal authorities descended on Talladega Superspeedway on Monday to investigate the discovery of a noose in Wallace’s garage stall, the entire industry rallied around the Cup Series’ only Black driver . ADVERTISEMENT “The news has disturbed us all and of course we want justice and know who and why,” said seven-time NASCAR champion Jimmie Johnson. “And we want to stand with our friend.” The 82-year-old Petty, at his first race since the coronavirus pandemic began and at Talladega on race day for the first time in more than 10 years, stood side by side with Wallace during the national anthem before Monday’s rain-postponed event. Everyone stood behind the car while Brad Keselowski held the American flag at the front of the display of solidarity. The idea to stand with Wallace started with Johnson, while former series champion Kevin Harvick suggested they all push the car to the front of the grid, Wallace said. One by one, after the anthem, they hugged Wallace. He then had a long embrace with Petty. And then he went racing. If not for a shortage of fuel, Wallace might have had a chance to race for the win. A late stop for gas led to a 14th-place finish but felt like a win for Wallace. He went to the fence and slapped hands through the wiring with a group of fans, many wearing “I Can’t Breathe” shirts as they cheered. He apologized for not wearing a mandatory mask but didn’t put it on because “I wanted to show whoever it was, you are not going to take away my smile.” “This sport is changing,” he said. “The pre-race deal was probably one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to witness in my life. From all the supporters, from drivers to crew members, everybody here, the bad-ass fan base, thank you guys for coming out. This is truly incredible and I’m glad to be a part of this sport.” It was Wallace who successfully pushed the stock car series to ban the Confederate flag at its venues less than two weeks ago and he was the target when the noose was found hanging in the Richard Petty Motorsports garage stall Sunday afternoon at the Alabama track. A member of Wallace’s crew reported it to NASCAR, and by Monday morning U.S. Attorney Jay Town said his office, the FBI and the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division were involved. “Regardless of whether federal charges can be brought, this type of action has no place in our society,” Town said. NASCAR President Steve Phelps said security has been stepped up for Wallace — his team was also granted unusual access to its car Monday morning to ensure it had not been tampered with overnight — and the FBI was “currently on site” at the track. He said the FBI director had told agents in Birmingham to “use all their resources” to find the perpetrator. “Unequivocally they will be banned from this sport for life,” Phelps said. “There is no room for this at all. We won’t tolerate it. They won’t be here. I don’t care who they are, they will not be here.” ADVERTISEMENT NASCAR has tried to distance itself from the Confederate flag for years at the risk of alienating a core group of its fan base. At Wallace’s urging, it went ahead with the ban as the nation grapples with social unrest largely tied to George Floyd, an unarmed Black man who died in the custody of Minneapolis police. NASCAR has not outlined how it will enforce the restriction and this week’s race at Talladega, in the heart of the South, presented the series with its biggest test in the early going. Disgruntled fans with Confederate flags drove past the main entrance to the track all weekend and a plane flew above the track Sunday pulling a banner of the flag that read “Defund NASCAR.” Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey said she was “shocked and appalled” by the “vile act” against Wallace. Full Coverage: Racial injustice “There is no place for this disgusting display of hatred in our state,” Ivey said. “Bubba Wallace is one of us; he is a native of Mobile and on behalf of all Alabamians, I apologize to Bubba Wallace as well as to his family and friends for the hurt this has caused and regret the mark this leaves on our state.” Petty said in a statement he was “enraged” by the “filthy act” of racism . Retired champion Jeff Gordon called it a “cowardly” act while retired champion and current team owner Tony Stewart seethed in a social media post: “Angry. Outraged. Disappointed. Those words don’t fully describe how I feel. #IStandWithBubba and I’ll damn sure stand up to anyone who engages in this kind of behavior.” Phelps said he was the one who told Wallace about the noose. “It was a difficult moment for Bubba, a difficult moment for me,” he said. “He’s handled it with the grace that he has handled everything that’s happened over the last few weeks.” The 26-year-old Wallace said after the noose was discovered: “T his will not break me , I will not give in nor will I back down. I will continue to proudly stand for what I believe in.” Wallace has previously worn a shirt that says “I Can’t Breathe” over his firesuit and sported a Black Lives Matter paint scheme in a race last month in Martinsville, Virginia. Talladega is one of the more raucous stops on the NASCAR schedule, but the pandemic prompted the series, like all sports, to ban or sharply limit fans. Up to 5,000 fans were allowed in, but there were far fewer than that Monday and none of them had access to the the infield or the Cup Series garage. Under strict new health guidelines, a very limited number of people can access the garage. That would include crew members for each of the 40 teams, NASCAR employees, Talladega staff members and any contracted safety crews or security guards. Phelps declined to discuss whether cameras in the garage area might have captured anything of value but noted NASCAR has an approved list of who is allowed access that has been turned over to authorities. “It will be part of what the FBI is looking at,” he said ___ More AP sports: https://apnews.com/apf-sports and https://twitter.com/AP_Sports

www.apnews.com

center

6H7cOi0g7NqViGqc

test

NTQ7iajFEGfoeoaP

lgbt_rights

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vatican-gender/vatican-condemns-gender-theory-as-bid-to-destroy-nature-idUSKCN1TB20E

Vatican condemns gender theory as bid to destroy nature

2019-06-10

Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY ( ███ ) - The Vatican condemned gender theory on Monday as part of a “ confused concept of freedom ” , saying in a new document that the idea of gender being determined by personal feeling rather than biology was an attempt to “ annihilate nature ” . LGBT rights advocates denounced the 30-page document , called “ Male and Female He Created Them ” , as harmful and confusing , saying it would encourage hatred and bigotry . The document , the Vatican ’ s first on gender theory , was written by the Congregation for Catholic Education as an “ instruction ” to Catholic educators on how to address the topic of gender theory in line with Church teaching . It was released as lesbian , gay , bisexual and transgender people around the world have been celebrating “ Pride Month ” amid a surge in demands for acceptance of the idea that gender is more complex and fluid than the binary categories of male and female , and depends on more than visible sex characteristics . “ The concept of gender is seen as dependent upon the subjective mindset of each person , who can choose a gender not corresponding to his or her biological sex , and therefore with the way others see that person , ” the Vatican booklet says . It says gender theories are “ often founded on nothing more than a confused concept of freedom in the realm of feelings and wants , or momentary desires provoked by emotional impulses and the will of the individual , as opposed to anything based on the truths of existence ” . Francis DeBernardo , executive director of New Ways Ministry , which seeks to reconcile LGBT Catholics and the institutional Church , called the booklet “ a gross misrepresentation ” of the lives of LGBT people that could encourage violence against them . “ The misinformation the document contains will cause families to reject their children , and it will increase alienation of LGBT people from the Church , ” he said in a statement . While the document is not signed by Pope Francis , it several times quotes from his speeches and teachings and those of previous popes . It was issued with little advance notice to reporters and without the customary news conference . It denounced theories that attempted to “ annihilate the concept of nature ” and “ educational programs and legislative trends that ... make a radical break with the actual biological difference between male and female ” . A prominent American Jesuit writer , Father James Martin , tweeted : “ The document is mainly a dialogue with philosophers and theologians , and with other church documents ; but not with scientists and biologists , not with psychologists , and certainly not with LGBT people , whose experiences are given little if any weight . ” DeBernardo added : People do not choose their gender , as the Vatican claims : they discover it through their lived experiences . The Church should respect and encourage this process of discovery , because it is a process by which individuals discover the wonderful way that God has created them . ”

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican condemned gender theory on Monday as part of a “confused concept of freedom”, saying in a new document that the idea of gender being determined by personal feeling rather than biology was an attempt to “annihilate nature”. FILE PHOTO: Members of a gay activist group hold signs in front of St. Peter's square in the Vatican December 16, 2012 protesting against the Roman Catholic Church's rejection of homosexuality and gay marriage. REUTERS/Alessandro Bianchi/File Photo LGBT rights advocates denounced the 30-page document, called “Male and Female He Created Them”, as harmful and confusing, saying it would encourage hatred and bigotry. The document, the Vatican’s first on gender theory, was written by the Congregation for Catholic Education as an “instruction” to Catholic educators on how to address the topic of gender theory in line with Church teaching. It was released as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people around the world have been celebrating “Pride Month” amid a surge in demands for acceptance of the idea that gender is more complex and fluid than the binary categories of male and female, and depends on more than visible sex characteristics. “The concept of gender is seen as dependent upon the subjective mindset of each person, who can choose a gender not corresponding to his or her biological sex, and therefore with the way others see that person,” the Vatican booklet says. It says gender theories are “often founded on nothing more than a confused concept of freedom in the realm of feelings and wants, or momentary desires provoked by emotional impulses and the will of the individual, as opposed to anything based on the truths of existence”. Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, which seeks to reconcile LGBT Catholics and the institutional Church, called the booklet “a gross misrepresentation” of the lives of LGBT people that could encourage violence against them. “The misinformation the document contains will cause families to reject their children, and it will increase alienation of LGBT people from the Church,” he said in a statement. While the document is not signed by Pope Francis, it several times quotes from his speeches and teachings and those of previous popes. It was issued with little advance notice to reporters and without the customary news conference. It denounced theories that attempted to “annihilate the concept of nature” and “educational programs and legislative trends that ... make a radical break with the actual biological difference between male and female”. A prominent American Jesuit writer, Father James Martin, tweeted: “The document is mainly a dialogue with philosophers and theologians, and with other church documents; but not with scientists and biologists, not with psychologists, and certainly not with LGBT people, whose experiences are given little if any weight.” DeBernardo added: People do not choose their gender, as the Vatican claims: they discover it through their lived experiences. The Church should respect and encourage this process of discovery, because it is a process by which individuals discover the wonderful way that God has created them.”

www.reuters.com

center

NTQ7iajFEGfoeoaP

test

o0iHkBq2HuJvpDF7

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/03/obama-will-give-up-portion-of-his-salary/

Obama will give up portion of his salary

2013-04-03

( CNN ) - President Barack Obama will put 5 % of his paycheck back into the federal government 's coffers in a show of unity with furloughed federal workers , White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday . Obama , whose $ 400,000 annual salary is set in law and ca n't officially be changed , will write a check made out to the U.S. treasury every month beginning in April . Since the mandatory across-the-board spending cuts went into effect March 1 , his payment for last month will be paid retroactively . `` The President has decided that to share in the sacrifice being made by public servants across the federal government that are affected by the sequester , he will contribute a portion of his salary back to the Treasury , '' Carney said in a statement . `` He instructed his staff he wanted to do this when the sequester took effect . '' On Tuesday , Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced he was giving up the portion of his salary that would have been cut if he had been subject to the same work furlough as thousands of department personnel under the mandatory federal budget cuts . Hagel , who earns $ 199,700 annually , will write a check to the Treasury for up to 14 days of salary , according to Pentagon press secretary George Little . As a Cabinet official confirmed by the Senate , Hagel is not subject to the furlough . But Little said Hagel decided to give the equivalent of his furloughed pay to show his support for his workforce . Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter had already announced he was doing the same thing in the weeks before Hagel was confirmed . On Monday , Carney announced that nearly 500 furlough notices have gone out to administration employees in reaction to the forced government spending cuts known as sequestration . `` The White House is one of eleven components of the Executive Office of the President which is indeed , as we have said , subject to the sequester , '' Carney said . `` Within the Executive Office of the President , several offices have sent furlough notices to their staff , including to 480 employees of the Office of Management and Budget . '' According to estimates released when the budget cuts went into effect on March 1 , OMB must cut $ 7 million from the $ 89 million remaining in its annual budget . Other departments within the EOP have thus far been successful in reducing spending in ways that have avoided the need for furloughs , Carney said , but `` additional furloughs as well as pay cuts remain possibilities for additional White House employees . ''

7 years ago (CNN) - President Barack Obama will put 5% of his paycheck back into the federal government's coffers in a show of unity with furloughed federal workers, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday. Obama, whose $400,000 annual salary is set in law and can't officially be changed, will write a check made out to the U.S. treasury every month beginning in April. Since the mandatory across-the-board spending cuts went into effect March 1, his payment for last month will be paid retroactively. Follow @politicalticker "The President has decided that to share in the sacrifice being made by public servants across the federal government that are affected by the sequester, he will contribute a portion of his salary back to the Treasury," Carney said in a statement. "He instructed his staff he wanted to do this when the sequester took effect." On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced he was giving up the portion of his salary that would have been cut if he had been subject to the same work furlough as thousands of department personnel under the mandatory federal budget cuts. Hagel, who earns $199,700 annually, will write a check to the Treasury for up to 14 days of salary, according to Pentagon press secretary George Little. As a Cabinet official confirmed by the Senate, Hagel is not subject to the furlough. But Little said Hagel decided to give the equivalent of his furloughed pay to show his support for his workforce. Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter had already announced he was doing the same thing in the weeks before Hagel was confirmed. On Monday, Carney announced that nearly 500 furlough notices have gone out to administration employees in reaction to the forced government spending cuts known as sequestration. "The White House is one of eleven components of the Executive Office of the President which is indeed, as we have said, subject to the sequester," Carney said. "Within the Executive Office of the President, several offices have sent furlough notices to their staff, including to 480 employees of the Office of Management and Budget." According to estimates released when the budget cuts went into effect on March 1, OMB must cut $7 million from the $89 million remaining in its annual budget. Other departments within the EOP have thus far been successful in reducing spending in ways that have avoided the need for furloughs, Carney said, but "additional furloughs as well as pay cuts remain possibilities for additional White House employees."

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

o0iHkBq2HuJvpDF7

test

Dp2ENWVi9CvRNv2r

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/07/this_oklahoma_gop_flyer_is_so_racist_that_state_dems_initiallly_thought_it_was_fake

This Oklahoma GOP flyer is so racist, state Dems initially thought it was fake

2014-08-07

Elias Isquith

A flyer distributed by the Republican Party of Garvin County , Oklahoma has engendered a significant amount of criticism for being incredibly racist , reports KFOR . How incredibly racist are we talking about here ? So racist that Oklahoma 's Democratic Party initially assumed the flyer was fake , because it was so patently and incredibly racist . The flyer is intended to promote a fundraising event and is headlined by the state 's GOP Gov . Mary Fallin . It promises to feature speakers who will share `` things that you may not know about the NRA , Planned Parenthood , Ku Klux Klan and other organizations . '' And because it 's `` Bean Feed '' fundraiser , the flyer includes a little drawing of a dancing bean ... wearing a sombrero . `` I feel like the GOP gets a bad rap , '' complained Garvin County GOP head Allie Burgin when questioned about the flyer . He defended it , arguing that the reference to the KKK was included because `` part of [ the GOP 's ] mission is to get information out to people '' — including information about how there is no link between the state GOP and the KKK . When Oklahoma Democrats first saw the flyer , they could n't believe members of the state GOP leadership could be so brazen and shameless in their racism and demagoguery . `` I thought , This can ’ t be real — but it is . It really is , '' Wallace Collins , chairman of the Oklahoma Democratic Party , told KFOR . `` I think they were trying to energize their base , the Tea Party base , the right-wing nuts ; whatever you want to call them , '' Collins added . `` In other words , throw some red meat , raise some money . ” Despite her inclusion at the top of the flyer , Gov . Fallin 's office says she had nothing to do with the so-called Bean Feed and attempted to further distance her from the scandal by claiming her attendance at the event was never even confirmed . But KFOR found a Tuesday Facebook post from Burgin , one in which he writes that Fallin was confirmed as an attendee : Whether or not she had initially agreed to show up to the `` Bean Feed , '' however , Fallin 's team now says she will not be in attendance . `` The governor is not going to or speaking at that event , '' Fallin 's spokesperson , Alex Weintz , declared . `` She would not attend an event where those topics were featured . Our office has nothing to do with that flyer . ''

A flyer distributed by the Republican Party of Garvin County, Oklahoma has engendered a significant amount of criticism for being incredibly racist, reports KFOR. How incredibly racist are we talking about here? So racist that Oklahoma's Democratic Party initially assumed the flyer was fake, because it was so patently and incredibly racist. Advertisement: The flyer is intended to promote a fundraising event and is headlined by the state's GOP Gov. Mary Fallin. It promises to feature speakers who will share "things that you may not know about the NRA, Planned Parenthood, Ku Klux Klan and other organizations." And because it's "Bean Feed" fundraiser, the flyer includes a little drawing of a dancing bean...wearing a sombrero. "I feel like the GOP gets a bad rap," complained Garvin County GOP head Allie Burgin when questioned about the flyer. He defended it, arguing that the reference to the KKK was included because "part of [the GOP's] mission is to get information out to people" — including information about how there is no link between the state GOP and the KKK. Advertisement: When Oklahoma Democrats first saw the flyer, they couldn't believe members of the state GOP leadership could be so brazen and shameless in their racism and demagoguery. "I thought, This can’t be real — but it is. It really is," Wallace Collins, chairman of the Oklahoma Democratic Party, told KFOR. "I think they were trying to energize their base, the Tea Party base, the right-wing nuts; whatever you want to call them," Collins added. "In other words, throw some red meat, raise some money.” Despite her inclusion at the top of the flyer, Gov. Fallin's office says she had nothing to do with the so-called Bean Feed and attempted to further distance her from the scandal by claiming her attendance at the event was never even confirmed. But KFOR found a Tuesday Facebook post from Burgin, one in which he writes that Fallin was confirmed as an attendee: Advertisement: Whether or not she had initially agreed to show up to the "Bean Feed," however, Fallin's team now says she will not be in attendance. "The governor is not going to or speaking at that event," Fallin's spokesperson, Alex Weintz, declared. "She would not attend an event where those topics were featured. Our office has nothing to do with that flyer." Advertisement: [h/t Raw Story]

www.salon.com

left

Dp2ENWVi9CvRNv2r

test

SqLNY3j1qxchW0v7

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/23/america_has_abandoned_the_90_percent_partner/

They abandoned the 90 percent: How the Reagan Revolution and Third Way politics led America to ruin

2016-03-23

As Donald Trump leads a full-scale war against the Republican establishment and elites , particularly through his attack on both their military ( Iraq ) and their trade ( NAFTA ) policies , the Democratic Party is also in a predicament that Bernie Sanders ’ candidacy is exposing . Both parties right now face a great crisis of leadership/ideology as well as a great opportunity for reinvention , and whichever party first reinvents itself successfully will begin winning elections the way the Democrats did in the 1932-1968 era . If neither does , our nation faces a massive crisis provoked by the loss of democratic representation of the majority of the American electorate . Neither party today does much of anything for the bottom 90 % of Americans , as so clearly demonstrated by a recent study out of Princeton that showed that the likelihood of legislation passing that represents the interest of that bottom 90 % was equivalent , statistically , to white noise . Thomas Frank ’ s new book Listen , Liberal : Or , Whatever Happened to the Party of the People ? offers the fascinating premise that starting with the McGovern Commission of 1972 ( which largely excommunicated Labor from having a large role in Democratic Party decision-making ) and going into a full-out embrace of the “ professional class ” – i.e . the top 10 % economically – the Democratic Party has largely abandoned the American working and middle class – the bottom 90 % . As Frank told me on my program recently , the doctor who delivered me in 1951 was almost certainly a Republican ( then the party of the professional class ) , but today would almost certainly be a Democrat . In the 1950s and 1960s virtually the entire professional class ( the top 10 % ) was Republican ; today it ’ s virtually all Democratic . In the late 1980s , the DLC Democrats ( and now the Third Way/Clinton Democrats ) embraced the professional class and embraced complex solutions to our nation ’ s problems . They consciously moved away from labor/working class and towards an elitist embrace of banksters , the emerging “ geniuses ” of Silicon Valley , and the college-educated at all levels . They even went so far as to suggest it was a good thing that much of America ’ s blue-collar working-class high-school-diploma jobs go to China and Mexico , as we here in America needed to move to the “ new economy ” jobs of technology , medicine , and finance , requiring a college education . This ideological change in the Party led to the Clinton-era 1990s policies that gutted our industrial base , ripped apart the social safety net ( ending “ the era of big government ” ) , and financialized our economy . As Frank points out , while FDR had a “ brain trust ” of the best and the brightest in the nation , they were drawn from a broad cross-section of America in terms of class and education . Many didn ’ t even have a college education . The Clinton and Obama administrations , on the other hand , while optically more racially diverse , are almost entirely run by people with elite educations from elite universities ( particularly Harvard ) , who share the worldview of the DLC/Third Way . The policies that came out of this new Democratic Party ideology ( largely taken from the 1950s Republicans ) have resulted in a boon for the professional class , but almost totally left behind the bottom 90 % . President Obama ’ s failure to even bring up Card Check ( the Employee Free Choice Act , which would have strengthened Labor ) , even after campaigning on it twice , is one of the most obvious examples of the Party ’ s decision to give lip service to working people , but keep their emphasis on elite complexity and the professional class that embodies it . The result of these decisions and policies provided the opening for the most unlikely phenomenon ( on the Democratic side ) of my lifetime : a rumpled , acerbic , 74-year-old Jew with a Brooklyn accent who calls himself a “ Democratic Socialist ” drawing tens of thousands to stadiums across the nation and holding his own against the anointed candidate of the Democratic Party and Third Way elders . Bernie Sanders carries into the Democratic Party the message of the bottom 90 % , the Occupy Movement , and the Black Lives Matter movement – and the aspirations of students and working people – so successfully in large part because they ’ ve been abandoned by the Democratic Party elites ( including the Clinton dynasty ) . While Thomas Frank details brilliantly the reinvention ( and , probably , destruction ) of the modern Democratic Party , in my book The Crash of 2016 , I detail the parallel rise of the modern Republican Party , starting with the Powell Memo within a year of the McGovern Commission . Prior to the 1970s , business in America had been largely apolitical , preferring to focus instead on making money and running companies . But Powell convinced the Chamber of Commerce and a group of wealthy ideologues to change all that , and a group of billionaires and foundations rose to the call and created the huge and well-funded “ conservative ” infrastructure of think-tanks , media arms ( hate radio and Fox News ) , and the Koch Network . Within a generation , the Party elites relied almost entirely on Big Business and Big Money to get elected , only throwing rhetorical bones to the bottom 90 % with their cynical “ god , guns , and gays ” strategy . The result of those Republican decisions and policies ( many also embraced by the DLC/Third Way Democrats as well ) brought us the Gingrich-congress-pushed Phil Gramm-deregulation ( signed by Bill Clinton but opposed by most congressional Democrats ) that crashed the world economy ( and threatens to do it again any day now ) ; changes in tax and trade laws that let the rich get fabulously richer but flat-lined wages of blue-collar workers for two generations ; and an open revolt among Republicans in the form of the Tea Party and the Trump candidacy . With both political parties captured almost entirely by the interest of the top 1 % ( Republicans ) and the top 10 % ( Democrats ) , the bottom 90 % feel they have nowhere else to go . For the past few decades , they ’ ve expressed this reality of being unrepresented by simply not voting and not showing up for politics , which they correctly saw as rigged and not working in their interest . Now , with both Trump and Sanders exposing complex trade deals as unwieldy and destructive to the bottom 90 % ( but very useful and enriching to the top 10 % ) , as well as the politically corrupt environment that supports the top 10 % , people on the right and the left are waking up . Interestingly , since the ( Democratic ) professional class includes elite-publication and TV journalists , they largely write off Sanders as an anachronism , a throwback to the FDR era which , they believe , was a nice and quaint memory but ain ’ t how the world works any more in this “ globalized economy . ” As a result , they don ’ t cover the Sanders candidacy , except when Bernie supporters decide to show up at Trump rallies and start a confrontation that reaches the level of spectacle that they think qualifies it as “ news . ” Similarly , as CBS chief executive Les Mooves so candidly pointed out at a recent stockholders meeting ( revealed to the world by the brilliant reporting of Lee Fang over at The Intercept ) , the most senior management of the big networks are more than happy to give almost $ 2 billion in free media to Republican Donald Trump because , as Mooves said , “ It may not be good for America , but it ’ s damn good for CBS… ” Thus , whichever party embraces the 90 % will probably win the 2016 election . If that ’ s Trump and/or Sanders , it ’ ll either splinter the Republican and/or Democratic Party or may reinvent that party in a way that it can begin to build and hold multigenerational national political power . If Trump is the Republican nominee , he could well win as a change-candidate in a change-year against establishment-candidate Clinton . The danger to our nation , though , is that Trump ’ s belligerent nationalism and militarism represents the same sort of sentiments of the 1930s European National Socialists , and could reform America in a really ugly way , even as he could maintain popularity by being the “ I ’ m here for the 90 % ” candidate by producing a few real social and economic reforms ( yes , the largest part of the early popularity of the European fascists in the 1930s was that they did real social reforms and rebuilt their nation ’ s respective infrastructures and middle classes ) . If the 2016 reform candidate is on the Democratic side and it ’ s Bernie Sanders , he ’ ll almost certainly win against any non-Trump establishment Republican ( and could also easily beat Trump , according to the polls ) . His presidency would force the Democratic Party to re-embrace the 90 % , and , combined with Bernie ’ s positive values of social and economic justice , could take America back to another era of a strong middle class , with peace and prosperity . ( And either a Trump or Sanders candidacy would only succeed over the loud , powerful , and probably very , very ugly screams and actions of the top 0.001 % and the Koch Network . It ’ d be a titanic battle . ) If all the best efforts of the elites in both parties fail ( an unlikely outcome ) , all the polls at this moment show Sanders easily beating Trump , although that could flip in the face of a large market crash or another 9/11-type attack . The more likely outcome , given all the machinations of the elite media and both party ’ s elites , is that the Republicans will nominate an establishment candidate like Kasich or Ryan/Romney , and that the Democratic Party will nominate Hillary Clinton . The choice between an establishment Republican or an establishment Democrat will depress overall political turnout , turn an emerging generation of Millennials into radical cynics , and feed growing explosions among the base of both parties ( Tea Party and the latest version of Occupy/BLM ) . It could mean chaos in our streets for a decade or more . No matter what happens in this 2016 election , though , the bottom 90 % has had enough . If nothing else , the astonishing number of people who say they ’ ll vote for either Trump or Sanders ( i.e . “ the outsider ” ) if the other party ( even their own party ) puts up an establishment candidate is unprecedented , and clearly shows that our nation is on the brink ( if not in the throes ) of a political revolution . The Great Depression of 1930 confronted the world ’ s two largest industrial powers with similar disasters ; Germany and the United States were the hardest hit in terms of a rapid loss of standard of living among the bottom 90 % . We chose FDR ( Sanders ) to lead us out of the mess created by the Republican elites during the Harding , Coolidge , and Hoover administrations . Germany chose Hitler ( Trump ) to lead it out of the mess created by the ruling elites of his day . Arnold Tynbee is , probably apocryphally , quoted as having said : “ When the last man who remembers the horrors of the last great war dies , the next great war becomes inevitable . ” It could be updated to read today : “ When the people who remember what America was like before the Reagan Revolution begin to die off , the next revolution is inevitable . ” Whether it ’ ll be played out in the ballot box or the streets is yet to be seen .

As Donald Trump leads a full-scale war against the Republican establishment and elites, particularly through his attack on both their military (Iraq) and their trade (NAFTA) policies, the Democratic Party is also in a predicament that Bernie Sanders’ candidacy is exposing. Both parties right now face a great crisis of leadership/ideology as well as a great opportunity for reinvention, and whichever party first reinvents itself successfully will begin winning elections the way the Democrats did in the 1932-1968 era. If neither does, our nation faces a massive crisis provoked by the loss of democratic representation of the majority of the American electorate. Neither party today does much of anything for the bottom 90% of Americans, as so clearly demonstrated by a recent study out of Princeton that showed that the likelihood of legislation passing that represents the interest of that bottom 90% was equivalent, statistically, to white noise. Advertisement: Thomas Frank’s new book Listen, Liberal: Or, Whatever Happened to the Party of the People? offers the fascinating premise that starting with the McGovern Commission of 1972 (which largely excommunicated Labor from having a large role in Democratic Party decision-making) and going into a full-out embrace of the “professional class” – i.e. the top 10% economically – the Democratic Party has largely abandoned the American working and middle class – the bottom 90%. As Frank told me on my program recently, the doctor who delivered me in 1951 was almost certainly a Republican (then the party of the professional class), but today would almost certainly be a Democrat. In the 1950s and 1960s virtually the entire professional class (the top 10%) was Republican; today it’s virtually all Democratic. In the late 1980s, the DLC Democrats (and now the Third Way/Clinton Democrats) embraced the professional class and embraced complex solutions to our nation’s problems. They consciously moved away from labor/working class and towards an elitist embrace of banksters, the emerging “geniuses” of Silicon Valley, and the college-educated at all levels. Advertisement: They even went so far as to suggest it was a good thing that much of America’s blue-collar working-class high-school-diploma jobs go to China and Mexico, as we here in America needed to move to the “new economy” jobs of technology, medicine, and finance, requiring a college education. This ideological change in the Party led to the Clinton-era 1990s policies that gutted our industrial base, ripped apart the social safety net (ending “the era of big government”), and financialized our economy. As Frank points out, while FDR had a “brain trust” of the best and the brightest in the nation, they were drawn from a broad cross-section of America in terms of class and education. Many didn’t even have a college education. The Clinton and Obama administrations, on the other hand, while optically more racially diverse, are almost entirely run by people with elite educations from elite universities (particularly Harvard), who share the worldview of the DLC/Third Way. Advertisement: The policies that came out of this new Democratic Party ideology (largely taken from the 1950s Republicans) have resulted in a boon for the professional class, but almost totally left behind the bottom 90%. President Obama’s failure to even bring up Card Check (the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have strengthened Labor), even after campaigning on it twice, is one of the most obvious examples of the Party’s decision to give lip service to working people, but keep their emphasis on elite complexity and the professional class that embodies it. Advertisement: The result of these decisions and policies provided the opening for the most unlikely phenomenon (on the Democratic side) of my lifetime: a rumpled, acerbic, 74-year-old Jew with a Brooklyn accent who calls himself a “Democratic Socialist” drawing tens of thousands to stadiums across the nation and holding his own against the anointed candidate of the Democratic Party and Third Way elders. Bernie Sanders carries into the Democratic Party the message of the bottom 90%, the Occupy Movement, and the Black Lives Matter movement – and the aspirations of students and working people – so successfully in large part because they’ve been abandoned by the Democratic Party elites (including the Clinton dynasty). While Thomas Frank details brilliantly the reinvention (and, probably, destruction) of the modern Democratic Party, in my book The Crash of 2016, I detail the parallel rise of the modern Republican Party, starting with the Powell Memo within a year of the McGovern Commission. Advertisement: Prior to the 1970s, business in America had been largely apolitical, preferring to focus instead on making money and running companies. But Powell convinced the Chamber of Commerce and a group of wealthy ideologues to change all that, and a group of billionaires and foundations rose to the call and created the huge and well-funded “conservative” infrastructure of think-tanks, media arms (hate radio and Fox News), and the Koch Network. Within a generation, the Party elites relied almost entirely on Big Business and Big Money to get elected, only throwing rhetorical bones to the bottom 90% with their cynical “god, guns, and gays” strategy. The result of those Republican decisions and policies (many also embraced by the DLC/Third Way Democrats as well) brought us the Gingrich-congress-pushed Phil Gramm-deregulation (signed by Bill Clinton but opposed by most congressional Democrats) that crashed the world economy (and threatens to do it again any day now); changes in tax and trade laws that let the rich get fabulously richer but flat-lined wages of blue-collar workers for two generations; and an open revolt among Republicans in the form of the Tea Party and the Trump candidacy. Advertisement: Which leaves America at a crossroads. With both political parties captured almost entirely by the interest of the top 1% (Republicans) and the top 10% (Democrats), the bottom 90% feel they have nowhere else to go. For the past few decades, they’ve expressed this reality of being unrepresented by simply not voting and not showing up for politics, which they correctly saw as rigged and not working in their interest. Now, with both Trump and Sanders exposing complex trade deals as unwieldy and destructive to the bottom 90% (but very useful and enriching to the top 10%), as well as the politically corrupt environment that supports the top 10%, people on the right and the left are waking up. And they’re waking up fast and loud. Advertisement: Interestingly, since the (Democratic) professional class includes elite-publication and TV journalists, they largely write off Sanders as an anachronism, a throwback to the FDR era which, they believe, was a nice and quaint memory but ain’t how the world works any more in this “globalized economy.” As a result, they don’t cover the Sanders candidacy, except when Bernie supporters decide to show up at Trump rallies and start a confrontation that reaches the level of spectacle that they think qualifies it as “news.” Similarly, as CBS chief executive Les Mooves so candidly pointed out at a recent stockholders meeting (revealed to the world by the brilliant reporting of Lee Fang over at The Intercept), the most senior management of the big networks are more than happy to give almost $2 billion in free media to Republican Donald Trump because, as Mooves said, “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS…” Thus, whichever party embraces the 90% will probably win the 2016 election. Advertisement: If that’s Trump and/or Sanders, it’ll either splinter the Republican and/or Democratic Party or may reinvent that party in a way that it can begin to build and hold multigenerational national political power. If Trump is the Republican nominee, he could well win as a change-candidate in a change-year against establishment-candidate Clinton. The danger to our nation, though, is that Trump’s belligerent nationalism and militarism represents the same sort of sentiments of the 1930s European National Socialists, and could reform America in a really ugly way, even as he could maintain popularity by being the “I’m here for the 90%” candidate by producing a few real social and economic reforms (yes, the largest part of the early popularity of the European fascists in the 1930s was that they did real social reforms and rebuilt their nation’s respective infrastructures and middle classes). If the 2016 reform candidate is on the Democratic side and it’s Bernie Sanders, he’ll almost certainly win against any non-Trump establishment Republican (and could also easily beat Trump, according to the polls). His presidency would force the Democratic Party to re-embrace the 90%, and, combined with Bernie’s positive values of social and economic justice, could take America back to another era of a strong middle class, with peace and prosperity. Advertisement: (And either a Trump or Sanders candidacy would only succeed over the loud, powerful, and probably very, very ugly screams and actions of the top 0.001% and the Koch Network. It’d be a titanic battle.) If all the best efforts of the elites in both parties fail (an unlikely outcome), all the polls at this moment show Sanders easily beating Trump, although that could flip in the face of a large market crash or another 9/11-type attack. The more likely outcome, given all the machinations of the elite media and both party’s elites, is that the Republicans will nominate an establishment candidate like Kasich or Ryan/Romney, and that the Democratic Party will nominate Hillary Clinton. The choice between an establishment Republican or an establishment Democrat will depress overall political turnout, turn an emerging generation of Millennials into radical cynics, and feed growing explosions among the base of both parties (Tea Party and the latest version of Occupy/BLM). It could mean chaos in our streets for a decade or more. No matter what happens in this 2016 election, though, the bottom 90% has had enough. If nothing else, the astonishing number of people who say they’ll vote for either Trump or Sanders (i.e. “the outsider”) if the other party (even their own party) puts up an establishment candidate is unprecedented, and clearly shows that our nation is on the brink (if not in the throes) of a political revolution. The Great Depression of 1930 confronted the world’s two largest industrial powers with similar disasters; Germany and the United States were the hardest hit in terms of a rapid loss of standard of living among the bottom 90%. We chose FDR (Sanders) to lead us out of the mess created by the Republican elites during the Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover administrations. Germany chose Hitler (Trump) to lead it out of the mess created by the ruling elites of his day. Arnold Tynbee is, probably apocryphally, quoted as having said: “When the last man who remembers the horrors of the last great war dies, the next great war becomes inevitable.” It could be updated to read today: “When the people who remember what America was like before the Reagan Revolution begin to die off, the next revolution is inevitable.” Whether it’ll be played out in the ballot box or the streets is yet to be seen.

www.salon.com

left

SqLNY3j1qxchW0v7

test

liydftZqDNvPp6pV

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/05/the_quiet_vicious_racism_of_scott_walkers_wisconsin/

The quiet, vicious racism of Scott Walker’s Wisconsin

2016-04-05

Gary Legum

Pity Scott Walker and the Republicans of Wisconsin . Here they have taken the time and energy to gain power partly by using racial dog whistles , and along comes a group of white nationalists to make the once-implicit coded language suddenly explicit . And it ’ s happening just as the political world turns its eyes to the state for today ’ s big primary . With a voter-ID law passed by the GOP-controlled legislature and signed by Walker and threatening to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of mostly minority voters in this election , the last thing the Koch brothers ’ favorite governor wants is people who are going to say the quiet parts out loud . Which is why Walker on Monday was condemning the robocalls from the American National Super PAC and its white nationalist founder William Johnson that have been flooding landlines in Wisconsin over the last few days . The call -- narrated by an elderly woman in the soothing tones of your racist grandmother complaining over Sunday dinner about her new black neighbors -- assures listeners that Trump “ will respect all women and help preserve western civilization. ” In the world of white nationalists , this is code for “ Will keep the hordes of Latino immigrants and black welfare cheats from stealing your tax dollars and destroying America as you know it . ” As racist robocalls go , this was fairly mild , at least compared to Johnson ’ s efforts in earlier primaries . But it is worth noting that Walker ’ s upset , if only for the irony . After all , the lightning rod of a governor , a man so dull his idea of spicing up his food probably means pouring castor oil on it , built his power base in the state in the almost-exclusively-white suburbs of Milwaukee , one of the most racially polarized metropolitan areas of the country . The New Republic took a deep dive into Walker ’ s world two years ago . What the magazine found was a city and its suburbs even more segregated than most , where the chairman of one county ’ s Republican Party could still refer to one mostly African-American neighborhood in Milwaukee , in 2014 , as “ the colored section. ” Where white flight between 1960 and 2010 was so high it tripled the population of three formerly rural counties around Milwaukee , while the percentage of African-American residents in those three counties is under 2 percent . Where the black poverty rate within the city is the second-highest in the country . This is the world that has coddled Walker as he traveled up through the ranks of the Republican Party . As a member of the state Assembly , the executive of Milwaukee County , and now governor , he has spent his entire career deeply slicing budgets for programs that benefit inner-city African-Americans , such as public transportation . He has also pushed for private-school vouchers that decimate public education and advocated for privatizing prisons , all while cutting taxes to ensure that funding levels for these civic outlays are unlikely to be restored anytime soon , if ever . He has done all this in a climate of racial polarization fueled by talk-radio hosts like Charlie Sykes ( whom Donald Trump , ironically , ran afoul of just last week ) . Local talk radio , according to the New Republic story , traffics in the same sorts of white resentment politics that have fueled the rise of national stars like Rush Limbaugh over the last thirty years . Talkers like Sykes ( who regularly refers to Michelle Obama as “ Mooch ” ) have grown rich spewing racial divisiveness . And one of their most regular guests , throughout his long career in Wisconsin politics , has been Scott Walker , who would verbally wink at Sykes ’ s listeners while talking about policies that would never harm the host ’ s mostly white audience . Given this environment , why wouldn ’ t a white nationalist like William Johnson think he has found some fertile territory to shill for Donald Trump , who is basically one white bedsheet and pillowcase with eyeholes away from being a KKK Grand Wizard ? Yet Walker and some of his allies in the local media have rallied to condemn Trump as a big-city know-nothing , a polarizing figure whom Sykes , in what surely will enter the pantheon of history ’ s least self-aware statements , complained is failing to adhere to Wisconsin ’ s “ tradition of civility and decency . ” That this is all happening during the first election in which Wisconsin ’ s new voter-ID law is in effect only increases the irony . The law is part of the broader effort by Republicans both in Wisconsin and other states to limit the voting power of traditional Democratic constituencies . The Wisconsin law could disenfranchise as many as 300,000 mostly minority and student voters who want to cast votes today . Since this law is only possible because the Supreme Court eviscerated the Voting Rights Act , which was first passed to protect the voting rights of minorities , it is impossible to see it as a colorblind act that , as defenders of voter-ID laws so often tell us , is only here to protect against nonexistent voter fraud . Of course it is unlikely that Walker and his allies see themselves as racists . But that does not change the racist effects of the laws they pass and the poison they spew at Milwaukee ’ s suburban commuters as they sit in traffic on a daily basis . Donald Trump has simply taken this inherent racism and brought it out into the open . In doing so , he has attracted the support of outright racists – excuse me , “ white nationalists ” – like William Johnson , and all of a sudden Wisconsin ’ s Republicans , like many party members nationwide , are doing their best impression of Captain Renault , proclaiming themselves shocked , SHOCKED to discover there is gambling going on here . Their act would be a lot more believable if they had not spent their careers advocating for a worldview that , stripped of the code words and dog whistles , is nearly indistinguishable from the one they now decry .

Pity Scott Walker and the Republicans of Wisconsin. Here they have taken the time and energy to gain power partly by using racial dog whistles, and along comes a group of white nationalists to make the once-implicit coded language suddenly explicit. And it’s happening just as the political world turns its eyes to the state for today’s big primary. With a voter-ID law passed by the GOP-controlled legislature and signed by Walker and threatening to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of mostly minority voters in this election, the last thing the Koch brothers’ favorite governor wants is people who are going to say the quiet parts out loud. Which is why Walker on Monday was condemning the robocalls from the American National Super PAC and its white nationalist founder William Johnson that have been flooding landlines in Wisconsin over the last few days. The call -- narrated by an elderly woman in the soothing tones of your racist grandmother complaining over Sunday dinner about her new black neighbors -- assures listeners that Trump “will respect all women and help preserve western civilization.” In the world of white nationalists, this is code for “Will keep the hordes of Latino immigrants and black welfare cheats from stealing your tax dollars and destroying America as you know it.” Advertisement: As racist robocalls go, this was fairly mild, at least compared to Johnson’s efforts in earlier primaries. But it is worth noting that Walker’s upset, if only for the irony. After all, the lightning rod of a governor, a man so dull his idea of spicing up his food probably means pouring castor oil on it, built his power base in the state in the almost-exclusively-white suburbs of Milwaukee, one of the most racially polarized metropolitan areas of the country. The New Republic took a deep dive into Walker’s world two years ago. What the magazine found was a city and its suburbs even more segregated than most, where the chairman of one county’s Republican Party could still refer to one mostly African-American neighborhood in Milwaukee, in 2014, as “the colored section.” Where white flight between 1960 and 2010 was so high it tripled the population of three formerly rural counties around Milwaukee, while the percentage of African-American residents in those three counties is under 2 percent. Where the black poverty rate within the city is the second-highest in the country. This is the world that has coddled Walker as he traveled up through the ranks of the Republican Party. As a member of the state Assembly, the executive of Milwaukee County, and now governor, he has spent his entire career deeply slicing budgets for programs that benefit inner-city African-Americans, such as public transportation. He has also pushed for private-school vouchers that decimate public education and advocated for privatizing prisons, all while cutting taxes to ensure that funding levels for these civic outlays are unlikely to be restored anytime soon, if ever. Advertisement: He has done all this in a climate of racial polarization fueled by talk-radio hosts like Charlie Sykes (whom Donald Trump, ironically, ran afoul of just last week). Local talk radio, according to the New Republic story, traffics in the same sorts of white resentment politics that have fueled the rise of national stars like Rush Limbaugh over the last thirty years. Talkers like Sykes (who regularly refers to Michelle Obama as “Mooch”) have grown rich spewing racial divisiveness. And one of their most regular guests, throughout his long career in Wisconsin politics, has been Scott Walker, who would verbally wink at Sykes’s listeners while talking about policies that would never harm the host’s mostly white audience. Given this environment, why wouldn’t a white nationalist like William Johnson think he has found some fertile territory to shill for Donald Trump, who is basically one white bedsheet and pillowcase with eyeholes away from being a KKK Grand Wizard? Yet Walker and some of his allies in the local media have rallied to condemn Trump as a big-city know-nothing, a polarizing figure whom Sykes, in what surely will enter the pantheon of history’s least self-aware statements, complained is failing to adhere to Wisconsin’s “tradition of civility and decency.” Advertisement: That this is all happening during the first election in which Wisconsin’s new voter-ID law is in effect only increases the irony. The law is part of the broader effort by Republicans both in Wisconsin and other states to limit the voting power of traditional Democratic constituencies. The Wisconsin law could disenfranchise as many as 300,000 mostly minority and student voters who want to cast votes today. Since this law is only possible because the Supreme Court eviscerated the Voting Rights Act, which was first passed to protect the voting rights of minorities, it is impossible to see it as a colorblind act that, as defenders of voter-ID laws so often tell us, is only here to protect against nonexistent voter fraud. Of course it is unlikely that Walker and his allies see themselves as racists. But that does not change the racist effects of the laws they pass and the poison they spew at Milwaukee’s suburban commuters as they sit in traffic on a daily basis. Donald Trump has simply taken this inherent racism and brought it out into the open. In doing so, he has attracted the support of outright racists – excuse me, “white nationalists” – like William Johnson, and all of a sudden Wisconsin’s Republicans, like many party members nationwide, are doing their best impression of Captain Renault, proclaiming themselves shocked, SHOCKED to discover there is gambling going on here. Their act would be a lot more believable if they had not spent their careers advocating for a worldview that, stripped of the code words and dog whistles, is nearly indistinguishable from the one they now decry.

www.salon.com

left

liydftZqDNvPp6pV

test

IiwrtorHFgP6eSN3

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/18/brownback_and_jindal_go_down_in_flames_americas_worst_governors_proven_bullies_liars_fools/

Brownback and Jindal go down in flames: America?s worst governors proven bullies, liars, fools

2015-06-18

Paul Rosenberg

Nowadays , states are often referred to as `` laboratories of democracy , '' based on a line from Justice Louis Brandeis stating federalism allows that `` a single courageous State may , if its citizens choose , serve as a laboratory ; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country . '' Implicit in this formulation is the scientific method—trying things out , and learning from the results . But science is in ill repute with the increasingly rigid , ideological GOP these days . For them , the question of what 's to be learned is not how to produce beneficial results , but how to repackage and sell disasters as shining examples of “ success . ” Which helps explain how it comes that two of America 's most ambitious GOP governors are now deep in denial that their imaginary budget schemes lie in ruins . As their state 's legislative sessions came to an end , Kansas Gov . Sam Brownback and Louisiana Gov . Bobby Jindal could both claim they were about to sign balanced budgets—by law , they had no choice—but Brownback did so only with a massive sales tax hike , while Jindal raided the piggy bank for one-time funds that will only make things more difficult for his successor . Both men deeply antagonized their state legislatures in the process—legislatures dominated by their own party . Brownback once harbored White House dreams , but has since put away childish things . Jindal has yet to grow up . And why should he ? He 's much more popular in New Hampshire than in his home state , as USA Today noted in May . Both governors ' budget shenanigans are reminiscent of how George W. Bush made the case for WMD in Iraq , but without even the thinnest veil of secrecy hiding the arm-twisting , manipulation and outright lying . Talking points and Fox News headlines—the only justifications GOP spinmeisters care about—leave both men in a credible light for those viewing them at a distance or through a partisan lens . But on-the-ground blow-by-blow accounts reveal both men as bullies , liars and fools , who 've gotten what they wanted—not their original goals , but ( barely ) face-saving measures—by threatening the most vulnerable and imperiling future generations . In Kansas , the Wichita Eagle story on the budget accord recounted the threats that were raised : The Brownback administration warned Thursday that it would cut the budget Monday if lawmakers had not acted by then . Officials raised the specter of either a 6.2 percent across-the-board cut , which would cost schools nearly $ 200 million , or a veto of budgets for the state ’ s regents universities . Rep. Jim Ward—a Democrat representing southeast Wichita—tweeted his translation : `` Brownback message to Republicans-Do it my way or I shoot the hostages ( school kids , college kids , disabled ) # ksleg '' And Sen. Jeff Longbine—a Republican representing Emporia—said , “ I am sick of being blackmailed . ” Kansas City Star opinion writer Yael T. Abouhalkah provided more details in his blog : Figuratively , the governor appears willing to shoot the already-beleaguered schools in the foot , making them bear further financial pain because his cherished income tax breaks for businesses have drained money needed to provide crucial state services . It ’ s the newest ploy being used by Brownback to force the Kansas Legislature to pass the largest tax increase in state history and close a $ 400 million budget gap . On Tuesday , officials in the Kansas City , Kan. ( $ 11 million in potential lost funds ) , Olathe ( $ 10 million ) , Shawnee Mission ( $ 8 million ) and Blue Valley ( $ 6 million ) districts were scrambling to find out what they could do to protect the educational needs of their students . In addition , higher education leaders were looking at cutbacks of about $ 50 million . Brownback repeatedly threatened to veto any attempt to repeal the business income tax breaks , which are now more psychologically important to him than ever . The broad case for cutting taxes has become untenable—Brownback himself pushed for a sales tax increase to 6.65 percent , the legislature settled on 6.5 percent , up from 6.15 percent—leading Brownback to shift ground : taxing income is bad , taxing spending is good . Brownback praised what he called “ a pro-growth tax policy ” after its passage . “ This bill keeps the state on a path of economic growth , creating well-paying jobs that benefit all Kansans . It continues our transition from taxes on productivity to consumption-based taxes , ” he said in a statement . But this revised claim is utterly bogus . We can see this in broad terms , as Kansas continues to lag behind national job-creation rates , as it has ever since Brownback took office in January 2011 . We can understand its bogosity more precisely by taking a close look at what it actually does , as the Kansas Center for Economic Growth did on its website with a May 28 post , “ Business Tax Exemption Not a Roadmap to a Stronger Economy , ” in which it pointed out : Less than 1 percent of all Kansas small businesses saw a tax savings of just over $ 38,000 . This might be enough to hire one worker full-time , depending on wage and benefits . But , if you were to hire a full-time employee with that money , after paying for benefits the take-home pay would be $ 26,600 or about $ 12.80 an hour . That ’ s barely above the federal poverty level for a family of three – not a roadmap to a stronger economy . Given the magnitude of the lie Brownback was pushing , it was n't enough to just threaten children 's education ; lawmakers themselves had to be bullied and abused . Daily Kos blogger Chris Reeves , whose Kansas budget coverage has been cited by the Columbia Journalism Review , focused on what the lawmakers had been through after a 4 a.m. final vote : For one moment , I want to put aside the bill and talk about our citizen legislators , Republicans and Democrats , who subjected themselves to what the Geneva convention refers to as torture - a 24-hour period with no schedule of sleep available of more than 4 contiguous hours . Such treatment is abhorrent for anyone , of course . But what of those who should err on the side of more rest ? A key figure Reeves writes about is Heinz Dierks , a man in his 70s whose wife , Diana Dierks , 71 , a moderate Republican , represents Salina . `` I 'm here to look out for her , '' Heinz Dierks said . And she was there to do her civic duty—a concept utterly foreign to men like Brownback and Jindal . In some respects , what happened in Louisiana was even worse . The pure chaos and dysfunction in Louisiana—and Jindal 's utter failure as a political leader—was widely commented on by those who cover such things . The tone was set back on May 20 , just after the legislature had definitively killed action on Jindal 's proposed so-called religious freedom law , which , like Indiana 's hastily withdrawn version , would have been a license to discriminate , when Julia O'Donoghue wrote a piece for the Times-Picayune , “ Louisiana lawmakers have trashed Bobby Jindal 's legislative agenda. ” Not only had legislators rebuffed Jindal on the right to discriminate—the only piece of legislation he mentioned specifically in his opening speech to the legislature this year , and the subject of almost a third of that speech—but they also refused to follow his lead on two other top priorities : In his opening remarks for the legislative session , Jindal laid out three priorities—the state budget , Common Core and the religious freedom bill . The Legislature has n't taken his lead of any of these issues , choosing instead to come up with their own solutions to these problems . However , as the legislature finished up its business , Will Sentell of the Advocate wrote a piece , “ Budget problems easily dominate 2015 Legislature , ” quoting key legislators and noting that everyone expected the budget “ would be the key topic , ” but that “ bitter and time-consuming debates over how to address the problem all but drowned other topics expected to draw attention . ” In short , the legislature passed a budget , and that was pretty much it . But as Tyler Bridges also reported for the Advocate , “ while they solved the immediate crisis , Jindal and legislators fumbled the more arduous task of putting the state ’ s finances on sounder footing for the coming years , ” going on to say : The $ 24.5 billion budget passed Thursday night contains so many short-term fixes that next year ’ s governor and Legislature will inherit a budget deficit of an estimated $ 1 billion , documents show , and the size of the deficit is only projected to grow in the following years . In light of all this , not surprisingly , two different lists of winners and losers pegged Jindal as loser in all this , and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform as a big winner—though as Louisiana political journalist and historian Robert Mann noted here at ███ , Norquist 's smoke-and-mirrors-based victory may well have been Pyrrhic . At its heart lies Jindal 's SAVE program , as Mann explained : Jindal and his staff proposed a convoluted , confusing student fee/tax credit “ offset , ” devised only so Jindal could claim his actions were “ revenue neutral ” and , therefore , did not increase taxes . With Norquist ’ s approval , Jindal pushed the so-called Student Assessment for a Valuable Education ( SAVE ) Credit Program . Under SAVE , students will be assessed a $ 1,500 fee , which will be offset by a $ 1,500 tax credit . No actual money will change hands , but as the Advocate of Baton Rouge explained , “ the SAVE fund would create a tax credit for the $ 350 million that Jindal could use to offset $ 350 million of the new revenue that legislators are proposing to raise. ” The student fees magically disappear from this accounting , because # Freedom ! But the magic will likely have a very short half-life . As Mann goes on to say , “ The real impact of what should be called 'the Jindal-Norquist Tax Cover-up Bill of 2015 ' may be the eventual destruction of ATR ’ s anti-tax increase pledge . ” In her winners and losers roundup for the Times-Picayune , Julia O'Donoghue made the case for Norquist as winner , stressing his rule-setting role , though noting his embattled national status at the end : Back in February , Jindal put forward an initial budget proposal that he knew Norquist would approve . The Louisiana Senate also mostly worked within the parameters laid out by Norquist . Every financial decision was shaped by the anti-tax advocate and his supporters . At one point , some Louisiana legislators reached out to Norquist directly to try to convince him to change his opinion on one piece of legislation . [ Story here . Mann 's scathing take here . ] Jindal may be courting Norquist because his organization is influential in national Republican politics and the governor is expected to run for president in 2016 . But Norquist also has an interest in keeping Jindal on his side , as he faces fallout from Republicans in a few other states—notably Alabama and Kansas . But Clancy DuBos offered a grittier take at the Best of New Orleans , with his list of “ Da winnas & da loozas , ” which cited Norquist as a winner because “ he has more sway in the Louisiana Legislature than the current governor , ” adding hastily that “ It ’ s not because he ’ s so powerful , but rather because our governor and too many lawmakers are so spineless — proving once again that in politics , as in tennis , it ’ s possible to win by default . ” As for Jindal , heading up the list of “ da loozas , ” DuBos left no doubt as to why : He pitched three priorities on Opening Day : repealing Common Core , passing a “ religious freedom ” bill , and ending “ corporate welfare ” ( the state-funded inventory tax rebate ) . He went 0 for 3 , gave Louisiana its largest tax hike in memory , spent most of his time campaigning for president , and managed to sink even lower in public opinion polls . His last-minute save of “ SAVE ” will be repealed in January by the next Legislature and governor , and his post-session claim of “ revenue neutrality ” will rank alongside George W. Bush ’ s “ Mission Accomplished ” as one of the great Orwellian claims by an American politician . More important , the world now knows that Bobby Jindal is the fiscal equivalent of Bernie Madoff — only nobody actually buys into his budgetary Ponzi scheme . If Jindal somehow gets elected president , his policies will put the U.S. economy on par with that of Greece before the end of his first term . Shifting focus from Jindal to the political environment he 's damaged so completely , a case can be made that institutional damage in Louisiana was deeper than in Kansas , but at least politicians have begun to fight back . Hence AP 's wrap-up analysis headline “ Frayed relations could lead to significant change. ” The story by Melinda Deslatte began with the sort of blunt on-the-ground reporting that ought to end Jindal 's career : Frustration , even outright anger , with Gov . Bobby Jindal has been simmering in the Louisiana Legislature for years , building as the Republican governor ’ s presidential ambitions grew more obvious . But widespread legislative sentiment that Jindal has been making decisions based on a GOP presidential campaign he ’ s expected to announce June 24 may have a silver lining for the state , possibly putting limits on the next Louisiana governor ’ s power and forcing sweeping change for state budget and tax policy . In the just-ended legislative session , senators enacted changes to their leadership selection process aimed at limiting a governor ’ s meddling and increasing legislative independence . Lawmakers in both the House and Senate agreed to curtail the broad records exemptions granted to the governor , to provide more information to the public . And the state ’ s financial situation — hamstrung by Jindal ’ s rigid positions on tax discussions — has become so troubled that the next governor elected this fall will almost certainly hold a special session to allow the type of wide-ranging , needed debate on the budget and taxes that lawmakers haven ’ t had for years . If the dysfunction in Baton Rouge sounds like Washington , and Jindal 's hostile relationship with his legislators sounds like Obama 's relationship with Congress , there are two little facts to add to sweeten the mix : The first is that Jindal loves to portray himself as the anti-Obama , and the second is that he may have a point : his hostile relationships are with chambers his own party controls . Jindal 's insistence on being the anti-Obama requires him to produce a conservative policy miracle , and if one ca n't be created in reality , then every piece of smoke and mirrors must be perfectly arranged and dogmatically defended . ( His intensely focused devotion to this is what sets him apart from Brownback . ) We 've already had a peek at the most absurd example of this , Jindal 's SAVE program , but its absurdity needs to be understood as part of a much larger project—a project to make him president . Integral to this project are a set of related claims about how well Jindal has supposedly done in shrinking the size of government—supposedly cutting state payrolls by 30,000 [ shifting them to private contractors , actually ] and cutting state spending by 26 percent , claims he 's repeatedly made to the national political media , such as George Stephanopoulos on ABC 's “ This Week ” on May 31 . But as Mann explained in detail on his blog Something Like the Truth , after that appearance , anyone with an Internet connection could check out state documents and easily see that Jindal was lying . Looking at the budget record during Jindal 's time in office , Mann concludes : Calculating the difference between Jindal ’ s first full budget year and his most recent complete budget year ( 2008-09 to 2014-15 ) , total state expenditures actually increased by $ 780 million ( $ 25.06 billion in 08-09 to $ 25.84 billion in 14-15 ) . But that 's not the comparison Jindal is making , Mann notes . He 's comparing himself to his predecessor , Kathleen Blanco 's last year in office—which makes him look better , but still not good enough : The actual difference between Jindal ’ s most recent budget and Blanco ’ s last budget ( $ 2.75 billion ) is a mere 9 percent cut in state expenditures . And here ’ s the kicker : Whatever budget cutting Jindal has achieved appears to come primarily from a decrease in federal funding flowing into the state ’ s coffers ( something largely out of Jindal ’ s control ) . That 's actually an understatement in light of the very next thing Mann tells us : Blanco ’ s last budget contained $ 12.88 billion in federal funds . Jindal ’ s last budget contains $ 10.07 billion in federal funds – a drop of $ 2.81 billion . That figure is greater , of course , than the $ 2.75 billion difference in Blanco ’ s last budget and Jindal ’ s most recent . So more than 100 percent of the decrease was outside of Jindal 's control . I 'm really not sure if that 's a good thing or a bad thing , per se . What I do know is that it 's proof he 's a liar . Did Jindal cut his state ’ s budget by 26 percent ? Not even close . His own budget figures disprove his claim . The real question is , why do journalists like Stephanopoulos and other national media figures allow Jindal to keep making this false assertion without ever challenging him ? Whatever the reason , it 's a profoundly perverse belief . By trusting whatever a politician says , they give the advantage to whichever one tells the outrageously self-serving lie . It 's the worst sort of competition imaginable to encourage . If the aim is to get at the truth , this is exactly the wrong way to go about doing things . As folks in the media ought to know , the way to get at the truth is to start with reporting facts . Then you assemble them and proceed to make sense of their evolution over time . Mann provides an example of this in a piece published at the Times-Picayune website after the budget deal was done , “ Bobby Jindal 's disgraceful fiscal legacy ” picks out a few highlights that illuminate the recurring themes that have run throughout Jindal 's tenure . Perhaps the most basic of these is a complete inability to think of anything beyond the immediate—or even to see that clearly . It started with spending the surplus left by his predecessor : In 2008 , Jindal inherited an $ 865 million surplus . He and legislators promptly spent it . That should have been the first hint that he knew little about sound fiscal management . This was followed by misjudging state revenues , and deciding to cut taxes : Next , Jindal mistook the post-Katrina revenue boom ( due to a massive infusion of federal money ) for a permanent economic recovery . So , he slashed income taxes in his first regular session . Combined with ill-advised income tax cuts signed earlier by Gov . Kathleen Blanco , it was a mistake that blew an $ 800 million hole in the budget and launched us down the road to our present sad condition . Which in turn created a state of perpetual dishonesty and de facto stealing : Because he surrendered so much revenue in the beginning , Jindal 's budgets have always included obscene amounts of one-time money . Despite bragging that he 's balanced every budget , Jindal ended most fiscal years with a `` structural '' deficit . In other words , he only `` balanced '' the books by draining various savings accounts and trust funds . Those funds were intended for specific purposes , which did not include serving as piggy banks for times when the state 's treasury ran short of cash . Jindal is hardly unique in this regard . Arnold Schwarzenegger engaged in the exact same sort of short-term juggling act throughout his tenure as governor of California , initiated by blowing a $ 6.5 billion hole in the budget with his grandstanding rollback of the state 's vehicle license fee , then turning to borrowing and gimmickry . The state only regained its long-term fiscal balance after Democrat Jerry Brown was elected in 2010 . It 's not that Brown succeeded where Schwarzenegger failed , the two men were trying to do fundamentally different things . Schwarzenegger was trying to make everything look good on paper , at least for the moment . Brown was trying to run a state , as a steward of it for future generations . Although Schwarzenegger was widely seen as an anomalously liberal Republican on issues like gay rights and the environment , his budget record clearly revealed the narrow limits , not of Republican solutions to economic challenges , but of Republicans ' ability to even see problems are , as opposed to the secondary and tertiary problems that are entirely of their own making . And the rest of us will be dragged along for the ride , at least as things stand now . As long the national media takes the George Stephanopoulos approach of swallowing GOP lies whole , we will remain mired in failure after failure , without even a clue to what 's going on . If we want to stop being clueless—about the problems as well as the solutions—we 've got to watch what they do , not what they say .

Nowadays, states are often referred to as "laboratories of democracy," based on a line from Justice Louis Brandeis stating federalism allows that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." Implicit in this formulation is the scientific method—trying things out, and learning from the results. But science is in ill repute with the increasingly rigid, ideological GOP these days. For them, the question of what's to be learned is not how to produce beneficial results, but how to repackage and sell disasters as shining examples of “success.” Advertisement: Which helps explain how it comes that two of America's most ambitious GOP governors are now deep in denial that their imaginary budget schemes lie in ruins. As their state's legislative sessions came to an end, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal could both claim they were about to sign balanced budgets—by law, they had no choice—but Brownback did so only with a massive sales tax hike, while Jindal raided the piggy bank for one-time funds that will only make things more difficult for his successor. Both men deeply antagonized their state legislatures in the process—legislatures dominated by their own party. Brownback once harbored White House dreams, but has since put away childish things. Jindal has yet to grow up. And why should he? He's much more popular in New Hampshire than in his home state, as USA Today noted in May. Advertisement: Both governors' budget shenanigans are reminiscent of how George W. Bush made the case for WMD in Iraq, but without even the thinnest veil of secrecy hiding the arm-twisting, manipulation and outright lying. Talking points and Fox News headlines—the only justifications GOP spinmeisters care about—leave both men in a credible light for those viewing them at a distance or through a partisan lens. But on-the-ground blow-by-blow accounts reveal both men as bullies, liars and fools, who've gotten what they wanted—not their original goals, but (barely) face-saving measures—by threatening the most vulnerable and imperiling future generations. In Kansas, the Wichita Eagle story on the budget accord recounted the threats that were raised: The Brownback administration warned Thursday that it would cut the budget Monday if lawmakers had not acted by then. Officials raised the specter of either a 6.2 percent across-the-board cut, which would cost schools nearly $200 million, or a veto of budgets for the state’s regents universities. Rep. Jim Ward—a Democrat representing southeast Wichita—tweeted his translation: "Brownback message to Republicans-Do it my way or I shoot the hostages (school kids, college kids, disabled) #ksleg" Advertisement: And Sen. Jeff Longbine—a Republican representing Emporia—said, “I am sick of being blackmailed.” Kansas City Star opinion writer Yael T. Abouhalkah provided more details in his blog: Figuratively, the governor appears willing to shoot the already-beleaguered schools in the foot, making them bear further financial pain because his cherished income tax breaks for businesses have drained money needed to provide crucial state services. It’s the newest ploy being used by Brownback to force the Kansas Legislature to pass the largest tax increase in state history and close a $400 million budget gap. On Tuesday, officials in the Kansas City, Kan. ($11 million in potential lost funds), Olathe ($10 million), Shawnee Mission ($8 million) and Blue Valley ($6 million) districts were scrambling to find out what they could do to protect the educational needs of their students. In addition, higher education leaders were looking at cutbacks of about $50 million. Brownback repeatedly threatened to veto any attempt to repeal the business income tax breaks, which are now more psychologically important to him than ever. The broad case for cutting taxes has become untenable—Brownback himself pushed for a sales tax increase to 6.65 percent, the legislature settled on 6.5 percent, up from 6.15 percent—leading Brownback to shift ground: taxing income is bad, taxing spending is good. Advertisement: As the Star story explained: Brownback praised what he called “a pro-growth tax policy” after its passage. “This bill keeps the state on a path of economic growth, creating well-paying jobs that benefit all Kansans. It continues our transition from taxes on productivity to consumption-based taxes,” he said in a statement. But this revised claim is utterly bogus. We can see this in broad terms, as Kansas continues to lag behind national job-creation rates, as it has ever since Brownback took office in January 2011. We can understand its bogosity more precisely by taking a close look at what it actually does, as the Kansas Center for Economic Growth did on its website with a May 28 post, “Business Tax Exemption Not a Roadmap to a Stronger Economy,” in which it pointed out: Less than 1 percent of all Kansas small businesses saw a tax savings of just over $38,000. This might be enough to hire one worker full-time, depending on wage and benefits. But, if you were to hire a full-time employee with that money, after paying for benefits the take-home pay would be $26,600 or about $12.80 an hour. That’s barely above the federal poverty level for a family of three – not a roadmap to a stronger economy. Given the magnitude of the lie Brownback was pushing, it wasn't enough to just threaten children's education; lawmakers themselves had to be bullied and abused. Daily Kos blogger Chris Reeves, whose Kansas budget coverage has been cited by the Columbia Journalism Review, focused on what the lawmakers had been through after a 4 a.m. final vote: Advertisement: For one moment, I want to put aside the bill and talk about our citizen legislators, Republicans and Democrats, who subjected themselves to what the Geneva convention refers to as torture - a 24-hour period with no schedule of sleep available of more than 4 contiguous hours. Such treatment is abhorrent for anyone, of course. But what of those who should err on the side of more rest? A key figure Reeves writes about is Heinz Dierks, a man in his 70s whose wife, Diana Dierks, 71, a moderate Republican, represents Salina. "I'm here to look out for her," Heinz Dierks said. And she was there to do her civic duty—a concept utterly foreign to men like Brownback and Jindal. In some respects, what happened in Louisiana was even worse. The pure chaos and dysfunction in Louisiana—and Jindal's utter failure as a political leader—was widely commented on by those who cover such things. The tone was set back on May 20, just after the legislature had definitively killed action on Jindal's proposed so-called religious freedom law, which, like Indiana's hastily withdrawn version, would have been a license to discriminate, when Julia O'Donoghue wrote a piece for the Times-Picayune, “Louisiana lawmakers have trashed Bobby Jindal's legislative agenda.” Not only had legislators rebuffed Jindal on the right to discriminate—the only piece of legislation he mentioned specifically in his opening speech to the legislature this year, and the subject of almost a third of that speech—but they also refused to follow his lead on two other top priorities: Advertisement: In his opening remarks for the legislative session, Jindal laid out three priorities—the state budget, Common Core and the religious freedom bill. The Legislature hasn't taken his lead of any of these issues, choosing instead to come up with their own solutions to these problems. However, as the legislature finished up its business, Will Sentell of the Advocate wrote a piece, “Budget problems easily dominate 2015 Legislature,” quoting key legislators and noting that everyone expected the budget “would be the key topic,” but that “bitter and time-consuming debates over how to address the problem all but drowned other topics expected to draw attention.” In short, the legislature passed a budget, and that was pretty much it. But as Tyler Bridges also reported for the Advocate, “while they solved the immediate crisis, Jindal and legislators fumbled the more arduous task of putting the state’s finances on sounder footing for the coming years,” going on to say: The $24.5 billion budget passed Thursday night contains so many short-term fixes that next year’s governor and Legislature will inherit a budget deficit of an estimated $1 billion, documents show, and the size of the deficit is only projected to grow in the following years. In light of all this, not surprisingly, two different lists of winners and losers pegged Jindal as loser in all this, and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform as a big winner—though as Louisiana political journalist and historian Robert Mann noted here at Salon, Norquist's smoke-and-mirrors-based victory may well have been Pyrrhic. At its heart lies Jindal's SAVE program, as Mann explained: Jindal and his staff proposed a convoluted, confusing student fee/tax credit “offset,” devised only so Jindal could claim his actions were “revenue neutral” and, therefore, did not increase taxes. With Norquist’s approval, Jindal pushed the so-called Student Assessment for a Valuable Education (SAVE) Credit Program. Under SAVE, students will be assessed a $1,500 fee, which will be offset by a $1,500 tax credit. No actual money will change hands, but as the Advocate of Baton Rouge explained, “the SAVE fund would create a tax credit for the $350 million that Jindal could use to offset $350 million of the new revenue that legislators are proposing to raise.” The student fees magically disappear from this accounting, because #Freedom! But the magic will likely have a very short half-life. As Mann goes on to say, “The real impact of what should be called 'the Jindal-Norquist Tax Cover-up Bill of 2015' may be the eventual destruction of ATR’s anti-tax increase pledge.” Advertisement: In her winners and losers roundup for the Times-Picayune, Julia O'Donoghue made the case for Norquist as winner, stressing his rule-setting role, though noting his embattled national status at the end: Back in February, Jindal put forward an initial budget proposal that he knew Norquist would approve. The Louisiana Senate also mostly worked within the parameters laid out by Norquist. Every financial decision was shaped by the anti-tax advocate and his supporters. At one point, some Louisiana legislators reached out to Norquist directly to try to convince him to change his opinion on one piece of legislation. [Story here. Mann's scathing take here.] Jindal may be courting Norquist because his organization is influential in national Republican politics and the governor is expected to run for president in 2016. But Norquist also has an interest in keeping Jindal on his side, as he faces fallout from Republicans in a few other states—notably Alabama and Kansas. But Clancy DuBos offered a grittier take at the Best of New Orleans, with his list of “Da winnas & da loozas,” which cited Norquist as a winner because “he has more sway in the Louisiana Legislature than the current governor,” adding hastily that “It’s not because he’s so powerful, but rather because our governor and too many lawmakers are so spineless — proving once again that in politics, as in tennis, it’s possible to win by default.” As for Jindal, heading up the list of “da loozas,” DuBos left no doubt as to why: He pitched three priorities on Opening Day: repealing Common Core, passing a “religious freedom” bill, and ending “corporate welfare” (the state-funded inventory tax rebate). He went 0 for 3, gave Louisiana its largest tax hike in memory, spent most of his time campaigning for president, and managed to sink even lower in public opinion polls. His last-minute save of “SAVE” will be repealed in January by the next Legislature and governor, and his post-session claim of “revenue neutrality” will rank alongside George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” as one of the great Orwellian claims by an American politician. More important, the world now knows that Bobby Jindal is the fiscal equivalent of Bernie Madoff — only nobody actually buys into his budgetary Ponzi scheme. If Jindal somehow gets elected president, his policies will put the U.S. economy on par with that of Greece before the end of his first term. Shifting focus from Jindal to the political environment he's damaged so completely, a case can be made that institutional damage in Louisiana was deeper than in Kansas, but at least politicians have begun to fight back. Hence AP's wrap-up analysis headline “Frayed relations could lead to significant change.” The story by Melinda Deslatte began with the sort of blunt on-the-ground reporting that ought to end Jindal's career: Advertisement: Frustration, even outright anger, with Gov. Bobby Jindal has been simmering in the Louisiana Legislature for years, building as the Republican governor’s presidential ambitions grew more obvious. But widespread legislative sentiment that Jindal has been making decisions based on a GOP presidential campaign he’s expected to announce June 24 may have a silver lining for the state, possibly putting limits on the next Louisiana governor’s power and forcing sweeping change for state budget and tax policy. In the just-ended legislative session, senators enacted changes to their leadership selection process aimed at limiting a governor’s meddling and increasing legislative independence. Lawmakers in both the House and Senate agreed to curtail the broad records exemptions granted to the governor, to provide more information to the public. And the state’s financial situation — hamstrung by Jindal’s rigid positions on tax discussions — has become so troubled that the next governor elected this fall will almost certainly hold a special session to allow the type of wide-ranging, needed debate on the budget and taxes that lawmakers haven’t had for years. If the dysfunction in Baton Rouge sounds like Washington, and Jindal's hostile relationship with his legislators sounds like Obama's relationship with Congress, there are two little facts to add to sweeten the mix: The first is that Jindal loves to portray himself as the anti-Obama, and the second is that he may have a point: his hostile relationships are with chambers his own party controls. Jindal's insistence on being the anti-Obama requires him to produce a conservative policy miracle, and if one can't be created in reality, then every piece of smoke and mirrors must be perfectly arranged and dogmatically defended. (His intensely focused devotion to this is what sets him apart from Brownback.) We've already had a peek at the most absurd example of this, Jindal's SAVE program, but its absurdity needs to be understood as part of a much larger project—a project to make him president. Integral to this project are a set of related claims about how well Jindal has supposedly done in shrinking the size of government—supposedly cutting state payrolls by 30,000 [shifting them to private contractors, actually] and cutting state spending by 26 percent, claims he's repeatedly made to the national political media, such as George Stephanopoulos on ABC's “This Week” on May 31. But as Mann explained in detail on his blog Something Like the Truth, after that appearance, anyone with an Internet connection could check out state documents and easily see that Jindal was lying. Looking at the budget record during Jindal's time in office, Mann concludes: Calculating the difference between Jindal’s first full budget year and his most recent complete budget year (2008-09 to 2014-15), total state expenditures actually increased by $780 million ($25.06 billion in 08-09 to $25.84 billion in 14-15). But that's not the comparison Jindal is making, Mann notes. He's comparing himself to his predecessor, Kathleen Blanco's last year in office—which makes him look better, but still not good enough: Advertisement: The actual difference between Jindal’s most recent budget and Blanco’s last budget ($2.75 billion) is a mere 9 percent cut in state expenditures. And here’s the kicker: Whatever budget cutting Jindal has achieved appears to come primarily from a decrease in federal funding flowing into the state’s coffers (something largely out of Jindal’s control). That's actually an understatement in light of the very next thing Mann tells us: Blanco’s last budget contained $12.88 billion in federal funds. Jindal’s last budget contains $10.07 billion in federal funds – a drop of $2.81 billion. That figure is greater, of course, than the $2.75 billion difference in Blanco’s last budget and Jindal’s most recent. So more than 100 percent of the decrease was outside of Jindal's control. I'm really not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, per se. What I do know is that it's proof he's a liar. In the end, Mann concludes: Did Jindal cut his state’s budget by 26 percent? Not even close. His own budget figures disprove his claim. The real question is, why do journalists like Stephanopoulos and other national media figures allow Jindal to keep making this false assertion without ever challenging him? Whatever the reason, it's a profoundly perverse belief. By trusting whatever a politician says, they give the advantage to whichever one tells the outrageously self-serving lie. It's the worst sort of competition imaginable to encourage. If the aim is to get at the truth, this is exactly the wrong way to go about doing things. As folks in the media ought to know, the way to get at the truth is to start with reporting facts. Then you assemble them and proceed to make sense of their evolution over time. Mann provides an example of this in a piece published at the Times-Picayune website after the budget deal was done, “Bobby Jindal's disgraceful fiscal legacy” picks out a few highlights that illuminate the recurring themes that have run throughout Jindal's tenure. Perhaps the most basic of these is a complete inability to think of anything beyond the immediate—or even to see that clearly. It started with spending the surplus left by his predecessor: In 2008, Jindal inherited an $865 million surplus. He and legislators promptly spent it. That should have been the first hint that he knew little about sound fiscal management. This was followed by misjudging state revenues, and deciding to cut taxes: Next, Jindal mistook the post-Katrina revenue boom (due to a massive infusion of federal money) for a permanent economic recovery. So, he slashed income taxes in his first regular session. Combined with ill-advised income tax cuts signed earlier by Gov. Kathleen Blanco, it was a mistake that blew an $800 million hole in the budget and launched us down the road to our present sad condition. Which in turn created a state of perpetual dishonesty and de facto stealing: Because he surrendered so much revenue in the beginning, Jindal's budgets have always included obscene amounts of one-time money. Despite bragging that he's balanced every budget, Jindal ended most fiscal years with a "structural" deficit. In other words, he only "balanced" the books by draining various savings accounts and trust funds. Those funds were intended for specific purposes, which did not include serving as piggy banks for times when the state's treasury ran short of cash. Jindal is hardly unique in this regard. Arnold Schwarzenegger engaged in the exact same sort of short-term juggling act throughout his tenure as governor of California, initiated by blowing a $6.5 billion hole in the budget with his grandstanding rollback of the state's vehicle license fee, then turning to borrowing and gimmickry. The state only regained its long-term fiscal balance after Democrat Jerry Brown was elected in 2010. It's not that Brown succeeded where Schwarzenegger failed, the two men were trying to do fundamentally different things. Schwarzenegger was trying to make everything look good on paper, at least for the moment. Brown was trying to run a state, as a steward of it for future generations. Although Schwarzenegger was widely seen as an anomalously liberal Republican on issues like gay rights and the environment, his budget record clearly revealed the narrow limits, not of Republican solutions to economic challenges, but of Republicans' ability to even see problems are, as opposed to the secondary and tertiary problems that are entirely of their own making. And the rest of us will be dragged along for the ride, at least as things stand now. As long the national media takes the George Stephanopoulos approach of swallowing GOP lies whole, we will remain mired in failure after failure, without even a clue to what's going on. If we want to stop being clueless—about the problems as well as the solutions—we've got to watch what they do, not what they say.

www.salon.com

left

IiwrtorHFgP6eSN3

test

2ibDlIVCGg33qo5H

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/24/welcome_to_the_gops_age_of_rage_shocking_new_study_shows_how_anger_is_fueling_the_republican_party/

Welcome to the GOP's age of rage: Shocking new study shows how anger is fueling the Republican Party

2015-11-24

Heather Digparton

Welcome to the GOP 's age of rage : Shocking new study shows how anger is fueling the Republican Party According to a new Pew Poll , Republicans do n't trust the government at all—even while they control almost all of it According to the latest Pew poll , Republicans are mad as hell and they 're not going to take it anymore . They are , as usual , deeply confused about what government does and what they want it to do , but whatever it is , they 're very angry about it . Thirty-two percent of GOP voters say they are mad at the government , while only 12 percent of Democrats say the same . According to Pew , among the truly engaged ( like those , say , who go to a political rally a year before an election ) , 42 percent of Republicans are angry compared to 11 percent of Democrats . Both sides say you can not trust the government , but Democrats ' views do n't change depending on who is in the White House while Republicans are far more trusting of government when one of their own is president : In Barack Obama ’ s six years as president , 13 % of Republicans , on average , have said they can trust the government always or most of the time – the lowest level of average trust among either party during any administration dating back 40 years . During George W. Bush ’ s presidency , an average of 47 % of Republicans said they could trust the government . By contrast , the share of Democrats saying they can trust the government has been virtually unchanged over the two administrations ( 28 % Bush , 29 % Obama ) . It does n't appear , then , that despite their constant bleating about the predations of big government , this mistrust is truly a matter of principle with Republicans . Republican voters simply believe that government is the enemy unless Republicans are in charge of every bit of it . This famous quote by Grover Norquist in the wake of the 2004 GOP victory perfectly expresses how they believe government is supposed to work : `` Once the [ Democratic ] minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status , they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans . Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant , but when they 've been fixed , then they are happy and sedate . They are contented and cheerful . They do n't go around peeing on the furniture and such . '' And while one might think that having majorities of governors and state legislatures , running both houses of Congress and a majority on the Supreme Court would make them hate the government less , without having control of every branch , they are convinced that they are an aggrieved minority who are losing at every turn : `` large majorities of both conservative Republicans ( 81 percent ) and moderate and liberal Republicans ( 75 percent ) say their political side loses more often than it wins . '' And heaven forbid they might compromise to get some of what they want . If they ca n't have it all , it 's not worth anything . None of this is really news to anyone who 's been watching the presidential race unfold this year . The Trump phenomenon alone is enough to convince observers that while a large chunk of the Republican base is ticked off at just about everything -- especially immigrants , Muslims and President Obama . But what really makes them see red , and what Trump ( and to some extent Carson ) articulates the best , is the visceral loathing for what they call `` political correctness . '' ( That 's what what people used to call `` good manners '' or `` basic human decency . '' ) The social disapprobation against being rude and demeaning completely enrages them . Some conservatives openly defy any restriction on their God-given right to be puerile jerks : ( Helen Keller jokes were considered gross and out of bounds even when I was a kid and that was long before the term `` political correctness '' existed . ) Rush Limbaugh , Mark Levin , Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham come to mind as similarly infantile and crude . But mostly they are screaming mad . They are the leaders of the angry right who have been stoking the discontent of their audiences for many years , creating the subculture of right wing rage that is finding its political expression in the candidacy of Donald Trump . No less than the Wall Street Journal made note of their influence and how they 've managed to turn it against the very establishment that helped create them : Consider the folks who regularly tune in to conservative talk radio . These listeners expect a steady diet of Obama-bashing , so it ’ s hardly surprising that not one surveyed for a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in late October approved of the job Barack Obama is doing as president . That anger translates to how these Americans view the country as a whole . Some 98 % think the country is headed in the wrong direction , a view regularly reinforced on the airwaves by the likes of Rush Limbaugh , Mark Levin and other talk-radio hosts who don ’ t have much nice to say about GOP leaders in Washington , either . A decade ago , Republicans touted conservative talk radio as a foolproof medium to communicate directly with their most ardent supporters . Democrats and liberal groups tried to replicate that success by building their own left-leaning television and radio stations , with far less success . Now , the tables have turned . Republican leaders in Washington are under siege from their own activists , in part , because conservative radio hosts are almost as likely to rail against the party brass in Congress as they are to lament Mr. Obama ’ s failings in the Oval Office . This is a switch from the days when Rush would have the whole Bush family on his show in 2008 so they could kiss each other 's rings : RUSH : What are ... ? ( interruption ) Interrupting for what ? THE PRESIDENT : Hello ! RUSH : Oh , jeez . The president ? THE PRESIDENT : Rush Limbaugh ? RUSH : Yes , sir , Mr. President . THE PRESIDENT : President George W. Bush calling to congratulate you on 20 years of important and excellent broadcasting . RUSH : Well , thank you , sir . You 've stunned me ! ( laughing ) I 'm shocked . But thank you so much . THE PRESIDENT : That 's hard to do . RUSH : ( laughing ) I know , it is . THE PRESIDENT : I 'm here with a room full of admirers . There are two others that would like to speak to you and congratulate you , people who consider you friends and really appreciate the contribution you 've made . RUSH : Thank you , sir , very much . Put 'em on . THE PRESIDENT : How you doing ? This is my swan song ? If this is all you got for me , I 'm moving on . RUSH : ( laughing ) No ! The show 's yours ; take as much time as you want . THE PRESIDENT : Well , I 'm just calling along with President 41 and the former governor of Florida . We 're fixing to have lunch here , and I said , `` Listen , we ought to call our pal and let him know that we care , '' for you . So this is as much as anything , a nice verbal letter to a guy we really care for . RUSH : Well , thank you , sir , very much . I 'm overwhelmed . I ca n't tell you how much I appreciate this and how much you 've surprised me . THE PRESIDENT : Well , that was the purpose of the phone call . RUSH : You succeeded . THE PRESIDENT : Good . There was trouble in paradise even then , however , although the Bush family may not have been aware of it . You may recall that President Bush had tried to pass immigration reform and was thwarted by one of the earliest exercises of right wing muscle in Congress . Former Senate majority leader Trent Lott left no uncertainty as to who and what was to blame : Comments by Republican senators on Thursday suggested that they were feeling the heat from conservative critics of the bill , who object to provisions offering legal status . The Republican whip , Trent Lott of Mississippi , who supports the bill , said : “ Talk radio is running America . We have to deal with that problem . ” There 's nothing they can do about it . That `` problem '' continued on unmolested and ended up empowering the Tea Party right to create an obstructionist bloc in the House , destroyed the political career of the House Majority Leader last year and is now fueling the angry crowds who are showing up to cheer on Donald Trump as he eschews all human decency to `` tell it like it is '' in exactly the terms these talk radio folks are used to hearing it . And today , as then , racism and xenophobia are their main motivators . Like Limbaugh , Levin , Savage and Ingraham , Trump channels their anger and feeds it back to them . The Pew Poll reported : Donald Trump is viewed more favorably by the nearly one-third of Republicans and leaners who are angry at government ( 64 % favorable ) than by those who are frustrated or content with government ( 48 % ) . Other GOP presidential candidates ( Marco Rubio , Ted Cruz and Ben Carson ) also get higher favorable ratings among Republicans who are angry at government than among non-angry Republicans , in part because they are better known among the “ angry ” group . And if you want to know why establishment Republicans are so unwilling to challenge talk radio 's toxic spew and the political virus that grows from it , the Journal explains : Republican presidential contenders would be unwise to write off this bloc ; roughly a third of Republican primary voters strongly identify with conservative talk radio , about 10 percentage points higher than the share of GOP primary voters who consider themselves moderate or liberal , according to the survey conducted by the Democrats at Hart Research Associates and the Republicans at Public Opinion Research . There are way more of these talk radio acolytes than there are any other kind of Republican . They run things now . And they are livid -- - at least until the Republicans manage to control all of government and enact their agenda precisely as talk radio tells them it must be enacted . Then they might calm down . But I would n't count on it . Rage is their life blood now . They ca n't live without it .

Welcome to the GOP's age of rage: Shocking new study shows how anger is fueling the Republican Party According to a new Pew Poll, Republicans don't trust the government at all—even while they control almost all of it According to the latest Pew poll, Republicans are mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore. They are, as usual, deeply confused about what government does and what they want it to do, but whatever it is, they're very angry about it. Thirty-two percent of GOP voters say they are mad at the government, while only 12 percent of Democrats say the same. According to Pew, among the truly engaged (like those, say, who go to a political rally a year before an election), 42 percent of Republicans are angry compared to 11 percent of Democrats. Both sides say you cannot trust the government, but Democrats' views don't change depending on who is in the White House while Republicans are far more trusting of government when one of their own is president: Advertisement: In Barack Obama’s six years as president, 13% of Republicans, on average, have said they can trust the government always or most of the time – the lowest level of average trust among either party during any administration dating back 40 years. During George W. Bush’s presidency, an average of 47% of Republicans said they could trust the government. By contrast, the share of Democrats saying they can trust the government has been virtually unchanged over the two administrations (28% Bush, 29% Obama). It doesn't appear, then, that despite their constant bleating about the predations of big government, this mistrust is truly a matter of principle with Republicans. Republican voters simply believe that government is the enemy unless Republicans are in charge of every bit of it. This famous quote by Grover Norquist in the wake of the 2004 GOP victory perfectly expresses how they believe government is supposed to work: "Once the [Democratic] minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they've been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don't go around peeing on the furniture and such." And while one might think that having majorities of governors and state legislatures, running both houses of Congress and a majority on the Supreme Court would make them hate the government less, without having control of every branch, they are convinced that they are an aggrieved minority who are losing at every turn: "large majorities of both conservative Republicans (81 percent) and moderate and liberal Republicans (75 percent) say their political side loses more often than it wins." And heaven forbid they might compromise to get some of what they want. If they can't have it all, it's not worth anything. None of this is really news to anyone who's been watching the presidential race unfold this year. The Trump phenomenon alone is enough to convince observers that while a large chunk of the Republican base is ticked off at just about everything -- especially immigrants, Muslims and President Obama. But what really makes them see red, and what Trump (and to some extent Carson) articulates the best, is the visceral loathing for what they call "political correctness." (That's what what people used to call "good manners" or "basic human decency.") The social disapprobation against being rude and demeaning completely enrages them. Advertisement: Some conservatives openly defy any restriction on their God-given right to be puerile jerks: (Helen Keller jokes were considered gross and out of bounds even when I was a kid and that was long before the term "political correctness" existed.) Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham come to mind as similarly infantile and crude. But mostly they are screaming mad. They are the leaders of the angry right who have been stoking the discontent of their audiences for many years, creating the subculture of right wing rage that is finding its political expression in the candidacy of Donald Trump. Advertisement: No less than the Wall Street Journal made note of their influence and how they've managed to turn it against the very establishment that helped create them: Consider the folks who regularly tune in to conservative talk radio. These listeners expect a steady diet of Obama-bashing, so it’s hardly surprising that not one surveyed for a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in late October approved of the job Barack Obama is doing as president. That anger translates to how these Americans view the country as a whole. Some 98% think the country is headed in the wrong direction, a view regularly reinforced on the airwaves by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and other talk-radio hosts who don’t have much nice to say about GOP leaders in Washington, either. A decade ago, Republicans touted conservative talk radio as a foolproof medium to communicate directly with their most ardent supporters. Democrats and liberal groups tried to replicate that success by building their own left-leaning television and radio stations, with far less success. Now, the tables have turned. Republican leaders in Washington are under siege from their own activists, in part, because conservative radio hosts are almost as likely to rail against the party brass in Congress as they are to lament Mr. Obama’s failings in the Oval Office. This is a switch from the days when Rush would have the whole Bush family on his show in 2008 so they could kiss each other's rings: Advertisement: RUSH: What are...? (interruption) Interrupting for what? THE PRESIDENT: Hello! RUSH: Oh, jeez. The president? THE PRESIDENT: Rush Limbaugh? RUSH: Yes, sir, Mr. President. THE PRESIDENT: President George W. Bush calling to congratulate you on 20 years of important and excellent broadcasting. RUSH: Well, thank you, sir. You've stunned me! (laughing) I'm shocked. But thank you so much. THE PRESIDENT: That's hard to do. RUSH: (laughing) I know, it is. THE PRESIDENT: I'm here with a room full of admirers. There are two others that would like to speak to you and congratulate you, people who consider you friends and really appreciate the contribution you've made. RUSH: Thank you, sir, very much. Put 'em on. THE PRESIDENT: How you doing? This is my swan song? If this is all you got for me, I'm moving on. RUSH: (laughing) No! The show's yours; take as much time as you want. THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm just calling along with President 41 and the former governor of Florida. We're fixing to have lunch here, and I said, "Listen, we ought to call our pal and let him know that we care," for you. So this is as much as anything, a nice verbal letter to a guy we really care for. RUSH: Well, thank you, sir, very much. I'm overwhelmed. I can't tell you how much I appreciate this and how much you've surprised me. THE PRESIDENT: Well, that was the purpose of the phone call. RUSH: You succeeded. THE PRESIDENT: Good. There was trouble in paradise even then, however, although the Bush family may not have been aware of it. You may recall that President Bush had tried to pass immigration reform and was thwarted by one of the earliest exercises of right wing muscle in Congress. Former Senate majority leader Trent Lott left no uncertainty as to who and what was to blame: Comments by Republican senators on Thursday suggested that they were feeling the heat from conservative critics of the bill, who object to provisions offering legal status. The Republican whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi, who supports the bill, said: “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.” There's nothing they can do about it. That "problem" continued on unmolested and ended up empowering the Tea Party right to create an obstructionist bloc in the House, destroyed the political career of the House Majority Leader last year and is now fueling the angry crowds who are showing up to cheer on Donald Trump as he eschews all human decency to "tell it like it is" in exactly the terms these talk radio folks are used to hearing it. And today, as then, racism and xenophobia are their main motivators. Like Limbaugh, Levin, Savage and Ingraham, Trump channels their anger and feeds it back to them. The Pew Poll reported: Advertisement: Donald Trump is viewed more favorably by the nearly one-third of Republicans and leaners who are angry at government (64% favorable) than by those who are frustrated or content with government (48%). Other GOP presidential candidates (Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson) also get higher favorable ratings among Republicans who are angry at government than among non-angry Republicans, in part because they are better known among the “angry” group. And if you want to know why establishment Republicans are so unwilling to challenge talk radio's toxic spew and the political virus that grows from it, the Journal explains: Republican presidential contenders would be unwise to write off this bloc; roughly a third of Republican primary voters strongly identify with conservative talk radio, about 10 percentage points higher than the share of GOP primary voters who consider themselves moderate or liberal, according to the survey conducted by the Democrats at Hart Research Associates and the Republicans at Public Opinion Research. There are way more of these talk radio acolytes than there are any other kind of Republican. They run things now. And they are livid --- at least until the Republicans manage to control all of government and enact their agenda precisely as talk radio tells them it must be enacted. Then they might calm down. But I wouldn't count on it. Rage is their life blood now. They can't live without it.

www.salon.com

left

2ibDlIVCGg33qo5H

test

k5iVI9z3aNLZdctm

cybersecurity

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-Snowden-security-intelligence/2013/06/12/id/509564

Snowden Threatens to Reveal More 'Explosive' NSA Secrets

2013-06-12

Former U.S. spy Edward Snowden on Wednesday vowed to fight any bid to extradite him from Hong Kong and promised `` explosive '' new revelations about Washington 's surveillance targets , The South China Morning Post reported . Specifically , Snowden reportedly showed the newspaper `` unverified documents '' describing an extensive U.S. campaign to obtain information from computers in Hong Kong and mainland China . Urgent : Is Obama Telling the Truth on IRS , Benghazi Scandals ? `` We hack network backbones , like huge Internet routers , basically , that give us access to the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers without having to hack every single one , '' he told the newspaper . Officials have confirmed that Snowden may have more secret material . `` Apparently he 's got a thumb drive , '' Sen. Saxby Chambliss , a Republican from Georgia , said Tuesday . `` He 's already exposed part of it and I guess he 's going to expose the rest of it . '' National Security Agency Director Gen. Keith Alexander told the Senate Intelligence Committee that `` he does n't know where Snowden is now , '' Chambliss said . And the British paper The Guardian reported it believed Snowden had moved to a `` safer '' hotel in Hong Kong , the city to which he fled in preparation for the bombshell data dump . `` I 'm neither traitor nor hero . I 'm an American , '' Snowden said in the exclusive interview , released two days after he checked out of the city hotel and went to ground . Supporters of the former NSA subcontractor are lauding him as a whistleblower for divulging NSA monitoring of private users ' web traffic and phone records , in a worldwide trawl that the White House says was needed to keep Americans safe from terror . The Morning Post , in a teaser posted online before it publishes the full interview , said the 29-year-old onetime CIA analyst would offer `` more explosive details on U.S. surveillance targets . '' That will only stoke the anger of those in Washington who accuse Snowden of a rank betrayal . Snowden would also discuss his fears for his family and his immediate plans , the newspaper said , after it interviewed him earlier Wednesday at a secret location in the semi-autonomous Chinese territory . `` People who think I made a mistake in picking HK as a location misunderstand my intentions . I am not here to hide from justice ; I am here to reveal criminality , '' it quoted him as saying . Snowden pledged to resist any extradition attempt by the U.S. government , the newspaper said , after he came to Hong Kong on May 20 and leaked the NSA 's global eavesdropping operation to The Guardian and The Washington Post . `` My intention is to ask the courts and people of Hong Kong to decide my fate . I have been given no reason to doubt your system , '' he said . But , Snowden added , the U.S. government was `` trying to bully '' Hong Kong authorities into expelling him before he can reveal alleged NSA snooping of communications inside the financial and trading hub . He also said : `` I have not spoken to any of my family . I am worried about the pressure they are feeling from the FBI . '' The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation , but so far the United States has not filed a formal extradition request to Hong Kong , a former British colony that retained its separate legal system when it returned to Chinese rule in 1997 . Ultimately , Beijing retains control over defense and foreign affairs -- and can veto extradition rulings made by Hong Kong courts . The Hong Kong and Chinese governments have yet to make any comment about Snowden . Hong Kong press reports said that Snowden was on the hunt for representation from prominent lawyers well-versed in human rights and asylum cases . He is winning support from the city 's feisty pro-democracy movement , with a demonstration in the works for Saturday . Organizers said the protesters , set to include Hong Kong lawmakers , would march first to the U.S. consulate and then government headquarters . `` We should protect him . We are calling on the HK government to defend freedom of speech , '' Tom Grundy , a spokesman for the organizers , told the news agency Agence France-Presse Wednesday . `` We do n't know what law he may or may not have broken , but if Beijing has a final say , they do n't have to extradite him if he is a political dissident , '' he said . A protracted battle over Snowden 's fate threatens to test new attempts to build U.S.-Sino bridges as shown at a weekend summit in California between President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping . The European Union already has expressed disquiet at the giant scale of the NSA operation . White House spokesman Jay Carney on Tuesday said Obama had signed an executive directive requiring protections for intelligence community whistleblowers who use `` appropriate '' channels -- implicitly not leaks to newspapers as Snowden did -- to expose alleged wrongdoing . But Carney fended off all questions about Snowden and declined to characterize his actions while investigations are underway . On Capitol Hill , the language was more blunt . Speaker of the House John Boehner described Snowden 's leaks as a `` giant '' violation of the law . `` He 's a traitor , '' Boehner told ABC News in an interview . `` The disclosure of this information puts Americans at risk . It shows our adversaries what our capabilities are . '' Alexander , the NSA chief , is to testify before a Senate committee later Wednesday at a pre-arranged hearing at which he is now expected to face questioning about PRISM , the intelligence operation divulged by Snowden .

Former U.S. spy Edward Snowden on Wednesday vowed to fight any bid to extradite him from Hong Kong and promised "explosive" new revelations about Washington's surveillance targets, The South China Morning Post reported. Specifically, Snowden reportedly showed the newspaper "unverified documents" describing an extensive U.S. campaign to obtain information from computers in Hong Kong and mainland China. Urgent: Is Obama Telling the Truth on IRS, Benghazi Scandals? "We hack network backbones, like huge Internet routers, basically, that give us access to the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers without having to hack every single one," he told the newspaper. Officials have confirmed that Snowden may have more secret material. "Apparently he's got a thumb drive," Sen. Saxby Chambliss, a Republican from Georgia, said Tuesday. "He's already exposed part of it and I guess he's going to expose the rest of it." National Security Agency Director Gen. Keith Alexander told the Senate Intelligence Committee that "he doesn't know where Snowden is now," Chambliss said. And the British paper The Guardian reported it believed Snowden had moved to a "safer" hotel in Hong Kong, the city to which he fled in preparation for the bombshell data dump. "I'm neither traitor nor hero. I'm an American," Snowden said in the exclusive interview, released two days after he checked out of the city hotel and went to ground. Supporters of the former NSA subcontractor are lauding him as a whistleblower for divulging NSA monitoring of private users' web traffic and phone records, in a worldwide trawl that the White House says was needed to keep Americans safe from terror. The Morning Post, in a teaser posted online before it publishes the full interview, said the 29-year-old onetime CIA analyst would offer "more explosive details on U.S. surveillance targets." That will only stoke the anger of those in Washington who accuse Snowden of a rank betrayal. Snowden would also discuss his fears for his family and his immediate plans, the newspaper said, after it interviewed him earlier Wednesday at a secret location in the semi-autonomous Chinese territory. "People who think I made a mistake in picking HK as a location misunderstand my intentions. I am not here to hide from justice; I am here to reveal criminality," it quoted him as saying. Snowden pledged to resist any extradition attempt by the U.S. government, the newspaper said, after he came to Hong Kong on May 20 and leaked the NSA's global eavesdropping operation to The Guardian and The Washington Post. "My intention is to ask the courts and people of Hong Kong to decide my fate. I have been given no reason to doubt your system," he said. But, Snowden added, the U.S. government was "trying to bully" Hong Kong authorities into expelling him before he can reveal alleged NSA snooping of communications inside the financial and trading hub. He also said: "I have not spoken to any of my family. I am worried about the pressure they are feeling from the FBI." The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation, but so far the United States has not filed a formal extradition request to Hong Kong, a former British colony that retained its separate legal system when it returned to Chinese rule in 1997. Ultimately, Beijing retains control over defense and foreign affairs -- and can veto extradition rulings made by Hong Kong courts. The Hong Kong and Chinese governments have yet to make any comment about Snowden. Hong Kong press reports said that Snowden was on the hunt for representation from prominent lawyers well-versed in human rights and asylum cases. He is winning support from the city's feisty pro-democracy movement, with a demonstration in the works for Saturday. Organizers said the protesters, set to include Hong Kong lawmakers, would march first to the U.S. consulate and then government headquarters. "We should protect him. We are calling on the HK government to defend freedom of speech," Tom Grundy, a spokesman for the organizers, told the news agency Agence France-Presse Wednesday. "We don't know what law he may or may not have broken, but if Beijing has a final say, they don't have to extradite him if he is a political dissident," he said. A protracted battle over Snowden's fate threatens to test new attempts to build U.S.-Sino bridges as shown at a weekend summit in California between President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping. The European Union already has expressed disquiet at the giant scale of the NSA operation. Editor's Note: Video Exposes Dangers of Obamacare Law White House spokesman Jay Carney on Tuesday said Obama had signed an executive directive requiring protections for intelligence community whistleblowers who use "appropriate" channels -- implicitly not leaks to newspapers as Snowden did -- to expose alleged wrongdoing. But Carney fended off all questions about Snowden and declined to characterize his actions while investigations are underway. On Capitol Hill, the language was more blunt. Speaker of the House John Boehner described Snowden's leaks as a "giant" violation of the law. "He's a traitor," Boehner told ABC News in an interview. "The disclosure of this information puts Americans at risk. It shows our adversaries what our capabilities are." Alexander, the NSA chief, is to testify before a Senate committee later Wednesday at a pre-arranged hearing at which he is now expected to face questioning about PRISM, the intelligence operation divulged by Snowden.

www.newsmax.com

right

k5iVI9z3aNLZdctm

test

6KSjgVNGtwApjKVd

race_and_racism

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/06/everyday-racism-in-america-how-to-fix-it

Oppression in America: 'To root this out we need a movement against racist policies'

2018-06-06

Jamiles Lartey

To root out racism , academics and activists say , talk of healing is not enough : the bias at the heart of American politics , policing and society must be addressed It seems as though every single day , the list grows . Waiting in a coffee shop while black . Selling real estate while black . Moving in while black . Napping while black . Working out while black . Ever since a Starbucks in the Philadelphia area came under national scrutiny for calling the police on two black men waiting for a business associate in one of the company ’ s coffee shops , new attention has been focused on the long list of mundane activities that black Americans can ’ t confidently engage in without being treated as suspicious or having the police called . “ It ’ s just part of daily living . It ’ s what you expect as a person of color when you head out the door in the morning , ” said Jeff Chang , the author of Who We Be : A Cultural History of Race in Post-Civil Rights America . “ A moment like this just sort of galvanized folks to be able to express all the different ways in which they ’ ve been impacted by daily racism . ” In many ways the newly energized conversation parallels how Black Lives Matter emerged as an ideological clearinghouse for the problem of racialized police violence several years ago . Neither phenomenon was new , but in both cases a stream of high profile incidents managed to snowball into its own trope , in part thanks to social media and smartphone videos . In this case that ’ s the trope of “ everyday racism ” . A national , widespread effort to reorient Americans ’ racist ideas – that has never happened before For experts , the genesis is clear . While the US has ended the formal , legal codes of enslavement and segregation that stood for most of the nation ’ s history , little has been done to change the minds of too many about the racist ideas that those structures rested on . “ There has not been a society-wide and intensive challenge to racist ideas in the US , ” said Ibram Kendi , the director of the Antiracist Research & Policy Center at American University . “ You ’ ve had people saying we need to have ‘ national conversations ’ , You ’ ve have people calling for ‘ healing ’ , because in their minds it ’ s just that people are hateful and they need to start loving ... But in terms of a national , widespread effort to reorient Americans ’ racist ideas – that has never happened before . ” And those ideas run deep , said Jamilah Lemieux , a cultural critic and writer . “ Non-black people in this country have been fed a steady diet of propaganda from their parents , their schools , their churches , and from the media that tells them that people of color , and particularly black folks and Latinx people are not to be trusted . “ They ’ ve been taught that we are criminals , that we are violent that we are predators and think we need to be monitored . ” Barack Obama ’ s 2008 election was seen by much of white America as the dawning of a new , post-racial age . The logic held that , if a black man could attain the highest office in the land , then no goal could be considered out of reach for an individual black person in modern America . This post-racial framing , of course , belies not just the inherited and institutional disadvantages black Americans face in housing , education , wealth , and other socioeconomic concerns , but also the emergence of what some have described as a “ newer , slicker ” form of racism . After the 2008 election , the anti-racist activist and writer Tim Wise described it as one where whites “ hold the larger black community in low regard ” but “ carve out acceptable space for individuals like Obama who strike them as different ” . And insofar as Obama ’ s eight years in power fueled a renewed sense of purpose and organization among white nationalists , and triggered what the CNN pundit Van Jones famously described as a “ whitelash ” , some , including Obama himself , have wondered if his presidency actually set the project of racial equality back – at least temporarily . “ Maybe we pushed too far , ” Obama worried aloud to an aide shortly after the election , according to a forthcoming book . “ Maybe people just want to fall back into their tribe . ” That racial tribalism is part of what propelled Trump ’ s victory , despite the fact that he would go on to repeatedly describe himself as the “ least racist person ” . Trump ’ s popularity with unabashed white supremacists stems from things like his frequent ill-informed tweets and comments about inner city violence , and his reported use of the the phrase “ shithole counties ” in speaking about immigrants from black and brown nations . After the Starbucks incident , numerous other examples quickly emerged via news reports and social media . In New Jersey , two black men had police called on them by staff at a gym after being falsely accused of working out without proper memberships . Police in California swarmed three black women leaving an Airbnb when a neighbor concluded they were in the midst of a robbery . A woman in Oakland called the police on black residents for barbecuing in a park , and , at Yale University , a white woman called police on a black fellow student for falling asleep in a dorm common area . The presence of police is not the defining factor for everyday racism , or what some call “ microaggressions ” , but it is one of the harshest escalations . For Phillip Atiba Goff , a leading researcher on racial bias in policing and the president of the Center for Policing Equity , part of this has to do with the fact that black people and white people often share space in places like a university campus or a rapidly gentrifying city such as Oakland , California , but don ’ t always share bonds . “ When you have people living close to each other who are not in community with each other , that breeds fear , ” Goff said . He worries about what it means that in cases where officers functionally become “ deputized as a kind of personal racism valet ” – armed respondents to unfounded suspicions by white Americans . But from the perspective of law enforcement it ’ s a hard circle to square . 'We 're being pushed out ' : the displacement of black Oakland Read more “ You can ’ t very well instruct your 911 operators to be like ‘ yeah Mrs Smith , I know you said there were gangbangers but we know you ’ re probably just racist , ” Goff said . Police have to respond , and are trained to treat every scenario as though it could become dangerous . “ So they ’ re going to show up , and they ’ re generally going to be aggressive , ” Goff added . “ And by the time they figure out that you are not the issue , your dignity has been so assaulted that it really is difficult to have a pleasant conversation . For the cops and for the resident . ” Thus , more than anything , what needs to be challenged to make real progress on everyday racism is racial bias , whether conscious or unconscious . “ The only way we actually win , is to change the social norms , ” Goff said . And for Kendi , like many race scholars , an important part of that is paying closer attention to social , economic and political policies that have a biased impact , rather than case by case negative exchanges individuals have with one another . “ Policies are the cradle of the racist ideas circulating in people ’ s minds that are leading to those interpersonal situations that are negatively affecting people , ” Kendi said . “ If people are really serious about being able to live freely and black in the United States , then the way really to do that is to be a part of the movement against racist policies . ”

To root out racism, academics and activists say, talk of healing is not enough: the bias at the heart of American politics, policing and society must be addressed It seems as though every single day, the list grows. Waiting in a coffee shop while black. Selling real estate while black. Moving in while black. Napping while black. Working out while black. Ever since a Starbucks in the Philadelphia area came under national scrutiny for calling the police on two black men waiting for a business associate in one of the company’s coffee shops, new attention has been focused on the long list of mundane activities that black Americans can’t confidently engage in without being treated as suspicious or having the police called. “It’s just part of daily living. It’s what you expect as a person of color when you head out the door in the morning,” said Jeff Chang, the author of Who We Be: A Cultural History of Race in Post-Civil Rights America. “A moment like this just sort of galvanized folks to be able to express all the different ways in which they’ve been impacted by daily racism.” In many ways the newly energized conversation parallels how Black Lives Matter emerged as an ideological clearinghouse for the problem of racialized police violence several years ago. Neither phenomenon was new, but in both cases a stream of high profile incidents managed to snowball into its own trope, in part thanks to social media and smartphone videos. In this case that’s the trope of “everyday racism”. A national, widespread effort to reorient Americans’ racist ideas – that has never happened before For experts, the genesis is clear. While the US has ended the formal, legal codes of enslavement and segregation that stood for most of the nation’s history, little has been done to change the minds of too many about the racist ideas that those structures rested on. “There has not been a society-wide and intensive challenge to racist ideas in the US,” said Ibram Kendi, the director of the Antiracist Research & Policy Center at American University. “You’ve had people saying we need to have ‘national conversations’, You’ve have people calling for ‘healing’, because in their minds it’s just that people are hateful and they need to start loving ... But in terms of a national, widespread effort to reorient Americans’ racist ideas – that has never happened before.” And those ideas run deep, said Jamilah Lemieux, a cultural critic and writer. “Non-black people in this country have been fed a steady diet of propaganda from their parents, their schools, their churches, and from the media that tells them that people of color, and particularly black folks and Latinx people are not to be trusted. “They’ve been taught that we are criminals, that we are violent that we are predators and think we need to be monitored.” Hope and change Barack Obama’s 2008 election was seen by much of white America as the dawning of a new, post-racial age. The logic held that, if a black man could attain the highest office in the land, then no goal could be considered out of reach for an individual black person in modern America. Facebook Twitter Pinterest The election of Obama in 2008 seemed to herald a ‘post-racial era’. Photograph: Jason Reed / Reuters/Reuters This post-racial framing, of course, belies not just the inherited and institutional disadvantages black Americans face in housing, education, wealth, and other socioeconomic concerns, but also the emergence of what some have described as a “newer, slicker” form of racism. After the 2008 election, the anti-racist activist and writer Tim Wise described it as one where whites “hold the larger black community in low regard” but “carve out acceptable space for individuals like Obama who strike them as different”. And insofar as Obama’s eight years in power fueled a renewed sense of purpose and organization among white nationalists, and triggered what the CNN pundit Van Jones famously described as a “whitelash”, some, including Obama himself, have wondered if his presidency actually set the project of racial equality back – at least temporarily. “Maybe we pushed too far,” Obama worried aloud to an aide shortly after the election, according to a forthcoming book. “Maybe people just want to fall back into their tribe.” That racial tribalism is part of what propelled Trump’s victory, despite the fact that he would go on to repeatedly describe himself as the “least racist person”. Trump’s popularity with unabashed white supremacists stems from things like his frequent ill-informed tweets and comments about inner city violence, and his reported use of the the phrase “shithole counties” in speaking about immigrants from black and brown nations. ‘Personal racism valet’ After the Starbucks incident, numerous other examples quickly emerged via news reports and social media. In New Jersey, two black men had police called on them by staff at a gym after being falsely accused of working out without proper memberships. Police in California swarmed three black women leaving an Airbnb when a neighbor concluded they were in the midst of a robbery. A woman in Oakland called the police on black residents for barbecuing in a park, and, at Yale University, a white woman called police on a black fellow student for falling asleep in a dorm common area. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Starbucks recently closed more than 8,000 stores for employee training to address racial bias. Photograph: Frederic J Brown/AFP/Getty Images The presence of police is not the defining factor for everyday racism, or what some call “microaggressions”, but it is one of the harshest escalations. For Phillip Atiba Goff, a leading researcher on racial bias in policing and the president of the Center for Policing Equity, part of this has to do with the fact that black people and white people often share space in places like a university campus or a rapidly gentrifying city such as Oakland, California, but don’t always share bonds. “When you have people living close to each other who are not in community with each other, that breeds fear,” Goff said. He worries about what it means that in cases where officers functionally become “deputized as a kind of personal racism valet” – armed respondents to unfounded suspicions by white Americans. But from the perspective of law enforcement it’s a hard circle to square. 'We're being pushed out': the displacement of black Oakland Read more “You can’t very well instruct your 911 operators to be like ‘yeah Mrs Smith, I know you said there were gangbangers but we know you’re probably just racist,” Goff said. Police have to respond, and are trained to treat every scenario as though it could become dangerous. “So they’re going to show up, and they’re generally going to be aggressive,” Goff added. “And by the time they figure out that you are not the issue, your dignity has been so assaulted that it really is difficult to have a pleasant conversation. For the cops and for the resident.” Thus, more than anything, what needs to be challenged to make real progress on everyday racism is racial bias, whether conscious or unconscious. “The only way we actually win, is to change the social norms,” Goff said. And for Kendi, like many race scholars, an important part of that is paying closer attention to social, economic and political policies that have a biased impact, rather than case by case negative exchanges individuals have with one another. “Policies are the cradle of the racist ideas circulating in people’s minds that are leading to those interpersonal situations that are negatively affecting people,” Kendi said. “If people are really serious about being able to live freely and black in the United States, then the way really to do that is to be a part of the movement against racist policies.”

www.theguardian.com

left

6KSjgVNGtwApjKVd

test

bmAysWsjpI8ZkdfG

lgbt_rights

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/entertainment/2019/november/singer-threatens-to-cancel-performance-at-thanksgiving-football-game-unless-salvation-army-embraces-lgbt-agenda

Singer Threatens to Cancel Performance at Thanksgiving Football Game Unless Salvation Army Embraces LGBT Agenda

2019-11-14

Pop singer Ellie Goulding is threatening to cancel her performance at the Dallas Cowboys football game on Thanksgiving Day unless the Salvation Army — the faith-based nonprofit that benefits from the competition — embraces the LGBT agenda . Goulding , who is slated to lead the half-time show , issued the threat after some of her fans alerted her that some feel the Salvation Army has discriminated against those in the LGBT community . It ’ s worth noting , though , the Christian-founded charity has repeatedly said it helps all people in need , regardless of their sexual orientation , and even has a page on its website dedicated to how the organization works with the “ LGBTQ community . ” Faithwire : Shocking California Sex Ed Videos Indoctrinate Young Children With Drag Queens and Explicit Sex Advice The much-anticipated Thanksgiving game promotes the Cowboys ’ “ Red Kettle Kickoff , ” which raises money and brings awareness to the Salvation Army ’ s beloved red kettle campaign , the charity ’ s annual holiday initiative . “ Upon researching this , I have reached out to The Salvation Army and said that I would have no choice but to pull out unless they very quickly make a solid , committed pledge or donation to the LGBTQ community , ” Goulding wrote in a comment on her Instagram page , according to The Dallas Morning News . “ I am a committed philanthropist as you probably know , and my heart has always been in helping the homeless , but supporting an anti-LGBTQ charity is clearly not something I would ever intentionally do . Thank you for drawing my attention to this . ” A spokesperson for the Salvation Army responded to Goulding ’ s threat but did not indicate in the statement to the Morning News whether the charity ’ s planned participation in the Thanksgiving Day halftime show has changed . “ With an organization of our size and history , myths can perpetuate . An individual ’ s sexual or gender identity , religion , or lifestyle has no bearing on our willingness to provide service , ” read the statement . “ We stand firmly behind our mission to meet human needs in His name without discrimination . ”

Pop singer Ellie Goulding is threatening to cancel her performance at the Dallas Cowboys football game on Thanksgiving Day unless the Salvation Army — the faith-based nonprofit that benefits from the competition — embraces the LGBT agenda. Goulding, who is slated to lead the half-time show, issued the threat after some of her fans alerted her that some feel the Salvation Army has discriminated against those in the LGBT community. It’s worth noting, though, the Christian-founded charity has repeatedly said it helps all people in need, regardless of their sexual orientation, and even has a page on its website dedicated to how the organization works with the “LGBTQ community.” Faithwire: Shocking California Sex Ed Videos Indoctrinate Young Children With Drag Queens and Explicit Sex Advice The much-anticipated Thanksgiving game promotes the Cowboys’ “Red Kettle Kickoff,” which raises money and brings awareness to the Salvation Army’s beloved red kettle campaign, the charity’s annual holiday initiative. “Upon researching this, I have reached out to The Salvation Army and said that I would have no choice but to pull out unless they very quickly make a solid, committed pledge or donation to the LGBTQ community,” Goulding wrote in a comment on her Instagram page, according to The Dallas Morning News. “I am a committed philanthropist as you probably know, and my heart has always been in helping the homeless, but supporting an anti-LGBTQ charity is clearly not something I would ever intentionally do. Thank you for drawing my attention to this.” A spokesperson for the Salvation Army responded to Goulding’s threat but did not indicate in the statement to the Morning News whether the charity’s planned participation in the Thanksgiving Day halftime show has changed. “With an organization of our size and history, myths can perpetuate. An individual’s sexual or gender identity, religion, or lifestyle has no bearing on our willingness to provide service,” read the statement. “We stand firmly behind our mission to meet human needs in His name without discrimination.”

www1.cbn.com

right

bmAysWsjpI8ZkdfG

test

xPnr4ctwM7NOiboL

national_defense

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2020/july/number-of-christian-refugees-allowed-in-the-us-has-drastically-declined-since-2015

Number of Christian Refugees Allowed in the US Has Drastically Declined Since 2015

2020-07-15

Christians around the globe face growing persecution and many look to the United States for refuge . New numbers , however , show they 're not getting near the protection compared to previous years and advocates are sounding the alarm . The number of Christian refugees being allowed into the United States is down 90 percent from 2015 . This is a major issue and ███ News has consistently asked the Trump administration about it . '' During an interview with ███ News in 2017 , President Donald Trump came out strong on the issue when asked if he saw persecuted Christians as a priority . But new numbers cited by Christian advocacy groups , World Relief and Open Doors USA , show something else . This year , the administration cut the refugee ceiling to 18,000 . That number includes all Christians and non-Christians . The historic average numbers were closer to 81,00 and the 2016 Obama administration cap reached 110,000 . ███ News Political Analyst David Brody talked about the refugee problem with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a 2019 interview . `` That means more folks that are trying to flee religious persecution are n't able to come into the United States . At least , that 's what some of the critics would say . What 's the response to something like that ? '' Brody asked . `` We 're still the most generous , welcoming nation anywhere in the world , '' Pompeo answered . `` Our objective has been to try and do what those people really want in those cases which is to stay in their own country . '' `` A refugee is somebody who ca n't go back . The conditions are so bad for them , if they go back it wo n't be safe for them , '' explained Nadine Maenza , a commissioner with the US Commission for International Religious Freedom . Since the refugee resettlement program began 40 years ago , the US has never taken in this few refugees . And while advocates say no White House has been stronger on religious freedom than this one , United Nations data shows when the US limits refugees , other countries follow its lead . Nathan Bult is the senior vice president of Public and Government Affairs at Bethany Christian Services , an organization that works directly with refugees . `` Christ is very clear , especially in his parable about the Good Samaritan about what the obligations of his followers are and it 's to welcome the stranger , to welcome a neighbor , '' Bult told ███ News . The United States is no longer the leading harbor for refugees . In 2018 , Canada took in 28,000 , while only 22,000 refugees came into the US . STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FREE ███ NEWS APP Click Here Get the App with Special Alerts on Breaking News and Top Stories We encourage readers who wish to comment on our material to do so through our Facebook , Twitter , YouTube , and Instagram accounts . God bless you and keep you in His truth .

Christians around the globe face growing persecution and many look to the United States for refuge. New numbers, however, show they're not getting near the protection compared to previous years and advocates are sounding the alarm. The number of Christian refugees being allowed into the United States is down 90 percent from 2015. This is a major issue and CBN News has consistently asked the Trump administration about it." During an interview with CBN News in 2017, President Donald Trump came out strong on the issue when asked if he saw persecuted Christians as a priority. "Yes," Trump replied. "They've been horribly treated." But new numbers cited by Christian advocacy groups, World Relief and Open Doors USA, show something else. This year, the administration cut the refugee ceiling to 18,000. That number includes all Christians and non-Christians. The historic average numbers were closer to 81,00 and the 2016 Obama administration cap reached 110,000. CBN News Political Analyst David Brody talked about the refugee problem with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a 2019 interview. "That means more folks that are trying to flee religious persecution aren't able to come into the United States. At least, that's what some of the critics would say. What's the response to something like that?" Brody asked. "We're still the most generous, welcoming nation anywhere in the world," Pompeo answered. "Our objective has been to try and do what those people really want in those cases which is to stay in their own country." Refugee advocates disagree. "A refugee is somebody who can't go back. The conditions are so bad for them, if they go back it won't be safe for them," explained Nadine Maenza, a commissioner with the US Commission for International Religious Freedom. Since the refugee resettlement program began 40 years ago, the US has never taken in this few refugees. And while advocates say no White House has been stronger on religious freedom than this one, United Nations data shows when the US limits refugees, other countries follow its lead. Nathan Bult is the senior vice president of Public and Government Affairs at Bethany Christian Services, an organization that works directly with refugees. "Christ is very clear, especially in his parable about the Good Samaritan about what the obligations of his followers are and it's to welcome the stranger, to welcome a neighbor," Bult told CBN News. The United States is no longer the leading harbor for refugees. In 2018, Canada took in 28,000, while only 22,000 refugees came into the US. STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FREE CBN NEWS APP Click Here Get the App with Special Alerts on Breaking News and Top Stories We encourage readers who wish to comment on our material to do so through our Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram accounts. God bless you and keep you in His truth.

www1.cbn.com

right

xPnr4ctwM7NOiboL

test

fbtULg4UObK2HRBP

politics

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dennis-hastert-us-house-speaker-indicted-feds/story?id=31376076

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert Indicted by Feds

Mike Levine

The Justice Department has charged former House Speaker Dennis Hastert with lying to FBI agents and trying to hide financial transactions intended to keep prior misconduct secret , prosecutors alleged . The 73-year-old Hastert , a top Republican on Capitol Hill before he left Congress in 2007 , agreed five years ago to pay an unidentified person $ 3.5 million “ to compensate for and conceal ” prior “ misconduct against ” that person , according to prosecutors . Over the next four years , Hastert withdrew about $ 1.7 million in cash from various bank accounts and provided that money to the unidentified person , according to the Justice Department . Starting in July 2012 , Hastert allegedly structured those cash withdrawals in such a way that it would prevent banks from having to report the transactions . Under federal law , banks are required to report cash transactions over $ 10,000 . Under those structures , Hastert allegedly withdrew $ 952,000 . When the FBI questioned Hastert in December 2014 about the transactions , he allegedly told the FBI that he was keeping the cash for himself , prosecutors said . Specifically , a grand jury indicted Hastert with one count of structuring currency transactions to evade currency transaction reports and one count of making a false statement to the FBI . Hastert , of Plano , Illinois , will be arraigned in the coming days . The indictment describes the person who allegedly received the payments only as a resident of Yorkville , Illinois , who has known Hastert most of the person ’ s life . The indictment does not indicate the age of the unidentified person , but it describes Hastert ’ s time as a high school teacher and coach in Yorkville from 1965 to 1981 as “ material ” to the case , in addition to Hastert ’ s time in Washington . The school district that employed Hastert from 1965 to 1981 as a high school teacher and wrestling coach , noted it “ was first made aware of any concerns regarding Mr. Hastert when the federal indictment was released ” Thursday . The indictment revealed that Hastert ’ s time at Yorkville was “ material ” to the allegations against him . A statement released by Yorkville Community Unit School District # 115 added it “ has no knowledge of Mr. Hastert ’ s alleged misconduct , nor has any individual contacted the District to report any such misconduct . If requested to do so , the District plans to cooperate fully with the U.S. Attorney ’ s investigation into this matter . ” If convicted on both counts , he faces as many as 10 years in prison and a $ 500,000 fine . The Justice Department insisted that , like all defendants , Hastert is “ presumed innocent and is entitled to a fair trial . ” A spokesman for Dickstein Shapiro LLC , the lobbying firm that Hastert joined in 2008 after leaving Congress , confirmed in a brief statement that “ Dennis Hastert has resigned from the firm . ''

The Justice Department has charged former House Speaker Dennis Hastert with lying to FBI agents and trying to hide financial transactions intended to keep prior misconduct secret, prosecutors alleged. The 73-year-old Hastert, a top Republican on Capitol Hill before he left Congress in 2007, agreed five years ago to pay an unidentified person $3.5 million “to compensate for and conceal” prior “misconduct against” that person, according to prosecutors. Over the next four years, Hastert withdrew about $1.7 million in cash from various bank accounts and provided that money to the unidentified person, according to the Justice Department. Starting in July 2012, Hastert allegedly structured those cash withdrawals in such a way that it would prevent banks from having to report the transactions. Under federal law, banks are required to report cash transactions over $10,000. Under those structures, Hastert allegedly withdrew $952,000. When the FBI questioned Hastert in December 2014 about the transactions, he allegedly told the FBI that he was keeping the cash for himself, prosecutors said. Specifically, a grand jury indicted Hastert with one count of structuring currency transactions to evade currency transaction reports and one count of making a false statement to the FBI. Hastert, of Plano, Illinois, will be arraigned in the coming days. The indictment describes the person who allegedly received the payments only as a resident of Yorkville, Illinois, who has known Hastert most of the person’s life. The indictment does not indicate the age of the unidentified person, but it describes Hastert’s time as a high school teacher and coach in Yorkville from 1965 to 1981 as “material” to the case, in addition to Hastert’s time in Washington. The school district that employed Hastert from 1965 to 1981 as a high school teacher and wrestling coach, noted it “was first made aware of any concerns regarding Mr. Hastert when the federal indictment was released” Thursday. The indictment revealed that Hastert’s time at Yorkville was “material” to the allegations against him. A statement released by Yorkville Community Unit School District #115 added it “has no knowledge of Mr. Hastert’s alleged misconduct, nor has any individual contacted the District to report any such misconduct. If requested to do so, the District plans to cooperate fully with the U.S. Attorney’s investigation into this matter.” If convicted on both counts, he faces as many as 10 years in prison and a $500,000 fine. The Justice Department insisted that, like all defendants, Hastert is “presumed innocent and is entitled to a fair trial.” A spokesman for Dickstein Shapiro LLC, the lobbying firm that Hastert joined in 2008 after leaving Congress, confirmed in a brief statement that “Dennis Hastert has resigned from the firm." ABC News is seeking comment from Hastert.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

fbtULg4UObK2HRBP

test

gdrXRhQWnKkGp1ND

race_and_racism

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/28/charleston_exposes_ugliest_truth_of_our_time_our_society_places_little_value_on_black_life/

Charleston exposes ugliest truth of our time: Our society places little value on black life

2015-06-28

Jason Sokol

President Obama , in his first speech after the tragedy in Charleston , South Carolina , quoted from Martin Luther King ’ s 1963 eulogy for the four African-American girls who were killed in Birmingham ’ s 16th Street Baptist Church . Five years after the Birmingham church bombing , King himself met a savage death . In the days after King ’ s assassination , Americans considered many of the same questions that we are asking today : Was this the work of one lunatic , or of a larger racial ideology ? How should lawmakers respond ? Would the violent tragedy lead to gun control legislation ? White Southerners even debated whether to lower the flag in King ’ s honor . In the end , many ministers and leaders cautioned that King would have died in vain if the country did not act boldly to root out racial injustice . The fact that we are having similar conversations , almost 50 years later , seems a mark of our collective failure . As word of King ’ s assassination traveled around the country on the night of April 4 , 1968 , two of America ’ s leading journalists sat down at their typewriters : Mike Royko in Chicago and Ralph McGill in Atlanta . They reached the same conclusion – that an entire society had murdered King , regardless of which individual pulled the trigger . At that point , the assassin remained at large and his identity was unknown . There were no social media profiles to parse , no manifestoes to read . That kind of information was unnecessary . Both McGill and Royko knew that a sick and racist nation was to blame . In the spring of 1968 , King was far from a sanitized national hero . Many white Americans detested his activism and begrudged his fame . In 1967 , King had delivered a forceful speech opposing the Vietnam War . Other civil rights leaders turned against him , and he faced a round of criticism in the nation ’ s newspapers and magazines . His relationship with President Lyndon Johnson , already frayed , fractured completely . King then announced plans for the Poor People ’ s Campaign , in which droves of the nation ’ s poor would set up tent encampments on the Washington Mall in a show of nonviolent civil disobedience . King was attacking capitalism and imperialism , and calling for a “ revolution of values . ” In early 1968 , he traveled to Memphis , where 1,300 black sanitation workers were waging a strike . King led a protest march through downtown Memphis on March 28 . Some demonstrators behind him resorted to violence ; as chaos took hold , King was whisked away from the scene . The national press intensified its criticism of King . On Capitol Hill , elected officials denounced him as a lawless radical . He had become the target of deepening hatred . To Mike Royko , a popular columnist for the Chicago Daily News , it was this scorn and revulsion that ultimately killed King . Royko published a column on April 5 titled “ Millions in His Firing Squad. ” Royko expressed confidence that the authorities would soon arrest the assassin . But “ they can ’ t catch everybody , ” Royko wrote , “ and Martin Luther King was executed by a firing squad that numbered in the millions. ” From many corners of the nation , white Americans fed “ words of hate into the ear of the assassin. ” The killer was simply following orders . “ The man with the gun did what he was told . Millions of bigots , subtle and obvious , put it in his hand and assured him he was doing the right thing . ” Royko blamed white Northerners : the anti-busing leaders , the law-and-order demagogues , all of those Chicago residents who stood against King ’ s open-housing programs and pelted him with rocks in Marquette Park . He also indicted the FBI for its propaganda campaign against King , and proceeded to condemn every white American who nodded at racist jokes . “ It was almost ludicrous , ” Royko wrote of the hostility directed at King . “ The man came on the American scene preaching nonviolence … He preached it in the North and was hit with rocks . He talked it the day he was murdered. ” But Americans refused to hear his calls for peace and freedom . “ Hypocrites all over this country would kneel every Sunday morning and mouth messages to Jesus Christ . Then they would come out and tell each other , after reading the papers , that somebody should string up King , who was living Christianity like few Americans ever have. ” In a legendary career , this was one of Royko ’ s finest moments – and one of his angriest . Ralph McGill targeted the Southern bigots . McGill , the publisher of the Atlanta Constitution and a leading Southern liberal , chose a title for his editorial that was sure to aggravate the haters : “ A Free Man Killed by White Slaves. ” He wrote , “ White slaves killed Martin Luther King in Memphis . At the moment the triggerman fired , Martin Luther King was the free man . The white killer , ( or killers ) , was a slave to fear . ” In McGill ’ s formulation , millions of white Americans stood captive to racial fear . McGill located many such “ slaves ” in Memphis , which was “ bound by such terrible chains ” of enmity . Hatred at the sanitation workers , and at King himself , had swirled around the Delta city . McGill beseeched white Americans to strike at racial prejudice and injustice . “ The white South – the white population in all the country – must now give answer . ” To two of the nation ’ s most perceptive observers , the important issue was not the assassin ’ s mental state . The crucial fact was that a climate existed in the country that sanctioned racial hatred . Of course , others rejected this logic . The Chicago Tribune bristled at Mike Royko ’ s indictment . “ The murder of Dr. King was a crime and the sin of an individual , ” the Tribune ’ s editors asserted on April 9 – the morning of King ’ s funeral . The “ rest of us ” were “ not contributory to this particular crime. ” The Memphis Commercial Appeal also dismissed the notion of collective guilt . “ It was the work of an individual , a warped , mixed-up , emotional mind , ” the Commercial Appeal editorialized on April 6 . In reality , the Commercial Appeal itself had helped to whip white Memphis into a feverish state . The newspaper had criticized the sanitation strike for the better part of two months , and deplored King ’ s decision to assist the strikers . The newspaper ’ s “ Hambone ” cartoon – which had appeared six days a week since the 1910s – continued to trade in crass racial stereotypes . In 1968 , the Commercial Appeal focused on one person ’ s “ warped , mixed-up , emotional mind ” instead of the racism and racial inequality that so shaped the city and the nation . Then as now , it was easier to blame a deranged individual than to craft a response that might address racial inequality or gun violence . Hours before King ’ s death , the Senate Judiciary Committee finally voted on a gun-control bill that had been pending before it for three years . The bill was initially proposed by Sen. Thomas Dodd of Connecticut , and supported by Lyndon Johnson . James Eastland , the longtime segregationist from Mississippi , chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee . The committee defeated a proposal to ban interstate gun sales . The committee then considered a proposal to combine gun control legislation with a safe streets bill . It failed to approve this measure , then adjourned for the evening . An hour later , James Earl Ray aimed his rifle at the balcony of the Lorraine Motel and murdered Martin Luther King Jr . On Saturday , April 6 , the committee met again . This time , it voted 9-to-7 to attach the gun control regulations to the safe streets bill . But to achieve even this tiny advance , the supporters of gun control agreed to exempt rifles and shotguns . That same day , members of the National Rifle Association descended upon Boston ’ s Sheraton Hotel for the organization ’ s annual meeting . They would rally against the pending legislation . The Senate began to debate the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act . This law would prohibit felons from buying guns , ban all mail-order gun sales , and impose restrictions on certain out-of-state transactions . The Senate passed the bill on May 24 . The House did not act until after the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy . One day after Kennedy ’ s death , on June 6 , 1968 , the House approved the bill . Months later , Congress passed a more expansive law called the Gun Control Act of 1968 . It established a licensing system for gun purchases , mandated serial numbers on weapons , and expanded many of the previous bill ’ s measures . This was the apogee in the history of American gun control legislation . It was eventually undone in 1986 , by the Firearm Owners ’ Protection Act . Palm Sunday fell on April 7 , 1968 , three days after King ’ s assassination . Millions of Americans gathered in churches to mourn the slain leader . Tributes to King rang out in black houses of worship , among white congregations , and at public gatherings that drew interracial crowds . The nation pressed together to grieve for the prophet of nonviolence . Many religious leaders offered the same message : that for King ’ s death to have a lasting impact , the nation needed to commit itself to racial justice in deed as well as in word . At New York City ’ s Church of the Holy Family , Monsignor Timothy Flynn declared that King ’ s death “ will be redemptive if it stirs the white community to an adequate healing social action. ” Rabbi Mark Tannenbaum of the American Jewish Committee agreed . “ It will be a great desecration of his holy name if the Congress of the United States and the citizens of this nation do not respond … by providing the elementary decencies for which he sacrificed his life : jobs , housing , education , health. ” The Urban League ’ s Whitney Young , a civil rights leader known for moderation , declared : “ We must have concrete , tangible action that will remove the inequities in our society. ” If the nation could see its way toward such substantive action , if it could begin to remove those inequities , then King “ may have achieved in death something he was never quite able to do in actual life . ” American leaders never did remove such racial inequalities . Instead , the “ white backlash ” intensified as the “ silent majority ” lifted Richard Nixon to the presidency . The Fair Housing Act of 1968 was in effect the last civil rights bill . And the safe streets bill , its robust gun control regulations notwithstanding , would give rise to the era of mass incarceration . In the days after King ’ s death , Southern leaders debated whether to lower the American flag – and Southern state flags – in King ’ s honor . A dramatic standoff occurred at the Georgia Statehouse in Atlanta , King ’ s native city . Ben Fortson , Georgia ’ s secretary of state , had lowered both the American and state flags to half-staff immediately after King ’ s assassination . Georgia ’ s flag was essentially the Confederate flag , alongside a small image of the state seal . ( Georgia had added the stars-and-bars to its flag in 1956 . ) The governor at the time was Lester Maddox , a segregationist icon . On April 8 , 1968 , Maddox called Fortson to register his objections about the lowering of the flags . King ’ s funeral service would begin the next morning ; thousands of mourners had flocked to the city . On April 9 , Maddox surrounded the Statehouse with 160 state troopers in riot gear as well as 20 armed wildlife rangers . Maddox then marched over to the flagpole and began to raise both of the flags . He suddenly realized that television cameras from CBS , NBC and ABC were tracking his every move . Maddox ultimately left the flags where they were and retreated into his office . He later explained , “ I didn ’ t think we oughta use our flag to honor an enemy of our country. ” The symbolism was hard to miss : the Confederate flag remained at half-staff , in King ’ s honor . In 2001 , Georgia adopted a new state flag – the result of Gov . Roy Barnes ’ efforts . After 14 more years , and the slaughter of nine African-Americans , South Carolina may finally retire that symbol of racial hatred . Still , our nation is dotted with many more shrines to the Confederacy . Hundreds of towns have monuments to slaveholders ; some public schools are named after Confederate leaders . Perhaps those symbols will be the next to fall . Maybe this awful moment can nudge us toward necessary reforms . We comfort ourselves with the notion that the gunman was insane , when it is obvious that he was acting out – in extreme form – the ugliest truth of our time : that our society places little value on black life . If Ralph McGill and Mike Royko were still with us , they would not busy themselves with the assassin ’ s Internet posts . They would not look at him ; they would look at us . They would scrutinize our society , at what we have built and what we have condoned . In this painful hour , we might realize that we don ’ t have to keep living this way . We can harness the sadness , the outrage and the feeling of unity , and use that energy to force our leaders into action – urging them to pursue policies that will make it harder for people to kill one another , and to honor the dead by creating a more peaceful and just society for the living .

President Obama, in his first speech after the tragedy in Charleston, South Carolina, quoted from Martin Luther King’s 1963 eulogy for the four African-American girls who were killed in Birmingham’s 16th Street Baptist Church. Five years after the Birmingham church bombing, King himself met a savage death. In the days after King’s assassination, Americans considered many of the same questions that we are asking today: Was this the work of one lunatic, or of a larger racial ideology? How should lawmakers respond? Would the violent tragedy lead to gun control legislation? White Southerners even debated whether to lower the flag in King’s honor. In the end, many ministers and leaders cautioned that King would have died in vain if the country did not act boldly to root out racial injustice. The fact that we are having similar conversations, almost 50 years later, seems a mark of our collective failure. Advertisement: As word of King’s assassination traveled around the country on the night of April 4, 1968, two of America’s leading journalists sat down at their typewriters: Mike Royko in Chicago and Ralph McGill in Atlanta. They reached the same conclusion – that an entire society had murdered King, regardless of which individual pulled the trigger. At that point, the assassin remained at large and his identity was unknown. There were no social media profiles to parse, no manifestoes to read. That kind of information was unnecessary. Both McGill and Royko knew that a sick and racist nation was to blame. In the spring of 1968, King was far from a sanitized national hero. Many white Americans detested his activism and begrudged his fame. In 1967, King had delivered a forceful speech opposing the Vietnam War. Other civil rights leaders turned against him, and he faced a round of criticism in the nation’s newspapers and magazines. His relationship with President Lyndon Johnson, already frayed, fractured completely. King then announced plans for the Poor People’s Campaign, in which droves of the nation’s poor would set up tent encampments on the Washington Mall in a show of nonviolent civil disobedience. King was attacking capitalism and imperialism, and calling for a “revolution of values.” Advertisement: In early 1968, he traveled to Memphis, where 1,300 black sanitation workers were waging a strike. King led a protest march through downtown Memphis on March 28. Some demonstrators behind him resorted to violence; as chaos took hold, King was whisked away from the scene. The national press intensified its criticism of King. On Capitol Hill, elected officials denounced him as a lawless radical. He had become the target of deepening hatred. To Mike Royko, a popular columnist for the Chicago Daily News, it was this scorn and revulsion that ultimately killed King. Royko published a column on April 5 titled “Millions in His Firing Squad.” Royko expressed confidence that the authorities would soon arrest the assassin. But “they can’t catch everybody,” Royko wrote, “and Martin Luther King was executed by a firing squad that numbered in the millions.” From many corners of the nation, white Americans fed “words of hate into the ear of the assassin.” The killer was simply following orders. “The man with the gun did what he was told. Millions of bigots, subtle and obvious, put it in his hand and assured him he was doing the right thing.” Advertisement: Royko blamed white Northerners: the anti-busing leaders, the law-and-order demagogues, all of those Chicago residents who stood against King’s open-housing programs and pelted him with rocks in Marquette Park. He also indicted the FBI for its propaganda campaign against King, and proceeded to condemn every white American who nodded at racist jokes. “It was almost ludicrous,” Royko wrote of the hostility directed at King. “The man came on the American scene preaching nonviolence … He preached it in the North and was hit with rocks. He talked it the day he was murdered.” But Americans refused to hear his calls for peace and freedom. “Hypocrites all over this country would kneel every Sunday morning and mouth messages to Jesus Christ. Then they would come out and tell each other, after reading the papers, that somebody should string up King, who was living Christianity like few Americans ever have.” In a legendary career, this was one of Royko’s finest moments – and one of his angriest. Advertisement: Ralph McGill targeted the Southern bigots. McGill, the publisher of the Atlanta Constitution and a leading Southern liberal, chose a title for his editorial that was sure to aggravate the haters: “A Free Man Killed by White Slaves.” He wrote, “White slaves killed Martin Luther King in Memphis. At the moment the triggerman fired, Martin Luther King was the free man. The white killer, (or killers), was a slave to fear.” In McGill’s formulation, millions of white Americans stood captive to racial fear. McGill located many such “slaves” in Memphis, which was “bound by such terrible chains” of enmity. Hatred at the sanitation workers, and at King himself, had swirled around the Delta city. McGill beseeched white Americans to strike at racial prejudice and injustice. “The white South – the white population in all the country – must now give answer.” To two of the nation’s most perceptive observers, the important issue was not the assassin’s mental state. The crucial fact was that a climate existed in the country that sanctioned racial hatred. Advertisement: Of course, others rejected this logic. The Chicago Tribune bristled at Mike Royko’s indictment. “The murder of Dr. King was a crime and the sin of an individual,” the Tribune’s editors asserted on April 9 – the morning of King’s funeral. The “rest of us” were “not contributory to this particular crime.” The Memphis Commercial Appeal also dismissed the notion of collective guilt. “It was the work of an individual, a warped, mixed-up, emotional mind,” the Commercial Appeal editorialized on April 6. In reality, the Commercial Appeal itself had helped to whip white Memphis into a feverish state. The newspaper had criticized the sanitation strike for the better part of two months, and deplored King’s decision to assist the strikers. The newspaper’s “Hambone” cartoon – which had appeared six days a week since the 1910s – continued to trade in crass racial stereotypes. In 1968, the Commercial Appeal focused on one person’s “warped, mixed-up, emotional mind” instead of the racism and racial inequality that so shaped the city and the nation. * * * Then as now, it was easier to blame a deranged individual than to craft a response that might address racial inequality or gun violence. Hours before King’s death, the Senate Judiciary Committee finally voted on a gun-control bill that had been pending before it for three years. The bill was initially proposed by Sen. Thomas Dodd of Connecticut, and supported by Lyndon Johnson. James Eastland, the longtime segregationist from Mississippi, chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee defeated a proposal to ban interstate gun sales. The committee then considered a proposal to combine gun control legislation with a safe streets bill. It failed to approve this measure, then adjourned for the evening. An hour later, James Earl Ray aimed his rifle at the balcony of the Lorraine Motel and murdered Martin Luther King Jr. Advertisement: On Saturday, April 6, the committee met again. This time, it voted 9-to-7 to attach the gun control regulations to the safe streets bill. But to achieve even this tiny advance, the supporters of gun control agreed to exempt rifles and shotguns. That same day, members of the National Rifle Association descended upon Boston’s Sheraton Hotel for the organization’s annual meeting. They would rally against the pending legislation. The Senate began to debate the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. This law would prohibit felons from buying guns, ban all mail-order gun sales, and impose restrictions on certain out-of-state transactions. The Senate passed the bill on May 24. The House did not act until after the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. One day after Kennedy’s death, on June 6, 1968, the House approved the bill. Months later, Congress passed a more expansive law called the Gun Control Act of 1968. It established a licensing system for gun purchases, mandated serial numbers on weapons, and expanded many of the previous bill’s measures. This was the apogee in the history of American gun control legislation. It was eventually undone in 1986, by the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act. Palm Sunday fell on April 7, 1968, three days after King’s assassination. Millions of Americans gathered in churches to mourn the slain leader. Tributes to King rang out in black houses of worship, among white congregations, and at public gatherings that drew interracial crowds. The nation pressed together to grieve for the prophet of nonviolence. Many religious leaders offered the same message: that for King’s death to have a lasting impact, the nation needed to commit itself to racial justice in deed as well as in word. At New York City’s Church of the Holy Family, Monsignor Timothy Flynn declared that King’s death “will be redemptive if it stirs the white community to an adequate healing social action.” Rabbi Mark Tannenbaum of the American Jewish Committee agreed. “It will be a great desecration of his holy name if the Congress of the United States and the citizens of this nation do not respond … by providing the elementary decencies for which he sacrificed his life: jobs, housing, education, health.” The Urban League’s Whitney Young, a civil rights leader known for moderation, declared: “We must have concrete, tangible action that will remove the inequities in our society.” If the nation could see its way toward such substantive action, if it could begin to remove those inequities, then King “may have achieved in death something he was never quite able to do in actual life.” American leaders never did remove such racial inequalities. Instead, the “white backlash” intensified as the “silent majority” lifted Richard Nixon to the presidency. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 was in effect the last civil rights bill. And the safe streets bill, its robust gun control regulations notwithstanding, would give rise to the era of mass incarceration. Advertisement: In the days after King’s death, Southern leaders debated whether to lower the American flag – and Southern state flags – in King’s honor. A dramatic standoff occurred at the Georgia Statehouse in Atlanta, King’s native city. Ben Fortson, Georgia’s secretary of state, had lowered both the American and state flags to half-staff immediately after King’s assassination. Georgia’s flag was essentially the Confederate flag, alongside a small image of the state seal. (Georgia had added the stars-and-bars to its flag in 1956.) The governor at the time was Lester Maddox, a segregationist icon. On April 8, 1968, Maddox called Fortson to register his objections about the lowering of the flags. King’s funeral service would begin the next morning; thousands of mourners had flocked to the city. On April 9, Maddox surrounded the Statehouse with 160 state troopers in riot gear as well as 20 armed wildlife rangers. Maddox then marched over to the flagpole and began to raise both of the flags. He suddenly realized that television cameras from CBS, NBC and ABC were tracking his every move. Maddox ultimately left the flags where they were and retreated into his office. He later explained, “I didn’t think we oughta use our flag to honor an enemy of our country.” The symbolism was hard to miss: the Confederate flag remained at half-staff, in King’s honor. In 2001, Georgia adopted a new state flag – the result of Gov. Roy Barnes’ efforts. After 14 more years, and the slaughter of nine African-Americans, South Carolina may finally retire that symbol of racial hatred. Still, our nation is dotted with many more shrines to the Confederacy. Hundreds of towns have monuments to slaveholders; some public schools are named after Confederate leaders. Perhaps those symbols will be the next to fall. Maybe this awful moment can nudge us toward necessary reforms. We comfort ourselves with the notion that the gunman was insane, when it is obvious that he was acting out – in extreme form – the ugliest truth of our time: that our society places little value on black life. If Ralph McGill and Mike Royko were still with us, they would not busy themselves with the assassin’s Internet posts. They would not look at him; they would look at us. They would scrutinize our society, at what we have built and what we have condoned. In this painful hour, we might realize that we don’t have to keep living this way. We can harness the sadness, the outrage and the feeling of unity, and use that energy to force our leaders into action – urging them to pursue policies that will make it harder for people to kill one another, and to honor the dead by creating a more peaceful and just society for the living.

www.salon.com

left

gdrXRhQWnKkGp1ND

test

ZCmj6cSV2qsmnuqg

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-cohen/cohen-testifies-trump-told-him-to-commit-crime-by-paying-off-women-idUSKCN1L61PD

Cohen testifies Trump told him to commit crime by paying off women

2018-08-22

Brendan Pierson

NEW YORK ( ███ ) - U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen testified on Tuesday that Trump had directed him to commit a crime by arranging payments ahead of the 2016 presidential election to silence two women who said they had affairs with Trump . Cohen ’ s voice cracked several times as he pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges in federal court in Manhattan , including tax evasion , bank fraud and campaign finance violations . Facing up to five years in prison , the admissions were a dramatic change from Cohen ’ s earlier boasts that he was Trump ’ s “ fixer ” and would “ take a bullet ” for the president . Most legal experts say a sitting president can not be indicted for a crime , but the Constitution allows Congress to impeach and remove a president from office for “ high crimes and misdemeanors . ” Cohen ’ s accusation increases political pressure for Trump ahead of November ’ s congressional elections where Democrats are trying to regain control of the House of Representatives and Senate . Cohen told Judge William Pauley III that “ in coordination with , and at the direction of , a candidate for federal office ” he arranged payments to two women for their silence “ for the principal purpose of influencing the election . ” Adult-film star Stormy Daniels was given $ 130,000 and former Playboy model Karen McDougal was paid $ 150,000 . Cohen did not name Trump in court , but his lawyer , Lanny Davis , said afterward that he was referring to the president . “ Today he ( Cohen ) stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime by making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election , ” Davis said in a statement . “ If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen , then why wouldn ’ t they be a crime for Donald Trump ? ” Davis said . Trump has denied having affairs with the women . His lawyer Rudy Giuliani has said the payments were made to spare Trump and his family embarrassment and were unrelated to the campaign . Trump did not mention Cohen at a rally in West Virginia hours later . Giuliani lashed out at Cohen on Tuesday , calling him a “ devious little rat ” and saying he had a history of lying . “ I think the president is absolutely in the clear , ” Giuliani told ███ . “ The Cohen thing is over . ” Under U.S. election law , campaign contributions , defined as things of value given to a campaign to influence an election , must be disclosed . A payment intended to silence allegations of an affair just before an election could constitute a campaign contribution , which is limited to $ 2,700 per person per election , some experts said . U.S. President Donald Trump 's former lawyer , Michael Cohen , leaves the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Court House in lower Manhattan , New York City , U.S. August 21 , 2018 . ███/Brendan McDermid Ross Garber , a lawyer who has represented four Republican governors in impeachment proceedings , said Cohen ’ s statement “ dramatically increases the likelihood that , were Democrats to take control of the House in the midterms , they would begin an impeachment investigation . ” “ The odds of an investigation have definitely gone up , ” Garber said . The guilty pleas came in the same hour that a federal jury in Alexandria , Virginia , convicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort of eight charges of tax and bank fraud and failing to disclose foreign bank accounts . The Manafort conviction resulted from U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election and possible coordination with the Trump campaign . The charges against Manafort mostly predate his work on Trump ’ s campaign . The probe also led to a referral from Mueller about Cohen to federal prosecutors in New York who began their own probe of the longtime Trump lawyer . Trump has repeatedly denied any collusion and has called the Mueller investigation a “ witch hunt. ” Russia has denied meddling in the election , although U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded Moscow interfered . Mueller has also brought indictments against 12 Russian intelligence officers in the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails . Cohen is scheduled for sentencing on Dec. 12 and his bail was set at $ 500,000 . Davis told CNN he believed his client had information that would be of interest to the special counsel , but did not give further details . Mueller ’ s investigation , which began in May 2017 , has resulted in the indictment of more than 30 people and five guilty pleas .

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen testified on Tuesday that Trump had directed him to commit a crime by arranging payments ahead of the 2016 presidential election to silence two women who said they had affairs with Trump. Cohen’s voice cracked several times as he pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges in federal court in Manhattan, including tax evasion, bank fraud and campaign finance violations. Facing up to five years in prison, the admissions were a dramatic change from Cohen’s earlier boasts that he was Trump’s “fixer” and would “take a bullet” for the president. Most legal experts say a sitting president cannot be indicted for a crime, but the Constitution allows Congress to impeach and remove a president from office for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Cohen’s accusation increases political pressure for Trump ahead of November’s congressional elections where Democrats are trying to regain control of the House of Representatives and Senate. Cohen told Judge William Pauley III that “in coordination with, and at the direction of, a candidate for federal office” he arranged payments to two women for their silence “for the principal purpose of influencing the election.” Adult-film star Stormy Daniels was given $130,000 and former Playboy model Karen McDougal was paid $150,000. Cohen did not name Trump in court, but his lawyer, Lanny Davis, said afterward that he was referring to the president. “Today he (Cohen) stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime by making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election,” Davis said in a statement. “If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn’t they be a crime for Donald Trump?” Davis said. Trump has denied having affairs with the women. His lawyer Rudy Giuliani has said the payments were made to spare Trump and his family embarrassment and were unrelated to the campaign. Trump did not mention Cohen at a rally in West Virginia hours later. Giuliani lashed out at Cohen on Tuesday, calling him a “devious little rat” and saying he had a history of lying. “I think the president is absolutely in the clear,” Giuliani told Reuters. “The Cohen thing is over.” Under U.S. election law, campaign contributions, defined as things of value given to a campaign to influence an election, must be disclosed. A payment intended to silence allegations of an affair just before an election could constitute a campaign contribution, which is limited to $2,700 per person per election, some experts said. U.S. President Donald Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, leaves the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Court House in lower Manhattan, New York City, U.S. August 21, 2018. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid Ross Garber, a lawyer who has represented four Republican governors in impeachment proceedings, said Cohen’s statement “dramatically increases the likelihood that, were Democrats to take control of the House in the midterms, they would begin an impeachment investigation.” “The odds of an investigation have definitely gone up,” Garber said. MUELLER PROBE LED TO COHEN The guilty pleas came in the same hour that a federal jury in Alexandria, Virginia, convicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort of eight charges of tax and bank fraud and failing to disclose foreign bank accounts. The Manafort conviction resulted from U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election and possible coordination with the Trump campaign. The charges against Manafort mostly predate his work on Trump’s campaign. The probe also led to a referral from Mueller about Cohen to federal prosecutors in New York who began their own probe of the longtime Trump lawyer. Trump has repeatedly denied any collusion and has called the Mueller investigation a “witch hunt.” Russia has denied meddling in the election, although U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded Moscow interfered. Mueller has also brought indictments against 12 Russian intelligence officers in the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails. Cohen is scheduled for sentencing on Dec. 12 and his bail was set at $500,000. Slideshow (10 Images) Davis told CNN he believed his client had information that would be of interest to the special counsel, but did not give further details. Mueller’s investigation, which began in May 2017, has resulted in the indictment of more than 30 people and five guilty pleas.

www.reuters.com

center

ZCmj6cSV2qsmnuqg

test

ANWdNYthjUhVhw6I

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2016/09/01/only-on-the-brody-file-michele-bachmann-says-this-will-be-last-election-if-hillary-wins-presidency

Michele Bachmann: This Will Be 'Last Election' If Hillary Wins Presidency

2016-09-01

In an interview with The Brody File , former presidential candidate Michele Bachmann says this will be the `` last election '' if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency . She says the GOP wo n't win another election if she 's in The White House . `` Hillary Clinton will ensure it wo n't happen because she 's going to change the demographics of the United States so that no Republican will ever win again , '' Bachmann tells me . EXCLUSIVE : Michele Bachmann : 'God Raised Up ' Trump to Be GOP Nominee Therefore , Bachmann has a message for all the anti-Trump folks : `` I say get over it ! All the 'Never Trumpers , ' all the establishment Republicans that are out there saying , 'We 'll just take our chances and four years from now we 'll have a better candidate , then we can take the White House . ' It 's not going to happen . '' So what 's is her full explanation on all this ? Watch and read it here . She made these remarks during our interview at her home in Minnesota this past Friday . Bachmann is one of Trump 's formal evangelical advisors and advises him informally on foreign policy . EXCLUSIVE : Michele Bachmann : Israel 's Enemies 'Will Be Lifted Up '' if Clinton Wins `` Well , I do n't want to be melodramatic but I do want to be truthful . I believe without a shadow of a doubt this is the last election . This is it . This is the last election . And the reason why I say that David is because it 's a math problem . It 's a math problem of demographics and a changing United States . If you look at the numbers of people who vote and who lives in the country and who Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want to bring in to the country , this is the last election when we even have a chance to vote for somebody who will stand up for godly moral principles . This is it . Hillary Clinton , I 'm not judging her spiritually or where she is at but we know where she 's going to come down on Supreme Court justices , she 's pro-Planned Parenthood . She 's for everything I 'm against . I think it 's very clear . We 've got a day and night contrast . This is n't even close between what Donald Trump stands for and espouses and what Hillary Clinton stands for and espouses . People look at Trump and he can be course and a little crude and all the rest and I say get over it ! Get over it because what he is going to do is uphold religious liberty and advance the constitutional republic that our founders gave us . '' `` She ( Hillary Clinton ) has said herself that she is going to grant wholesale amnesty to people from the Third World who are here in the United States and we hear this fake number of 11 million illegal aliens in the United States . Wrong ! It ’ s about 30 to 40 million illegal aliens currently in the United States- 30 to 40 million ! '' `` What Hillary Clinton 's ultimate goal is is to secure her reelection . The very first thing she will do as President Hillary Clinton is this : she will have a wholesale amnesty so that Republicans will never again have the chance at winning Florida or Texas . If we ca n't win Florida or Texas , it ’ s game over . '' `` All the 'Never Trumpers , ' all the establishment republicans that are out there saying , 'we 'll just take our chances and four years from now we 'll have a better candidate , then we can take the White House . ' It ’ s not going to happen . It 's not going to happen . Hillary Clinton will ensure it wo n't happen because she 's going to change the demographics of the United States so that no Republican will ever win again . '' `` God says to every nation for all of time , ' I set before you life and death , what are you going to choose ? ' If you look at the book of Genesis , you don ’ t even have to get beyond Chapter 3 to see God gives us life . The first thing he gives mankind is life . What does man choose ? Death . We choose rebellion and death . You go from Genesis all through the Bible to the book of Revelation ; man stupidly makes the same decision over and over again by rejecting life and choosing death . What I 'm telling you is that 's what we 're looking at now in this country . ''

In an interview with The Brody File, former presidential candidate Michele Bachmann says this will be the "last election" if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency. She says the GOP won't win another election if she's in The White House. EXCLUSIVE: Mchele Bachmann: Trump Has '1950's Sensibilities' "Hillary Clinton will ensure it won't happen because she's going to change the demographics of the United States so that no Republican will ever win again," Bachmann tells me. EXCLUSIVE: Michele Bachmann: 'God Raised Up' Trump to Be GOP Nominee Therefore, Bachmann has a message for all the anti-Trump folks: "I say get over it! All the 'Never Trumpers,' all the establishment Republicans that are out there saying,'We'll just take our chances and four years from now we'll have a better candidate, then we can take the White House.' It's not going to happen." So what's is her full explanation on all this? Watch and read it here. She made these remarks during our interview at her home in Minnesota this past Friday. Bachmann is one of Trump's formal evangelical advisors and advises him informally on foreign policy. EXCLUSIVE: Michele Bachmann: Israel's Enemies 'Will Be Lifted Up" if Clinton Wins "Well, I don't want to be melodramatic but I do want to be truthful. I believe without a shadow of a doubt this is the last election. This is it. This is the last election. And the reason why I say that David is because it's a math problem. It's a math problem of demographics and a changing United States. If you look at the numbers of people who vote and who lives in the country and who Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want to bring in to the country, this is the last election when we even have a chance to vote for somebody who will stand up for godly moral principles. This is it. Hillary Clinton, I'm not judging her spiritually or where she is at but we know where she's going to come down on Supreme Court justices, she's pro-Planned Parenthood. She's for everything I'm against. I think it's very clear. We've got a day and night contrast. This isn't even close between what Donald Trump stands for and espouses and what Hillary Clinton stands for and espouses. People look at Trump and he can be course and a little crude and all the rest and I say get over it! Get over it because what he is going to do is uphold religious liberty and advance the constitutional republic that our founders gave us." "She (Hillary Clinton) has said herself that she is going to grant wholesale amnesty to people from the Third World who are here in the United States and we hear this fake number of 11 million illegal aliens in the United States. Wrong! It’s about 30 to 40 million illegal aliens currently in the United States- 30 to 40 million!" "What Hillary Clinton's ultimate goal is is to secure her reelection. The very first thing she will do as President Hillary Clinton is this: she will have a wholesale amnesty so that Republicans will never again have the chance at winning Florida or Texas. If we can't win Florida or Texas, it’s game over." More: "All the 'Never Trumpers,' all the establishment republicans that are out there saying, 'we'll just take our chances and four years from now we'll have a better candidate, then we can take the White House.' It’s not going to happen. It's not going to happen. Hillary Clinton will ensure it won't happen because she's going to change the demographics of the United States so that no Republican will ever win again." "God says to every nation for all of time, 'I set before you life and death, what are you going to choose?' If you look at the book of Genesis, you don’t even have to get beyond Chapter 3 to see God gives us life. The first thing he gives mankind is life. What does man choose? Death. We choose rebellion and death. You go from Genesis all through the Bible to the book of Revelation; man stupidly makes the same decision over and over again by rejecting life and choosing death. What I'm telling you is that's what we're looking at now in this country."

www1.cbn.com

right

ANWdNYthjUhVhw6I

test

IyxMBMJjFokPfaaZ

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47002918

Roger Stone: Trump ally, political strategist and Nixon fan

Roger Stone , a long-time political strategist and former ally of President Donald Trump , has gone on trial in Washington DC . The 67-year-old faces seven federal charges , including lying to Congress . He was arrested in January in connection with Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's probe into alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign . A political veteran , Mr Stone has worked with Republicans since the 1970s and even bears a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back . But who is the self-described `` dirty trickster '' and why is he on trial ? Roger Stone is charged with obstructing justice , witness tampering and lying to the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee . He is accused of lying about the Trump campaign 's efforts to obtain emails hacked by Russia to undermine Hillary Clinton 's presidential campaign . They were published by WikiLeaks . According to investigators , Mr Stone said he had `` communicated '' with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange before the emails ' release and had described the contact as `` perfectly legal '' . Prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky told the jury that Mr Stone , whose activities have long been scrutinised by both the FBI and the Senate , lied `` because the truth looked bad for the Trump campaign '' . Born in Connecticut in 1952 , Mr Stone first got involved in politics at the age of eight , agitating for Democratic candidate John F Kennedy . `` I remember going through the cafeteria line and telling every kid that Nixon was in favour of school on Saturdays , '' the strategist told the Washington Post in a 2007 interview . `` It was my first political trick . '' But Mr Stone would begin his professional career helping out on Richard Nixon 's 1972 re-election campaign . Congressional hearings in 1973 called to investigate the Watergate scandal reportedly revealed Mr Stone had hired a Republican operative to infiltrate Democratic candidate George McGovern 's campaign , and sabotaged a Republican challenger to Nixon . The revelations cost him his job for then-Senator Bob Dole , but Mr Stone insists he did not break any law . `` The reason I 'm a Nixonite is because of his indestructibility and resilience , '' he told the New Yorker in an interview , shortly after he had the 37th president 's face tattooed between his shoulder blades . Mr Stone went on to work on Ronald Reagan 's successful presidential runs in 1980 and 1984 , and aided George HW Bush 's election in 1988 . But Richard Nixon still seems to hold special significance for Mr Stone - aside from the tattoo , he has a room of Nixon memorabilia in his office in Oakland Park , Florida . In the 1990s , Mr Stone worked as a lobbyist for Donald Trump 's casino business , and later helped Mr Trump 's unsuccessful White House run in 2000 . According to the Netflix documentary Get Me Roger Stone , the strategist reportedly encouraged Mr Trump to run for the presidency . While serving on Mr Trump 's campaign in 2015 the pair allegedly had a falling out - Mr Stone says he quit , while Mr Trump said he had fired the operative . But days later Mr Stone wrote a piece for Business Insider in support of the Republican candidate , titled `` The man who just resigned from Donald Trump 's campaign explains how Trump can still win '' . Since Mr Trump 's election , the president has distanced himself from Mr Stone . This , despite Mr Stone regularly appearing on television to defend his former employer . His Twitter account was temporarily suspended in 2017 after the strategist attacked journalists on the site , allegedly using homophobic language to target CNN presenter Don Lemon . Mr Stone threatened to sue the platform , saying he had been `` inundated on Twitter with bloggers threatening to kill me ... yet Twitter seems unconcerned about that '' . The political veteran 's dress code has also garnered attention . He reportedly does not wear socks , and favours custom-made suits . `` If life is a stage , then you should always be in costume , '' he told the New York Times in 2015 . `` And if you are trying to connote a certain authority in your business life , I think being well dressed is part of that . ''

Image copyright EPA Roger Stone, a long-time political strategist and former ally of President Donald Trump, has gone on trial in Washington DC. The 67-year-old faces seven federal charges, including lying to Congress. He was arrested in January in connection with Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe into alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. A political veteran, Mr Stone has worked with Republicans since the 1970s and even bears a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back. But who is the self-described "dirty trickster" and why is he on trial? The trial Roger Stone is charged with obstructing justice, witness tampering and lying to the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee. He is accused of lying about the Trump campaign's efforts to obtain emails hacked by Russia to undermine Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. They were published by WikiLeaks. According to investigators, Mr Stone said he had "communicated" with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange before the emails' release and had described the contact as "perfectly legal". Prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky told the jury that Mr Stone, whose activities have long been scrutinised by both the FBI and the Senate, lied "because the truth looked bad for the Trump campaign". Mr Stone denies the charges and the trial continues. Who is Roger Stone? Born in Connecticut in 1952, Mr Stone first got involved in politics at the age of eight, agitating for Democratic candidate John F Kennedy. "I remember going through the cafeteria line and telling every kid that Nixon was in favour of school on Saturdays," the strategist told the Washington Post in a 2007 interview. "It was my first political trick." Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Mr Stone, seen here with Ronald Reagan, has worked on Republican political campaigns since the 1970s But Mr Stone would begin his professional career helping out on Richard Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign. Congressional hearings in 1973 called to investigate the Watergate scandal reportedly revealed Mr Stone had hired a Republican operative to infiltrate Democratic candidate George McGovern's campaign, and sabotaged a Republican challenger to Nixon. The revelations cost him his job for then-Senator Bob Dole, but Mr Stone insists he did not break any law. "The reason I'm a Nixonite is because of his indestructibility and resilience," he told the New Yorker in an interview, shortly after he had the 37th president's face tattooed between his shoulder blades. "Women love it," he said. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Roger Stone, centre, pictured in 1985 with Paul Manafort, left, and Lee Atwater Mr Stone went on to work on Ronald Reagan's successful presidential runs in 1980 and 1984, and aided George HW Bush's election in 1988. But Richard Nixon still seems to hold special significance for Mr Stone - aside from the tattoo, he has a room of Nixon memorabilia in his office in Oakland Park, Florida. How does he know Donald Trump? In the 1990s, Mr Stone worked as a lobbyist for Donald Trump's casino business, and later helped Mr Trump's unsuccessful White House run in 2000. According to the Netflix documentary Get Me Roger Stone, the strategist reportedly encouraged Mr Trump to run for the presidency. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Mr Stone helped Donald Trump in his failed bid for the presidency in 2000 While serving on Mr Trump's campaign in 2015 the pair allegedly had a falling out - Mr Stone says he quit, while Mr Trump said he had fired the operative. But days later Mr Stone wrote a piece for Business Insider in support of the Republican candidate, titled "The man who just resigned from Donald Trump's campaign explains how Trump can still win". Since Mr Trump's election, the president has distanced himself from Mr Stone. This, despite Mr Stone regularly appearing on television to defend his former employer. His Twitter account was temporarily suspended in 2017 after the strategist attacked journalists on the site, allegedly using homophobic language to target CNN presenter Don Lemon. Mr Stone threatened to sue the platform, saying he had been "inundated on Twitter with bloggers threatening to kill me... yet Twitter seems unconcerned about that". Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Trump says what people think, says strategist Roger Stone The political veteran's dress code has also garnered attention. He reportedly does not wear socks, and favours custom-made suits. "If life is a stage, then you should always be in costume," he told the New York Times in 2015. "And if you are trying to connote a certain authority in your business life, I think being well dressed is part of that."

www.bbc.com

center

IyxMBMJjFokPfaaZ

test

stACeXokNikp8GGQ

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/10/Port-Authority-Ignored-Emergency-Response-Alarms-Blamed-Mayor-For-Bridge-Flap

CHRISTIE AIDE: OFFICIAL 'MESSING WITH US' BY REOPENING BRIDGE BEFORE ELECTION

2014-01-10

Frances Martel

The New Jersey legislature stunned the media world with an extensive , thousand-page document drop providing more evidence that Gov . Chris Christie ’ s staff closed down part of the George Washington Bridge for political retribution – and even blamed the Mayor of Fort Lee for their mischief . The majority of the thousand-document set of exhibits – available on the New Jersey state website and related to the testimony of David Wildstein , Director of Interstate Capital Projects for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey – tells us little we did not already know , though from the new perspective of the private lens of the Port Authority ’ s spokespeople and leadership . Many of the emails in the accounts are round-ups of media reports on the bridge closing and FOIA requests by Ted Mann , the Wall Street Journal ‘ s reporter covering the story . The documentation behind State Senators Raymond Lesniak ’ s and Loretta Weinberg ’ s attempts to investigate the closings are also included . There are notable moments in the documents aside from the clear exchanges that feed the intrigue behind the debacle . For one , Deputy Director of Media Relations Steve Coleman makes the most appearances in the first set of documents ( “ Exhibit A ” ) , simply refusing to answer any queries from the media or being denied authority to respond to them . From the beginning , it is increasingly clear that the Port Authority has no interest in discussing the matter . Wildstein responds affirmatively to one email asking if the official plan was “ just to hunker down and grit our way through it . ” It is , however , the relationship between the Port Authority – specifically , Wildstein and those in the know about the study – and the authorities in Fort Lee that merits a closer look . It did not take more than a few hours for Wildstein – who was on the ground in Fort Lee the first day of the study , a rarity for someone in his position – and his associates to hear complaints from Fort Lee authorities about the closures . Within hours , they knew that the potential for emergency response vehicles to be hindered and civilians to be hurt by the jam was abundantly clear . By 9 a.m. of the first day of lane closures , General Manager of the George Washington Bridge Robert Durando was alerting the Port Authority that Fort Lee police were “ particularly upset that no one from the GWB , either civilian or PAPD had the courtesy or the ‘ neighborly ’ intent to call either the Mayor ’ s Office or FLPD about testing a new traffic pattern. ” He adds that the police chief “ asked how he goes about ending this ‘ miserable failure . ' ” By noon that day , Durando reported that the “ traffic study ” was “ preventing the smooth flow of emergency response vehicles throughout the Borough. ” Fort Lee authorities had told him that the study was a “ monumental failure ” and demanded it end . The official statement from Port Authority after the incident concluded claims that those running the study were “ alert for any emergency vehicles in the area . ” By September 13 , Port Authority Executive Director Patrick Foye stepped in and halted the study , calling the procedure that shut down the lanes “ very troubling ” and stating that he was “ appalled ” by the matter . There are a number of intriguing bits of correspondence between Foye and other officials ( Foye was kept out of the loop of the study as well ) , and Wildstein at one point laments , “ we need to address leaks from Foye and his messing with us 5 weeks before election . ” However , regarding the emails that conclusively prove that the Port Authority officials involved in closing the bridge knew that emergency response vehicles were hindered , yet another correspondence stands out in highlighting their dishonesty . Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich was pleading with the Port Authority the entire time to stop the study , which he noted seemed to have little objective but to be troublesome , and that he himself began to believe was something like retribution . If it was , in Sokolich ’ s words , Port Authority planned to “ add insult to injury . ” “ Many members of the public have indicated to me that the Port Authority Police Officers are advising commuters in response to their complaints that this recent traffic debacle is the result of a decision that I , as the Mayor , recently made , ” Sokolich writes in a letter to Bill Baroni , Deputy Executive Director of the Port Authority . The thousands of pages of documents will continue to be a goldmine of illicit behavior and contradictions between public and private as journalists continue to dig through the mire ( releasing them on Friday guarantees a weekend full of reading for those covering the story ) . If the case is that the Port Authority was trying to punish Mark Sokolich for something ( and not , as one alternative theory goes , State Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg ) , telling commuters that Sokolich was behind closing the lanes would be clear evidence . Ignoring the distress signals that Fort Lee residents might be in danger because of slower emergency response times also feeds deeply into this theory . And after yesterday ’ s theatrical mea culpa from Governor Christie , all it would take is one inconsistency that proves he knew about this behavior to sink his political ship for good .

The New Jersey legislature stunned the media world with an extensive, thousand-page document drop providing more evidence that Gov. Chris Christie’s staff closed down part of the George Washington Bridge for political retribution – and even blamed the Mayor of Fort Lee for their mischief. The majority of the thousand-document set of exhibits – available on the New Jersey state website and related to the testimony of David Wildstein, Director of Interstate Capital Projects for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey – tells us little we did not already know, though from the new perspective of the private lens of the Port Authority’s spokespeople and leadership. Many of the emails in the accounts are round-ups of media reports on the bridge closing and FOIA requests by Ted Mann, the Wall Street Journal‘s reporter covering the story. The documentation behind State Senators Raymond Lesniak’s and Loretta Weinberg’s attempts to investigate the closings are also included. There are notable moments in the documents aside from the clear exchanges that feed the intrigue behind the debacle. For one, Deputy Director of Media Relations Steve Coleman makes the most appearances in the first set of documents (“Exhibit A”), simply refusing to answer any queries from the media or being denied authority to respond to them. From the beginning, it is increasingly clear that the Port Authority has no interest in discussing the matter. Wildstein responds affirmatively to one email asking if the official plan was “just to hunker down and grit our way through it.” It is, however, the relationship between the Port Authority – specifically, Wildstein and those in the know about the study – and the authorities in Fort Lee that merits a closer look. It did not take more than a few hours for Wildstein – who was on the ground in Fort Lee the first day of the study, a rarity for someone in his position – and his associates to hear complaints from Fort Lee authorities about the closures. Within hours, they knew that the potential for emergency response vehicles to be hindered and civilians to be hurt by the jam was abundantly clear. By 9 a.m. of the first day of lane closures, General Manager of the George Washington Bridge Robert Durando was alerting the Port Authority that Fort Lee police were “particularly upset that no one from the GWB, either civilian or PAPD had the courtesy or the ‘neighborly’ intent to call either the Mayor’s Office or FLPD about testing a new traffic pattern.” He adds that the police chief “asked how he goes about ending this ‘miserable failure.'” By noon that day, Durando reported that the “traffic study” was “preventing the smooth flow of emergency response vehicles throughout the Borough.” Fort Lee authorities had told him that the study was a “monumental failure” and demanded it end. The official statement from Port Authority after the incident concluded claims that those running the study were “alert for any emergency vehicles in the area.” By September 13, Port Authority Executive Director Patrick Foye stepped in and halted the study, calling the procedure that shut down the lanes “very troubling” and stating that he was “appalled” by the matter. There are a number of intriguing bits of correspondence between Foye and other officials (Foye was kept out of the loop of the study as well), and Wildstein at one point laments, “we need to address leaks from Foye and his messing with us 5 weeks before election.” However, regarding the emails that conclusively prove that the Port Authority officials involved in closing the bridge knew that emergency response vehicles were hindered, yet another correspondence stands out in highlighting their dishonesty. Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich was pleading with the Port Authority the entire time to stop the study, which he noted seemed to have little objective but to be troublesome, and that he himself began to believe was something like retribution. If it was, in Sokolich’s words, Port Authority planned to “add insult to injury.” “Many members of the public have indicated to me that the Port Authority Police Officers are advising commuters in response to their complaints that this recent traffic debacle is the result of a decision that I, as the Mayor, recently made,” Sokolich writes in a letter to Bill Baroni, Deputy Executive Director of the Port Authority. The thousands of pages of documents will continue to be a goldmine of illicit behavior and contradictions between public and private as journalists continue to dig through the mire (releasing them on Friday guarantees a weekend full of reading for those covering the story). If the case is that the Port Authority was trying to punish Mark Sokolich for something (and not, as one alternative theory goes, State Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg), telling commuters that Sokolich was behind closing the lanes would be clear evidence. Ignoring the distress signals that Fort Lee residents might be in danger because of slower emergency response times also feeds deeply into this theory. And after yesterday’s theatrical mea culpa from Governor Christie, all it would take is one inconsistency that proves he knew about this behavior to sink his political ship for good.

www.breitbart.com

right

stACeXokNikp8GGQ

test

uwkMNYg3dEARf2td

lgbt_rights

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/14/rightwing_nuts_anti_gay_implosion_how_a_new_ploy_can_doom_the_party/

Rightwing nuts anti-gay implosion: How a new ploy can doom the party

2014-02-14

An anti-gay bill that may become law in Kansas could test the consistency of conservatives who oppose the Affordable Care Act 's requirement that employer sponsored insurance include birth control coverage . What does being gay have to do with birth control , other than that religious conservatives regard both as sinful forms of contraception ? First , the backdrop . Obamacare 's contraception mandate faces a number of challenges , including from devout business owners , who argue that complying with it -- and , thus , facilitating employee access to birth control -- would violate their religious beliefs . Elite conservatives and Congressional Republicans have rallied to their defense . Not , they insist , because they personally share with the owners ' uneasiness about birth control per se , but because the mandate tramples religious liberty . There has revealingly been no similar condemnation of other Obamacare benefit mandates that would presumably require entrepreneurial Christian Scientists to facilitate all manner of medical care that their religion forbids . Perhaps that 'll change if a Christian Scientist takes the Obama administration to court . Maybe there 'll be a conservative outcry against the Affordable Care Act 's preventive service requirements ( nothing tramples religious liberties like colorectal cancer screenings ) . But they would be taking a first step on a slope I doubt they want to slide down on their backsides . In anticipation of a federal court ruling that would end its gay marriage ban , the Kansas state legislature is advancing a 21st century Jim Crow law for anti-gay religious residents . They may not be able to prevent gay marriages for long , but nobody in Kansas will be vulnerable to civil or criminal penalties for discriminating against gay people with respect to their marriages or other partnerships , if said discrimination is an artifact of religious belief . If a gay man walks into my store to buy booze , should I be able to turn him away because he might be throwing a wedding party ? Many in the Kansas state government think so . If two gay , married men want to have a romantic dinner or to send their adopted daughter to daycare , Kansas thinks you , the restauranteur or daycare provider should be able to refuse them service . I suspect a federal judge will void this almost as soon as it becomes law ( if it does ; new reports suggest an uphill climb ) , so the practical impact might be moot . But in the realm of ideas , opponents of the contraception mandate must at the very least support the intent of the Kansas bill , if not its exact form . In fact , to be consistent , opponents of the contraception mandate must believe that the Kansas bill is n't even necessary -- that religious individuals and businesses in Kansas and everywhere are inherently exempt from laws that require them to provide services that might facilitate or affirm the legitimacy of gay unions . This is n't about narrow instances in which particular services ( catering or photography ) might require religious people -- or atheists for that matter -- to attend services that conflict with their most central convictions . It poses a real challenge to conservatives who believe the contraception mandate constitutes an attack on religious freedom and should not apply to any employer who objects to facilitating the acquisition of birth control . Even conservative columnist Tim Carney , who 's admirably consistent on these matters , ca n't bring himself to champion the Kansas bill . Carney does n't believe federal law should prohibit business owners from discriminating against customers in the first place -- but given that it does , he concedes that the Kansas bill goes too far . But if religious liberty does n't protect anti-gay Kansans from accepting or facilitating gay marriages , then there 's no argument that it should protect religious employers from the contraception mandate -- other than that refusing contraceptive coverage is more politically tenable than supporting anti-gay discrimination . The animating principle behind opposition to the contraception mandate must be something else . There 's a splinter argument here about what arrangement constitutes a truly libertarian paradigm -- one in which employers are free to discriminate and have gay people removed from their stores , or one in which gay people are free to shop in stores that benefit from a variety of public provisions . ███ contributor Matt Bruenig makes the pro-LGBT rights side of it well . But that argument does n't really give shape to the motives catalyzing the contraception mandate 's opponents . To be consistent , they must be prepared to argue in favor of bills that would enshrine anti-gay discrimination . I 'm not sure that 's something Republicans in Congress are prepared to do . But it is a direct corollary of the argument that religious liberty should serve as a generalized exemption from all manner of otherwise good and broadly applicable laws .

An anti-gay bill that may become law in Kansas could test the consistency of conservatives who oppose the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employer sponsored insurance include birth control coverage. What does being gay have to do with birth control, other than that religious conservatives regard both as sinful forms of contraception? Advertisement: I'll get to that in a minute. First, the backdrop. Obamacare's contraception mandate faces a number of challenges, including from devout business owners, who argue that complying with it -- and, thus, facilitating employee access to birth control -- would violate their religious beliefs. Elite conservatives and Congressional Republicans have rallied to their defense. Not, they insist, because they personally share with the owners' uneasiness about birth control per se, but because the mandate tramples religious liberty. There has revealingly been no similar condemnation of other Obamacare benefit mandates that would presumably require entrepreneurial Christian Scientists to facilitate all manner of medical care that their religion forbids. Perhaps that'll change if a Christian Scientist takes the Obama administration to court. Maybe there'll be a conservative outcry against the Affordable Care Act's preventive service requirements (nothing tramples religious liberties like colorectal cancer screenings). But they would be taking a first step on a slope I doubt they want to slide down on their backsides. Which brings us to Kansas. In anticipation of a federal court ruling that would end its gay marriage ban, the Kansas state legislature is advancing a 21st century Jim Crow law for anti-gay religious residents. They may not be able to prevent gay marriages for long, but nobody in Kansas will be vulnerable to civil or criminal penalties for discriminating against gay people with respect to their marriages or other partnerships, if said discrimination is an artifact of religious belief. If a gay man walks into my store to buy booze, should I be able to turn him away because he might be throwing a wedding party? Many in the Kansas state government think so. If two gay, married men want to have a romantic dinner or to send their adopted daughter to daycare, Kansas thinks you, the restauranteur or daycare provider should be able to refuse them service. Advertisement: I suspect a federal judge will void this almost as soon as it becomes law (if it does; new reports suggest an uphill climb), so the practical impact might be moot. But in the realm of ideas, opponents of the contraception mandate must at the very least support the intent of the Kansas bill, if not its exact form. In fact, to be consistent, opponents of the contraception mandate must believe that the Kansas bill isn't even necessary -- that religious individuals and businesses in Kansas and everywhere are inherently exempt from laws that require them to provide services that might facilitate or affirm the legitimacy of gay unions. This isn't about narrow instances in which particular services (catering or photography) might require religious people -- or atheists for that matter -- to attend services that conflict with their most central convictions. It poses a real challenge to conservatives who believe the contraception mandate constitutes an attack on religious freedom and should not apply to any employer who objects to facilitating the acquisition of birth control. Even conservative columnist Tim Carney, who's admirably consistent on these matters, can't bring himself to champion the Kansas bill. Carney doesn't believe federal law should prohibit business owners from discriminating against customers in the first place -- but given that it does, he concedes that the Kansas bill goes too far. [embedtweet id=434050165788274688] Advertisement: But if religious liberty doesn't protect anti-gay Kansans from accepting or facilitating gay marriages, then there's no argument that it should protect religious employers from the contraception mandate -- other than that refusing contraceptive coverage is more politically tenable than supporting anti-gay discrimination. The animating principle behind opposition to the contraception mandate must be something else. There's a splinter argument here about what arrangement constitutes a truly libertarian paradigm -- one in which employers are free to discriminate and have gay people removed from their stores, or one in which gay people are free to shop in stores that benefit from a variety of public provisions. Salon contributor Matt Bruenig makes the pro-LGBT rights side of it well. But that argument doesn't really give shape to the motives catalyzing the contraception mandate's opponents. To be consistent, they must be prepared to argue in favor of bills that would enshrine anti-gay discrimination. I'm not sure that's something Republicans in Congress are prepared to do. But it is a direct corollary of the argument that religious liberty should serve as a generalized exemption from all manner of otherwise good and broadly applicable laws.

www.salon.com

left

uwkMNYg3dEARf2td

test

Qlp13vqNQq2gPOmz

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-virginia-politics/virginia-lawmakers-meet-governor-battles-fallout-from-racist-photo-idUSKCN1PT1IJ

Virginia lawmakers meet; governor battles fallout from racist photo

2019-02-04

Jonathan Allen

( ███ ) - Virginia Governor Ralph Northam met with his Cabinet on Monday amid a chorus of calls from fellow Democrats to resign over last week ’ s revelation of a racist photo on his 1984 medical school yearbook page . A few dozen protesters gathered at the state capitol in Richmond to demand that Northam , a white man , step down , while Virginia Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax , who is black , said there was “ a lot of uncertainty ” in the state ’ s government . A conservative media website on Friday released a page from Northam ’ s yearbook depicting one person in blackface standing next to a masked person in the white robes of the Ku Klux Klan . Northam , 59 , initially apologized on Friday and said he was one of the two people in the photo , then changed his story Saturday , saying he did not appear in the picture but had dressed in blackface at another point that year . The origins of blackface date to 19th-century “ minstrel ” shows in which white performers covered their faces in black grease paint to caricature slaves . The governor ’ s admission drew immediate demands for his resignation from Virginia politicians , the NAACP civil rights group and national political figures . At least five Democratic presidential candidates , including U.S . Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris , both of whom are black , said Northam had lost the moral authority to lead . Northam ’ s office did not respond to questions about his plans on Monday , but local media outlets reported he was meeting with advisers . Fairfax , 39 , who is in line to succeed Northam and become only the fifth African-American to serve as governor of a U.S. state , dating back to the post-Civil War era of Reconstruction , said he was not sure what Northam ’ s next move would be . Related Coverage Factbox : Virginia governor latest to feel consequences of blackface stunt “ I believe the governor has to make a decision that ’ s in the best interest of the commonwealth of Virginia , ” Fairfax told reporters at the capitol . Asked if he was preparing to possibly assume office as governor , Fairfax replied , “ There is a lot of uncertainty right now in our government . But we always have to be ready . ” Should Northam resign , Fairfax would be the second black governor - after Douglas Wilder - in the history of Virginia , where his great-great-great grandfather once was a slave . Earlier on Monday Fairfax released a statement denying a vague online report that a woman suggested he had sexually assaulted her in 2004 . “ Tellingly , not one other reputable media outlet has seen fit to air this false claim , ” the statement from Fairfax ’ s office said . At least two media outlets , including the Washington Post , said a woman had approached them more than a year ago with the same allegation . The outlets said they had been unable to substantiate her claim . The report of the allegation was published on the same website , Big League Politics , that first published Northam ’ s yearbook page . Northam said on Saturday he had donned blackface in the 1980s to portray pop star Michael Jackson in a dance competition . Virginia Governor Ralph Northam , accompanied by his wife Pamela Northam announces he will not resign during a news conference in Richmond , Virginia , U.S. February 2 , 2019 . Picture taken February 2 , 2019 . ███/ Jay Paul During a Saturday news conference , Northam made light-hearted remarks about how hard it is to clean black shoe polish from one ’ s face and whether he should perform Jackson ’ s signature “ moonwalk ” dance for the cameras , but abstained at the advice of his wife . “ What happened Saturday was an unfortunate display , and rather tone-deaf to what the impact really is , ” Derrick Johnson , the president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People , or NAACP , told MSNBC on Monday .

(Reuters) - Virginia Governor Ralph Northam met with his Cabinet on Monday amid a chorus of calls from fellow Democrats to resign over last week’s revelation of a racist photo on his 1984 medical school yearbook page. A few dozen protesters gathered at the state capitol in Richmond to demand that Northam, a white man, step down, while Virginia Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax, who is black, said there was “a lot of uncertainty” in the state’s government. A conservative media website on Friday released a page from Northam’s yearbook depicting one person in blackface standing next to a masked person in the white robes of the Ku Klux Klan. Northam, 59, initially apologized on Friday and said he was one of the two people in the photo, then changed his story Saturday, saying he did not appear in the picture but had dressed in blackface at another point that year. The origins of blackface date to 19th-century “minstrel” shows in which white performers covered their faces in black grease paint to caricature slaves. The governor’s admission drew immediate demands for his resignation from Virginia politicians, the NAACP civil rights group and national political figures. At least five Democratic presidential candidates, including U.S. Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, both of whom are black, said Northam had lost the moral authority to lead. Northam’s office did not respond to questions about his plans on Monday, but local media outlets reported he was meeting with advisers. Fairfax, 39, who is in line to succeed Northam and become only the fifth African-American to serve as governor of a U.S. state, dating back to the post-Civil War era of Reconstruction, said he was not sure what Northam’s next move would be. Related Coverage Factbox: Virginia governor latest to feel consequences of blackface stunt “I believe the governor has to make a decision that’s in the best interest of the commonwealth of Virginia,” Fairfax told reporters at the capitol. Asked if he was preparing to possibly assume office as governor, Fairfax replied, “There is a lot of uncertainty right now in our government. But we always have to be ready.” Should Northam resign, Fairfax would be the second black governor - after Douglas Wilder - in the history of Virginia, where his great-great-great grandfather once was a slave. Earlier on Monday Fairfax released a statement denying a vague online report that a woman suggested he had sexually assaulted her in 2004. “Tellingly, not one other reputable media outlet has seen fit to air this false claim,” the statement from Fairfax’s office said. At least two media outlets, including the Washington Post, said a woman had approached them more than a year ago with the same allegation. The outlets said they had been unable to substantiate her claim. The report of the allegation was published on the same website, Big League Politics, that first published Northam’s yearbook page. Northam said on Saturday he had donned blackface in the 1980s to portray pop star Michael Jackson in a dance competition. Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, accompanied by his wife Pamela Northam announces he will not resign during a news conference in Richmond, Virginia, U.S. February 2, 2019. Picture taken February 2, 2019. REUTERS/ Jay Paul During a Saturday news conference, Northam made light-hearted remarks about how hard it is to clean black shoe polish from one’s face and whether he should perform Jackson’s signature “moonwalk” dance for the cameras, but abstained at the advice of his wife. “What happened Saturday was an unfortunate display, and rather tone-deaf to what the impact really is,” Derrick Johnson, the president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or NAACP, told MSNBC on Monday.

www.reuters.com

center

Qlp13vqNQq2gPOmz

test

Mo5cZ2fpKRAHWdeW

fbi

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Comey-willing-testify-pulicly/2017/05/13/id/789928/

Source: Comey Only Willing to Speak With Congress Publicly

2017-05-13

Sandy Fitzgerald

Ousted FBI Director James Comey is willing to speak with Congress but only if the testimony is not behind closed doors , according to a source close to him . Comey had been invited to speak to the Senate Intelligence Committee next week but turned down the invitation hours after President Donald Trump tweeted a warning to him that he `` better hope that there are no 'tapes ' '' before he started `` leaking to the press . '' But , The New York Times reports , Comey is willing to speak if his testimony is made public . So far , Comey has only responded to his sudden dismissal through a short letter to his former colleagues , in which he wrote that he has `` long believed that a President can fire an FBI Director for any reason , or for no reason at all . I 'm not going to spend time on the decision or the way it was executed . I hope you wo n't either . '' Former FBI agent Clint Watts , who testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee in March concerning Russian interference into the election , said Saturday he would like to see Comey testify , but agreed that it should not happen behind closed doors . `` I would be thrilled for him to have a public hearing , '' Watts told MSNBC . `` I would like to hear his version of it . I think the smartest thing I 've heard all week is him saying I 'll show up but only do it in public . He 's smart not to be in a closed hearing on the matter . '' Trump fired Comey , who was appointed by President Barack Obama to a 10-year-term in 2013 , on Tuesday , about a week after the former FBI director told a Senate hearing that he felt `` mildly nauseous '' that his actions in the Hillary Clinton email case may have affected the 2016 presidential election . Initially , Trump 's representatives said the firing was spurred by a report from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein but on Thursday the president said he 'd already decided to let Comey go . Comey will most likely face questions from the Senate committee about both the probe into alleged Russian collusion with Trump 's presidential campaign and about the timing behind his surprise firing .

Ousted FBI Director James Comey is willing to speak with Congress but only if the testimony is not behind closed doors, according to a source close to him. Comey had been invited to speak to the Senate Intelligence Committee next week but turned down the invitation hours after President Donald Trump tweeted a warning to him that he "better hope that there are no 'tapes'" before he started "leaking to the press." But, The New York Times reports, Comey is willing to speak if his testimony is made public. So far, Comey has only responded to his sudden dismissal through a short letter to his former colleagues, in which he wrote that he has "long believed that a President can fire an FBI Director for any reason, or for no reason at all. I'm not going to spend time on the decision or the way it was executed. I hope you won't either." Former FBI agent Clint Watts, who testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee in March concerning Russian interference into the election, said Saturday he would like to see Comey testify, but agreed that it should not happen behind closed doors. "I would be thrilled for him to have a public hearing," Watts told MSNBC. "I would like to hear his version of it. I think the smartest thing I've heard all week is him saying I'll show up but only do it in public. He's smart not to be in a closed hearing on the matter." Trump fired Comey, who was appointed by President Barack Obama to a 10-year-term in 2013, on Tuesday, about a week after the former FBI director told a Senate hearing that he felt "mildly nauseous" that his actions in the Hillary Clinton email case may have affected the 2016 presidential election. Initially, Trump's representatives said the firing was spurred by a report from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein but on Thursday the president said he'd already decided to let Comey go. Comey will most likely face questions from the Senate committee about both the probe into alleged Russian collusion with Trump's presidential campaign and about the timing behind his surprise firing.

www.newsmax.com

right

Mo5cZ2fpKRAHWdeW

test

IepWlHwdRYOQvYnk

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2017/january/a-man-of-his-word-trump-continues-to-makes-good-on-campaign-vows

A Man of His Word: Trump Continues to Makes Good on Campaign Vows

2017-01-26

WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump is continuing to check off his campaign promises in his first week in office . Trump travels to Philadelphia Thursday to generate brotherly love among Republicans in Congress . He 's there for a strategy session designed to put GOP lawmakers on the same page on issues like replacing Obamacare during these crucial early days of his administration . The president is moving ahead with his agenda through executive actions . He 's expected to put a temporary halt on the flow of refugees into the U.S. and direct his administration to stop issuing visas for people from countries with strong ties to terrorism , including Iran , Syria and Yemen . After signing an executive order to begin the process of building a wall along the nation 's southern border , Trump renewed his promise that Mexico will pay for the construction . `` We 're going to be starting those negotiations relatively soon and we will be in a form reimbursed by Mexico , '' Trump promised . But Mexican President Peña Nieto said Mexico will not be paying for the wall . `` I regret and reject the decision of the U.S. to build the wall , '' said Nieto . He is scheduled to meet with Trump next week but is considering canceling his trip following the president 's order to build the wall . The president 's executive actions on trade , manufacturing and business deregulation are driving optimism on Wall Street . The Dow Jones industrial average crossed the 20,000 milestone this week . `` Donald Trump joined in on the celebrations of yesterday 's 20,000 marker and to a large degree he is to thank for it coming to fruition , '' said Joshua Mahony , market analyst at IG . `` Despite the divisive nature of Trump 's policies , markets have come to the realization that money talks , '' he added . `` And with many of his other policies coming to fruition , it seems a fiscal spending package is just around the corner . '' And the president is launching an investigation into voter fraud . `` I think in terms of registration where you have people on rolls who are deceased or moved or are registered in two counties , '' explained White House press secretary Sean Spicer . Meanwhile , the president 's cabinet continues to come together . Former South Carolina Gov . Nikki Haley has been sworn in as ambassador to the United Nations . She supports the president 's call to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem . Meanwhile , reports indicate , the Trump administration is considering drastically reducing the United States ' role in the U.N . Those cuts would be to the U.N. or any agency that give full membership to the Palestinian authority , support programs that fund abortions or go around sanctions against Iran or North Korea .

WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump is continuing to check off his campaign promises in his first week in office. He's also showing he's not beholden to previous agreements. Trump travels to Philadelphia Thursday to generate brotherly love among Republicans in Congress. He's there for a strategy session designed to put GOP lawmakers on the same page on issues like replacing Obamacare during these crucial early days of his administration. The president is moving ahead with his agenda through executive actions. Immigration He's expected to put a temporary halt on the flow of refugees into the U.S. and direct his administration to stop issuing visas for people from countries with strong ties to terrorism, including Iran, Syria and Yemen. After signing an executive order to begin the process of building a wall along the nation's southern border, Trump renewed his promise that Mexico will pay for the construction. "We're going to be starting those negotiations relatively soon and we will be in a form reimbursed by Mexico," Trump promised. But Mexican President Peña Nieto said Mexico will not be paying for the wall. "I regret and reject the decision of the U.S. to build the wall," said Nieto. He is scheduled to meet with Trump next week but is considering canceling his trip following the president's order to build the wall. Happy Day on Wall Street The president's executive actions on trade, manufacturing and business deregulation are driving optimism on Wall Street. The Dow Jones industrial average crossed the 20,000 milestone this week. "Donald Trump joined in on the celebrations of yesterday's 20,000 marker and to a large degree he is to thank for it coming to fruition," said Joshua Mahony, market analyst at IG. "Despite the divisive nature of Trump's policies, markets have come to the realization that money talks," he added. "And with many of his other policies coming to fruition, it seems a fiscal spending package is just around the corner." And the president is launching an investigation into voter fraud. "I think in terms of registration where you have people on rolls who are deceased or moved or are registered in two counties," explained White House press secretary Sean Spicer. Nikki Haley Meanwhile, the president's cabinet continues to come together. Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley has been sworn in as ambassador to the United Nations. She supports the president's call to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Rethinking US's United Nations Role Meanwhile, reports indicate, the Trump administration is considering drastically reducing the United States' role in the U.N. Those cuts would be to the U.N. or any agency that give full membership to the Palestinian authority, support programs that fund abortions or go around sanctions against Iran or North Korea. The US pays twenty-two percent of the UN budget.

www1.cbn.com

right

IepWlHwdRYOQvYnk

test

ou3fuRYkOoasqLgc

media_bias

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/11/05/project-veritas-anchor-amy-robach-says-abc-news-killed-jeffrey-epstein-story/

Project Veritas: Anchor Amy Robach Says ABC News Killed Jeffrey Epstein Story

2019-11-05

Joshua Caplan

Project Veritas released an undercover video Tuesday in which ABC News anchor Amy Robach is seen alleging the corporate news network spiked a bombshell report on Jeffrey Epstein three years ago . BREAKING : @ abcnews anchor @ arobach caught on 'hot mic ' in August disgustedly exposing networks decision to strategically spike bombshell investigation into Jefferey Esptein over THREE YEARS AGO . Says what she had was `` unbelievable '' # EpsteinCoverup : https : //t.co/HagfLpwKDn pic.twitter.com/fPvJc3JCCQ — James O'Keefe ( @ JamesOKeefeIII ) November 5 , 2019 Robach , co-anchor of Good Morning America , is seen on video expressing frustration to an ABC News producer that a witness brought forth damning information regarding Epstein , but the network opted against airing the report . “ I ’ ve had this interview with Virginia [ Guiffre ] , ” Robach is seen explaining of the alleged Epstein victim . “ We would not put it on the air . I was told ‘ Who ’ s Jeffrey Epstein . No one knows who that is . This is a stupid story . ' ” “ The Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways , ” the anchor continues . Guiffre has long alleged she was delivered to Britain ’ s Prince Andrew for paid sex as a teenager . The jet-setting middle son of Queen Elizabeth II was a longtime friend of the financier who killed himself while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges . But the prince strenuously denies any knowledge of criminal behavior by Epstein and has described himself as “ appalled ” by allegations from many women who accused Epstein of sexual abuse . Among them is Giuffre . She has said she was a 15-year-old working at President Donald Trump ’ s Mar-a-Lago club when she was recruited to perform sex acts on Epstein . Giuffre said in a sworn affidavit that she was flown on Epstein ’ s private planes to his properties in New Mexico , the U.S. Virgin Islands , Paris , and New York , and said meetings were also arranged for sex in London and elsewhere with Prince Andrew . Buckingham Palace officials previously denied that Andrew had any sexual involvement with Giuffre . The palace said it had no additional comment .

Project Veritas released an undercover video Tuesday in which ABC News anchor Amy Robach is seen alleging the corporate news network spiked a bombshell report on Jeffrey Epstein three years ago. BREAKING: @abcnews anchor @arobach caught on 'hot mic' in August disgustedly exposing networks decision to strategically spike bombshell investigation into Jefferey Esptein over THREE YEARS AGO. Says what she had was "unbelievable" #EpsteinCoverup: https://t.co/HagfLpwKDn pic.twitter.com/fPvJc3JCCQ — James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) November 5, 2019 Robach, co-anchor of Good Morning America, is seen on video expressing frustration to an ABC News producer that a witness brought forth damning information regarding Epstein, but the network opted against airing the report. “I’ve had this interview with Virginia [Guiffre],” Robach is seen explaining of the alleged Epstein victim. “We would not put it on the air. I was told ‘Who’s Jeffrey Epstein. No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story.'” “The Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways,” the anchor continues. “I had it all three years ago,” she adds. Guiffre has long alleged she was delivered to Britain’s Prince Andrew for paid sex as a teenager. The jet-setting middle son of Queen Elizabeth II was a longtime friend of the financier who killed himself while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. But the prince strenuously denies any knowledge of criminal behavior by Epstein and has described himself as “appalled” by allegations from many women who accused Epstein of sexual abuse. Among them is Giuffre. She has said she was a 15-year-old working at President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club when she was recruited to perform sex acts on Epstein. Giuffre said in a sworn affidavit that she was flown on Epstein’s private planes to his properties in New Mexico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Paris, and New York, and said meetings were also arranged for sex in London and elsewhere with Prince Andrew. Buckingham Palace officials previously denied that Andrew had any sexual involvement with Giuffre. The palace said it had no additional comment. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

www.breitbart.com

right

ou3fuRYkOoasqLgc

test