Datasets:

cjziems

/

Article-Bias-Prediction

like 2

jUDnvabQ9iv7eVN4

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/11/mitchs_first_big_headache_how_to_convince_conservatives_he_cant_repeal_obamacare/

Mitch’s first big headache: How to convince conservatives he can’t “repeal Obamacare”

2014-11-11

Jim Newell

The first major head of conflict for the incoming Senate majority has revealed itself . On one side you have an incoming Senate majority leader , and other adherents of basic mathematics ( sellouts ! ) , who argue that there simply is n't a path to achieve the prime ideological goal of `` the base . '' On the other side you have `` the base , '' by which we mean Sen. Ted Cruz and friendly conservative outside groups looking to exploit unresolvable tensions for fun and profit . The question is : Should Mitch McConnell use the budget reconciliation process to repeal Obamacare ? It 's this procedural question that serves as story line to the long-awaited , quixotic sequel to that math-punching blockbuster hit of 2013 , Shut Down the Government Until Obamacare Is Repealed . The Hill this morning reports on the interest groups that are pressuring McConnell to adopt the tactic . And the fundamental problem with this reconciliation strategy shows itself in the language they 're using to discuss it : the idea that Republicans can `` repeal Obamacare '' with 51 votes . `` Republicans should use reconciliation to fully repeal ObamaCare , '' says Ken Cuccinelli , head of the Senate Conservatives Fund -- no friend to Mitch McConnell . A communications director of the mighty Heritage Action echoes Cuccinelli , arguing , `` 'the most important ' thing that Republicans could do in the majority would be to 'use the reconciliation instructions to repeal ObamaCare . ' '' Do you see the problem with this language ? Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans can not , as it happens , repeal Obamacare with 51 votes . What they can do is pass a bill to repeal Obamacare with 51 votes . The House , as it does every 45 minutes or so , can also pass a bill to repeal Obamacare . Once each chamber has passed a bill to repeal Obamacare , that bill can go to President Obama . And then he will veto it . The numbers do not exist in either the House or the Senate to override that veto . This is a tedious semantic distinction , but it 's the precise tedious semantic distinction that 's keeping this mathless , waste-of-time strategy alive and gaining momentum well past its sell date . It 's much more fun and fruitful for the Senate Conservatives Fund or Heritage to write one of those `` Dear Conservatives '' emails calling on Senate Republicans to `` repeal Obamacare '' than it is to write one calling on Senate Republicans to `` pass a repeal of Obamacare . '' As though it 's up to Mitch McConnell 's predilection for aggressive procedural maneuvering to determine whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act remains the law of the land . But the only thing that 's within Mitch McConnell 's control , essentially , is whether to register a protest vote that will get vetoed . There is at least one Tea Party outside group , surprisingly , that 's opted for Team Reality in this coming fight . Mark it down now : The Tea Party Express , unlike the Senate Conservatives Fund and Heritage Action , understands that the Constitution gives the president of the United States this power called the `` veto . '' Some conservatives question whether the strategy is worth pursuing while there ’ s a Democrat in the White House . “ Reconciliation works when you have a Republican president who will go with a Republican Congress . I don ’ t see a lot of opportunities , ” said Sal Russo , founder and chief strategist of the Tea Party Express . “ There are probably some ObamaCare fixes that perhaps would have Democratic support — the medical device tax [ repeal ] — but if it gets too aggressive , it ’ s not going to stand a chance of getting past the president. ” “ I think it ’ s going to be a limited tool , ” he added . There are other problems with using the reconciliation process , for either a full Obamacare repeal or a repeal of the medical device or individual mandate , beyond the existence of the presidential veto . The so-called Byrd Rule does not allow the reconciliation process to be used for anything that adds to the deficit . The Affordable Care Act , by the Congressional Budget Office 's scoring , reduces the budget deficit by billions of dollars over the 10-year horizon . Repealing it would add to the deficit . Repealing the medical device tax would also add to the deficit . Same thing for the individual mandate since it is , as Chief Justice John Roberts so famously put it , a tax . There would be a couple of ways for the Senate Republican leadership to get around the Byrd Rule . It could logroll the repeal of these budget-increasing items with some other deficit-reducing measure into a reconciliation vehicle that reduces the deficit on net . Another , more `` fun '' option would be to take Paul Ryan 's advice by leading a coup at the CBO and changing the way in which it scores legislation . Yes , we 're talking about instituting `` dynamic scoring , '' that special conservative pixie dust that fills the cavernous gaps of supply-side economics . Under this logic , a repeal of Obamacare or one of its taxes would n't add to the deficit , because repeal would obviously create ~77 percent quarterly GDP growth , easily making up the revenue shortfall . The sooner conservatives get over this `` McConnell can repeal Obamacare with 51 votes ! '' mirage , the sooner they 'll realize that there are meaningful ways they can chip away at Obamacare without even needing gimmicks . As the Tea Party Express strategist said , a repeal of the medical device tax is possible . It would get plenty of Democratic votes . President Obama , revealingly , dodged a question during last week 's press conference about whether he 'd sign a repeal of it . He could probably be pressured into doing so . The insistence on pursuing the Big Repeal , even though it 's impossible , instead of chipping away meaningfully but still at the margins of the law may represent a bigger unease among conservatives : that once Republican legislators begin working to reform the law , they 've implicitly abandoned the larger goal of repealing it . Manicuring the coarser edges of the law signals that the property only needs a bit of maintenance , can be salvaged , does n't need to be imploded . And that would be a realism too radical for the times .

The first major head of conflict for the incoming Senate majority has revealed itself. On one side you have an incoming Senate majority leader, and other adherents of basic mathematics (sellouts!), who argue that there simply isn't a path to achieve the prime ideological goal of "the base." On the other side you have "the base," by which we mean Sen. Ted Cruz and friendly conservative outside groups looking to exploit unresolvable tensions for fun and profit. The question is: Should Mitch McConnell use the budget reconciliation process to repeal Obamacare? It's this procedural question that serves as story line to the long-awaited, quixotic sequel to that math-punching blockbuster hit of 2013, Shut Down the Government Until Obamacare Is Repealed. Advertisement: The Hill this morning reports on the interest groups that are pressuring McConnell to adopt the tactic. And the fundamental problem with this reconciliation strategy shows itself in the language they're using to discuss it: the idea that Republicans can "repeal Obamacare" with 51 votes. "Republicans should use reconciliation to fully repeal ObamaCare," says Ken Cuccinelli, head of the Senate Conservatives Fund -- no friend to Mitch McConnell. A communications director of the mighty Heritage Action echoes Cuccinelli, arguing, "'the most important' thing that Republicans could do in the majority would be to 'use the reconciliation instructions to repeal ObamaCare.'" Do you see the problem with this language? Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans cannot, as it happens, repeal Obamacare with 51 votes. What they can do is pass a bill to repeal Obamacare with 51 votes. The House, as it does every 45 minutes or so, can also pass a bill to repeal Obamacare. Once each chamber has passed a bill to repeal Obamacare, that bill can go to President Obama. And then he will veto it. The numbers do not exist in either the House or the Senate to override that veto. This is a tedious semantic distinction, but it's the precise tedious semantic distinction that's keeping this mathless, waste-of-time strategy alive and gaining momentum well past its sell date. It's much more fun and fruitful for the Senate Conservatives Fund or Heritage to write one of those "Dear Conservatives" emails calling on Senate Republicans to "repeal Obamacare" than it is to write one calling on Senate Republicans to "pass a repeal of Obamacare." As though it's up to Mitch McConnell's predilection for aggressive procedural maneuvering to determine whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act remains the law of the land. But the only thing that's within Mitch McConnell's control, essentially, is whether to register a protest vote that will get vetoed. Advertisement: There is at least one Tea Party outside group, surprisingly, that's opted for Team Reality in this coming fight. Mark it down now: The Tea Party Express, unlike the Senate Conservatives Fund and Heritage Action, understands that the Constitution gives the president of the United States this power called the "veto." Some conservatives question whether the strategy is worth pursuing while there’s a Democrat in the White House. “Reconciliation works when you have a Republican president who will go with a Republican Congress. I don’t see a lot of opportunities,” said Sal Russo, founder and chief strategist of the Tea Party Express. “There are probably some ObamaCare fixes that perhaps would have Democratic support — the medical device tax [repeal] — but if it gets too aggressive, it’s not going to stand a chance of getting past the president.” “I think it’s going to be a limited tool,” he added. The Tea Party Express gets it! What a world. There are other problems with using the reconciliation process, for either a full Obamacare repeal or a repeal of the medical device or individual mandate, beyond the existence of the presidential veto. The so-called Byrd Rule does not allow the reconciliation process to be used for anything that adds to the deficit. The Affordable Care Act, by the Congressional Budget Office's scoring, reduces the budget deficit by billions of dollars over the 10-year horizon. Repealing it would add to the deficit. Repealing the medical device tax would also add to the deficit. Same thing for the individual mandate since it is, as Chief Justice John Roberts so famously put it, a tax. Advertisement: There would be a couple of ways for the Senate Republican leadership to get around the Byrd Rule. It could logroll the repeal of these budget-increasing items with some other deficit-reducing measure into a reconciliation vehicle that reduces the deficit on net. Another, more "fun" option would be to take Paul Ryan's advice by leading a coup at the CBO and changing the way in which it scores legislation. Yes, we're talking about instituting "dynamic scoring," that special conservative pixie dust that fills the cavernous gaps of supply-side economics. Under this logic, a repeal of Obamacare or one of its taxes wouldn't add to the deficit, because repeal would obviously create ~77 percent quarterly GDP growth, easily making up the revenue shortfall. The sooner conservatives get over this "McConnell can repeal Obamacare with 51 votes!" mirage, the sooner they'll realize that there are meaningful ways they can chip away at Obamacare without even needing gimmicks. As the Tea Party Express strategist said, a repeal of the medical device tax is possible. It would get plenty of Democratic votes. President Obama, revealingly, dodged a question during last week's press conference about whether he'd sign a repeal of it. He could probably be pressured into doing so. Advertisement: The insistence on pursuing the Big Repeal, even though it's impossible, instead of chipping away meaningfully but still at the margins of the law may represent a bigger unease among conservatives: that once Republican legislators begin working to reform the law, they've implicitly abandoned the larger goal of repealing it. Manicuring the coarser edges of the law signals that the property only needs a bit of maintenance, can be salvaged, doesn't need to be imploded. And that would be a realism too radical for the times.

www.salon.com

left

jUDnvabQ9iv7eVN4

test

rBpnktLuLL8qC58R

media_bias

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/26/project-veritas-undercover-investigation-cnn-producer-admits-network-hyping-mostly-bullsht-trump-russia-scandal-for-ratings/

Project Veritas Undercover Investigation: CNN Producer Admits Network Hyping ‘Mostly Bullsh*t’ Trump-Russia Scandal for ‘Ratings’

2017-06-26

Matthew Boyle

James O ’ Keefe ’ s Project Veritas has struck again : This time , a senior CNN producer was caught on camera by one of O ’ Keefe ’ s investigators admitting that the network ’ s relentless bashing of President Donald Trump with the Russia scandal lacks proof . “ Could be bullshit . I mean , it ’ s mostly bullshit right now , ” the CNN producer , John Bonifield , said in a video O ’ Keefe ’ s Project Veritas released on Tuesday , when asked about his thoughts on the Russia investigation . “ Like , we don ’ t have any giant proof . Then they say , well there ’ s still an investigation going on . And you ’ re like , yeah , I don ’ t know . If they were finding something we would know about it . The way these leaks happen , they would leak it . They ’ d leak . If it was something really good , it would leak… . The leaks keep leaking and there ’ s so many great leaks , and it ’ s amazing . I just refuse to believe that if they had something really good like that that wouldn ’ t leak because we ’ ve been getting all these other leaks . So , I just feel like they don ’ t really have it but they want to keep digging . And so I think the president is probably right to say , like , look you are witch hunting me . You have no smoking gun . You have no real proof . ” The video also shows Bonifield admitting that he has not seen evidence that Trump has committed any crimes . “ I haven ’ t seen any good evidence to show the president committed a crime , ” Bonifield says in the video . And even if Russia did try to influence the U.S. election , Bonifield is heard saying in the video , that is not really much of a scandal . He is seen arguing that Russian efforts to influence the election would be normal , and that the U.S. government does the same thing around the world all the time . “ Even if Russia was trying to swing an election , we try to swing their elections , our CIA is doing shit all the time , we ’ re out there trying to manipulate governments , ” Bonifield says . Bonifield is a supervising producer for CNN Health . According to his biography on CNN ’ s website , Bonifield works with the CNN Medical Unit and “ primarily with CNN Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen . ” These startling admissions from a CNN producer on hidden camera video come amid many other comments the video shows him making that are particularly problematic for a network in crisis . The Project Veritas video was released on Tuesday amid the worst scandal in CNN history . Zucker , the network president , is currently leading an internal investigation into a very fake news hit piece that CNN published Thursday night then retracted late Friday after a ███ investigation . He is joined , per reports from BuzzFeed News , by the head of HR inside CNN at the top of the investigation . Three of CNN ’ s senior-most editorial staffers have resigned as a result of the growing scandal . In narration over the video , O ’ Keefe notes that “ Bonifield has worked for CNN as a journalist and producer for nearly 15 years . ” “ He not only gave us a tour of CNN ’ s main newsroom , he gave us a window into the editorial bias and anti-Trump agenda of the organization , ” O ’ Keefe says . O ’ Keefe ’ s Project Veritas is billing this video as part one of a multi-part investigation into what they call : “ American Pravda . ” “ Fake News : We start our American Pravda investigations inside American media with part one : CNN , ” O ’ Keefe says in the video . “ Our goal is to expose the real motivations behind the decision-making process at our dominant media corporations . Fake News . One story has monopolized President Trump ’ s time in office like no other , especially on CNN : Russia . In fact , since the Inauguration , CNN has mentioned Russia on their air nearly 16,000 times . So we sent our undercover reporters inside CNN to understand why and to determine if CNN even believes if the story is even real . ” In addition to those aforementioned revelations in the Project Veritas video , Bonifield is shown on camera saying the reason CNN leadership and management is so focused on the Russia scandal despite the lack of real proof is “ because it ’ s ratings . ” “ Our ratings are incredible right now , ” the video from Project Veritas shows Bonifield saying . In the video , Bonifield says that CNN leadership regularly axes coverage of other newsworthy stories to shift coverage back to the Russia story . He provided as an example of the network ’ s coverage of President Donald Trump ’ s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accords—which he is seen saying in the video lasted less than two days—before management deliberately shifted coverage back to the Russia scandal . “ My boss , I shouldn ’ t say this , my boss yesterday we were having a discussion about this dental shoot and he goes and he was just like I want you to know what we are up against here , ” Bonifield is seen saying . “ And he goes , just to give you some context , President Trump pulled out of the climate accords and for a day and a half we covered the climate accords . And the CEO of CNN said in our internal meeting , he said good job everybody covering the climate accords , but we ’ re done with it let ’ s get back to Russia . ” When asked by the Project Veritas investigator if it was the CEO of CNN—according to O ’ Keefe they were referring to CNN president Jeff Zucker—who made that determination , Bonifield is heard saying : “ Yeah . ” “ So , even the climate accords , he was like a day or so it ’ s okay but we ’ re moving back to Russia , ” Bonifield says in the video . “ It ’ s a business , ” Bonifield says in the video . “ People are like the media has an ethical … But , all the nice cutesy little ethics that used to get talked about in journalism school , you ’ re just like , that ’ s adorable . That ’ s adorable . This is a business . Especially cable news . Cable news isn ’ t the New York Times , and it ’ s not even like NBC News . I mean NBC News still gets 20 million viewers a night . Cable news is getting a million . So , they got to do what they got to do to make their money . ” Bonifield is also seen saying in the video that CNN treats President Trump much differently than CNN treated now former President Barack Obama when he was in office . “ I think there a lot of like liberal CNN viewers who want to see Trump really get scrutinized , ” the CNN producer is seen saying in the video . “ And I think if we would have behaved that way with President Obama and scrutinized everything that he was doing with as much scrutiny as we apply to Donald Trump , I think our viewers would have been turned off . I think they would have felt like we were attacking him . And I ’ m not saying all of our viewers are super liberals , I think there ’ s just a lot of them . ” He adds that : “ Trump is good for business right now . ”

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas has struck again: This time, a senior CNN producer was caught on camera by one of O’Keefe’s investigators admitting that the network’s relentless bashing of President Donald Trump with the Russia scandal lacks proof. “Could be bullshit. I mean, it’s mostly bullshit right now,” the CNN producer, John Bonifield, said in a video O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released on Tuesday, when asked about his thoughts on the Russia investigation. “Like, we don’t have any giant proof. Then they say, well there’s still an investigation going on. And you’re like, yeah, I don’t know. If they were finding something we would know about it. The way these leaks happen, they would leak it. They’d leak. If it was something really good, it would leak…. The leaks keep leaking and there’s so many great leaks, and it’s amazing. I just refuse to believe that if they had something really good like that that wouldn’t leak because we’ve been getting all these other leaks. So, I just feel like they don’t really have it but they want to keep digging. And so I think the president is probably right to say, like, look you are witch hunting me. You have no smoking gun. You have no real proof.” WATCH: PROJECT VERITAS VIDEO INVESTIGATION OF CNN: The video also shows Bonifield admitting that he has not seen evidence that Trump has committed any crimes. “I haven’t seen any good evidence to show the president committed a crime,” Bonifield says in the video. And even if Russia did try to influence the U.S. election, Bonifield is heard saying in the video, that is not really much of a scandal. He is seen arguing that Russian efforts to influence the election would be normal, and that the U.S. government does the same thing around the world all the time. “Even if Russia was trying to swing an election, we try to swing their elections, our CIA is doing shit all the time, we’re out there trying to manipulate governments,” Bonifield says. Bonifield is a supervising producer for CNN Health. According to his biography on CNN’s website, Bonifield works with the CNN Medical Unit and “primarily with CNN Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen.” These startling admissions from a CNN producer on hidden camera video come amid many other comments the video shows him making that are particularly problematic for a network in crisis. The Project Veritas video was released on Tuesday amid the worst scandal in CNN history. Zucker, the network president, is currently leading an internal investigation into a very fake news hit piece that CNN published Thursday night then retracted late Friday after a Breitbart News investigation. He is joined, per reports from BuzzFeed News, by the head of HR inside CNN at the top of the investigation. Three of CNN’s senior-most editorial staffers have resigned as a result of the growing scandal. In narration over the video, O’Keefe notes that “Bonifield has worked for CNN as a journalist and producer for nearly 15 years.” “He not only gave us a tour of CNN’s main newsroom, he gave us a window into the editorial bias and anti-Trump agenda of the organization,” O’Keefe says. O’Keefe’s Project Veritas is billing this video as part one of a multi-part investigation into what they call: “American Pravda.” BREAKING VIDEO: #FakeNews CNN Producer admits the CNN Russia narrative is "bullshit." #AmericanPravda More to come.https://t.co/m5lQ01keo1 — James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) June 27, 2017 “Fake News: We start our American Pravda investigations inside American media with part one: CNN,” O’Keefe says in the video. “Our goal is to expose the real motivations behind the decision-making process at our dominant media corporations. Fake News. One story has monopolized President Trump’s time in office like no other, especially on CNN: Russia. In fact, since the Inauguration, CNN has mentioned Russia on their air nearly 16,000 times. So we sent our undercover reporters inside CNN to understand why and to determine if CNN even believes if the story is even real.” In addition to those aforementioned revelations in the Project Veritas video, Bonifield is shown on camera saying the reason CNN leadership and management is so focused on the Russia scandal despite the lack of real proof is “because it’s ratings.” “Our ratings are incredible right now,” the video from Project Veritas shows Bonifield saying. In the video, Bonifield says that CNN leadership regularly axes coverage of other newsworthy stories to shift coverage back to the Russia story. He provided as an example of the network’s coverage of President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accords—which he is seen saying in the video lasted less than two days—before management deliberately shifted coverage back to the Russia scandal. “My boss, I shouldn’t say this, my boss yesterday we were having a discussion about this dental shoot and he goes and he was just like I want you to know what we are up against here,” Bonifield is seen saying. “And he goes, just to give you some context, President Trump pulled out of the climate accords and for a day and a half we covered the climate accords. And the CEO of CNN said in our internal meeting, he said good job everybody covering the climate accords, but we’re done with it let’s get back to Russia.” When asked by the Project Veritas investigator if it was the CEO of CNN—according to O’Keefe they were referring to CNN president Jeff Zucker—who made that determination, Bonifield is heard saying: “Yeah.” “So, even the climate accords, he was like a day or so it’s okay but we’re moving back to Russia,” Bonifield says in the video. “It’s a business,” Bonifield says in the video. “People are like the media has an ethical … But, all the nice cutesy little ethics that used to get talked about in journalism school, you’re just like, that’s adorable. That’s adorable. This is a business. Especially cable news. Cable news isn’t the New York Times, and it’s not even like NBC News. I mean NBC News still gets 20 million viewers a night. Cable news is getting a million. So, they got to do what they got to do to make their money.” Bonifield is also seen saying in the video that CNN treats President Trump much differently than CNN treated now former President Barack Obama when he was in office. “I think there a lot of like liberal CNN viewers who want to see Trump really get scrutinized,” the CNN producer is seen saying in the video. “And I think if we would have behaved that way with President Obama and scrutinized everything that he was doing with as much scrutiny as we apply to Donald Trump, I think our viewers would have been turned off. I think they would have felt like we were attacking him. And I’m not saying all of our viewers are super liberals, I think there’s just a lot of them.” He adds that: “Trump is good for business right now.”

www.breitbart.com

right

rBpnktLuLL8qC58R

test

GhaXml2D7ZNfsdcJ

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/what-we-dont-need-now-distraction/

What We Don’t Need Now — Distraction

William Murchison, Dov Fischer, Jeffrey Lord, George Parry, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Geoff Shepard, Mark Hyman

The insider whispering can commence . Has commenced , in fact . Indictments have that effect on the media and its Second Shoe Department . What ’ s likely to drop next , and where , now that Paul Manafort has drawn the baleful gaze of the special prosecutor for Russian-American connections ? And , most of all , what does it mean for Donald Trump , whose tweets and twerp-ery are a virtual invitation , in media eyes , to send him , somehow , crashing down ? Monday ’ s developments — the Manafort indictment , the embarrassed resignation of Tony Podesta from a Democratic lobbying firm linked ( a favorite media verb ) to Manafort ’ s pro-Russian activities — fling sludge in the direction of both major parties . More ’ s to come – including developments on Democratic responsibility , via the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee , for paying a British spy to dig up dirt on Trump during the campaign . The capacity of the general public to care about and sort through that “ more , ” whatever its eventual shape , is untested . The New York Times ’ David Leonhardt sees Trump as uniquely disadvantaged on account of being “ probably weaker than any first-term president in more than a century , based on his standing with the American public , his own party members in Congress , and even his own cabinet officials . ” Leonhardt ’ s pronouncement reminds us that Trump is the political equivalent , however hazy , of our sun . Around and around him spin the political anxieties of the moment . Is a distant investigation involving mostly unknown players — Manafort , Rick Gates , Tony Podesta , even Robert Mueller himself , the special counsel — likely to affect the general sense of What Truly Matters ? No one can tell . Unless , as seems fairly unlikely on present showings , the evolving spider web somehow ensnares the President himself . We all want to know what will happen to Trump in such an event , right ? Our president doesn ’ t just interest . He obsesses . He ’ s all that Americans seem to care about anymore . Which makes no sense . The big man is not the center of a big universe — however loudly and persistently he pretends to be that . There ’ s a whole lot going on around these parts that Donald Trump neither started nor continues – but which he should be required by the sovereign voters and their congressional representatives to apply himself to . The tax system demands remediation . It weighs down economic growth and productivity by penalizing a significant share of the work that might , if freed of governmental inhibitions , produce more jobs . Tax rates , in fine , need cutting . Congressional Republicans conspire , so to speak , in this prizeworthy endeavor but face 1 ) massive Democratic opposition and 2 ) presidential distraction . I do not allege the Mueller investigation undermines the cause of tax-cutting . I allege that it could do so — to the tax-paying public ’ s immense disadvantage . Congress has been in session since January , with nothing much to show for it — not even the promised repeal and replacement of Obamacare . In the end , competing fidgets put the repeal movement to bed . Congresses these days don ’ t like to do much to earn their pay unless forced to . You wonder why they bother . But they have to : not least because in the catalog of Washington , D.C. obsessions , important things do actually come up , requiring consideration . Of these matters , tax reform may be presently at the top : needing intense concentration to make possible its sale at a time of Trumpian distraction . Trump , to get tax cuts though by year ’ s end — it ’ s said to be possible — needs to talk tax cutting all day and every day , even when such activity infuriates “ progressives. ” ( How is it “ progress ” to argue , as Democrats do , that the government takes too little of your money ? ) What we eminently don ’ t need is Russia getting in the way , with these self-same progressives whooping it up for the special counsel . And the President responding with indignant tweets proclaiming the debased condition of his critics . It doesn ’ t get much more politically perilous than this , if you want — as perhaps you do , deep down — the dirty and distressing truth . William Murchison ’ s latest book is The Cost of Liberty : The Life of John Dickinson .

The insider whispering can commence. Has commenced, in fact. Indictments have that effect on the media and its Second Shoe Department. What’s likely to drop next, and where, now that Paul Manafort has drawn the baleful gaze of the special prosecutor for Russian-American connections? And, most of all, what does it mean for Donald Trump, whose tweets and twerp-ery are a virtual invitation, in media eyes, to send him, somehow, crashing down? Monday’s developments — the Manafort indictment, the embarrassed resignation of Tony Podesta from a Democratic lobbying firm linked (a favorite media verb) to Manafort’s pro-Russian activities — fling sludge in the direction of both major parties. More’s to come – including developments on Democratic responsibility, via the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, for paying a British spy to dig up dirt on Trump during the campaign. The capacity of the general public to care about and sort through that “more,” whatever its eventual shape, is untested. The New York Times’ David Leonhardt sees Trump as uniquely disadvantaged on account of being “probably weaker than any first-term president in more than a century, based on his standing with the American public, his own party members in Congress, and even his own cabinet officials.” Leonhardt’s pronouncement reminds us that Trump is the political equivalent, however hazy, of our sun. Around and around him spin the political anxieties of the moment. Is a distant investigation involving mostly unknown players — Manafort, Rick Gates, Tony Podesta, even Robert Mueller himself, the special counsel — likely to affect the general sense of What Truly Matters? No one can tell. Unless, as seems fairly unlikely on present showings, the evolving spider web somehow ensnares the President himself. We all want to know what will happen to Trump in such an event, right? Our president doesn’t just interest. He obsesses. He’s all that Americans seem to care about anymore. Which makes no sense. The big man is not the center of a big universe — however loudly and persistently he pretends to be that. There’s a whole lot going on around these parts that Donald Trump neither started nor continues – but which he should be required by the sovereign voters and their congressional representatives to apply himself to. The tax system, for instance. The tax system demands remediation. It weighs down economic growth and productivity by penalizing a significant share of the work that might, if freed of governmental inhibitions, produce more jobs. Tax rates, in fine, need cutting. Congressional Republicans conspire, so to speak, in this prizeworthy endeavor but face 1) massive Democratic opposition and 2) presidential distraction. I do not allege the Mueller investigation undermines the cause of tax-cutting. I allege that it could do so — to the tax-paying public’s immense disadvantage. Congress has been in session since January, with nothing much to show for it — not even the promised repeal and replacement of Obamacare. In the end, competing fidgets put the repeal movement to bed. Congresses these days don’t like to do much to earn their pay unless forced to. You wonder why they bother. But they have to: not least because in the catalog of Washington, D.C. obsessions, important things do actually come up, requiring consideration. Of these matters, tax reform may be presently at the top: needing intense concentration to make possible its sale at a time of Trumpian distraction. Trump, to get tax cuts though by year’s end — it’s said to be possible — needs to talk tax cutting all day and every day, even when such activity infuriates “progressives.” (How is it “progress” to argue, as Democrats do, that the government takes too little of your money?) What we eminently don’t need is Russia getting in the way, with these self-same progressives whooping it up for the special counsel. And the President responding with indignant tweets proclaiming the debased condition of his critics. It doesn’t get much more politically perilous than this, if you want — as perhaps you do, deep down — the dirty and distressing truth. William Murchison’s latest book is The Cost of Liberty: The Life of John Dickinson. COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

www.spectator.org

right

GhaXml2D7ZNfsdcJ

test

7o6DkW8bRsDugIk6

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/06/cruz-use-debt-ceiling-debate-for-leverage/?hpt=po_c1

Cruz: Use debt ceiling debate for leverage

2013-10-06

( CNN ) - Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas linked raising the debt ceiling to funding the Affordable Care Act in an exclusive interview Sunday on CNN 's `` State of the Union ” with Candy Crowley . “ The debt ceiling historically has been among the best leverage that Congress has to rein in the executive , '' Cruz said . He listed three objectives as Republicans approach the debt ceiling . `` No . 1 , we should look for some significant structural plan and reduce government spending . No . 2 , we should avoid new taxes , and No . 3 , we should look for ways to mitigate the harms from Obamacare . '' `` Since 1978 , we raised the debt ceiling 58 times , '' said Cruz . `` Twenty times Congress attached very specific and stringent requirements , many of the most significant spending restraints . So the president 's demand to jack up the nation 's credit card with no limits , no constraints - it 's not reasonable . '' The United States will reach its borrowing limit on October 17 . The government temporarily shut down on October 1 after Republicans in the House held up the passage of a spending bill , which would allow the government to pay its bills , in an attempt to get changes or delayed implementation of the Affordable Care Act , President Obama 's signature health care initiative . Cruz is seen by some as the driving force behind the government shutdown , as he has urged fellow Republicans in the House to continue demanding that any plan to fund the government be tied to defunding the president 's sweeping health care initiative . Cruz said that letting Obamacare go further into effect `` would destroy the private health care system . '' He blamed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for refusing to take up a series of piecemeal bills passed by the House to fund certain parts of the government . Democrats in the Senate and the White House say they will only pass a `` clean '' spending bill that does not carry restrictions or changes to the health care law . The tea party favorite has been a target of blame from both Democrats and some Republicans for the shutdown standstill . `` The president and certainly Harry Reid and Senate Democrats have not been shy and using all sorts of inflammatory attacks , '' Cruz said about receiving criticism from Democrats and some within his own party . `` The fact that you 're seeing those attacks , I think , is indicative of the fact that we 're winning the argument . Obamacare is n't working . '' According to a CBS News poll released this week , 72 % of Americans disapprove of the shutdown , and more Americans blame congressional Republicans than blame Obama . Despite this , Cruz does n't think his actions have taken a negative toll on his party 's image . `` Not remotely , '' Cruz said . `` But I also think far too many people are worried about politics . ''

6 years ago (CNN) - Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas linked raising the debt ceiling to funding the Affordable Care Act in an exclusive interview Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union” with Candy Crowley. “The debt ceiling historically has been among the best leverage that Congress has to rein in the executive," Cruz said. He listed three objectives as Republicans approach the debt ceiling. "No. 1, we should look for some significant structural plan and reduce government spending. No. 2, we should avoid new taxes, and No. 3, we should look for ways to mitigate the harms from Obamacare." "Since 1978, we raised the debt ceiling 58 times," said Cruz. "Twenty times Congress attached very specific and stringent requirements, many of the most significant spending restraints. So the president's demand to jack up the nation's credit card with no limits, no constraints - it's not reasonable." The United States will reach its borrowing limit on October 17. The government temporarily shut down on October 1 after Republicans in the House held up the passage of a spending bill, which would allow the government to pay its bills, in an attempt to get changes or delayed implementation of the Affordable Care Act, President Obama's signature health care initiative. Cruz is seen by some as the driving force behind the government shutdown, as he has urged fellow Republicans in the House to continue demanding that any plan to fund the government be tied to defunding the president's sweeping health care initiative. Cruz said that letting Obamacare go further into effect "would destroy the private health care system." He blamed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for refusing to take up a series of piecemeal bills passed by the House to fund certain parts of the government. Democrats in the Senate and the White House say they will only pass a "clean" spending bill that does not carry restrictions or changes to the health care law. The tea party favorite has been a target of blame from both Democrats and some Republicans for the shutdown standstill. "The president and certainly Harry Reid and Senate Democrats have not been shy and using all sorts of inflammatory attacks," Cruz said about receiving criticism from Democrats and some within his own party. "The fact that you're seeing those attacks, I think, is indicative of the fact that we're winning the argument. Obamacare isn't working." According to a CBS News poll released this week, 72% of Americans disapprove of the shutdown, and more Americans blame congressional Republicans than blame Obama. Despite this, Cruz doesn't think his actions have taken a negative toll on his party's image. "Not remotely," Cruz said. "But I also think far too many people are worried about politics."

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

7o6DkW8bRsDugIk6

test

wYXvjjmML8AT6yQe

federal_budget

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/countdown-to-cuts-the-note/

Countdown To Cuts

Michael Falcone

THE SEQUESTER GOES LOCAL : Just days remain for Congress to agree to a deficit-reduction deal that would avoid triggering the $ 85 billion package of automatic cuts that would be split among the federal government over seven months , half from the Defense Department . ABC 's Matthew Larotonda reports that tables released by the White House yesterday indicate each state would receive penalties to mostly similar programs , including meal assistance for seniors and law enforcement grants . But the release is tailored to outline the individual impact to each state in the union . In a sample from military-heavy Virginia , `` 90,000 civilian Department of Defense employees would be furloughed , reducing gross pay by around $ 648.4 million in total . '' The document also says maintenance on 11 Navy vessels serviced in Old Dominion would be cancelled under the cuts . Three-hundred disadvantaged children in Colorado could lose access to child care . Meanwhile in Louisiana , `` 1,730 fewer children will receive vaccines for diseases such as measles , mumps , rubella , tetanus , whooping cough , influenza , and Hepatitis B due to reduced funding for vaccinations of about $ 118,000 , '' it reads . http : //abcn.ws/UZ8h78 FROM THE SPEAKER 'S OFFICE : Michael Steel , spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner frames the sequester countdown : `` Republicans in the House have voted - twice - to replace President Obama 's sequester with smarter spending cuts . The White House needs to spend less time explaining to the press how bad the sequester will be and more time actually working to stop it . '' ON THE AGENDA : This morning President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden deliver remarks to the National Governors Association at the White House . ABC 's Mary Bruce reports that Obama 's meeting with the governors comes as the White House is warning of the state-by-state impact of the sequester in its latest attempt to urge lawmakers to compromise on a deal to avert the looming cuts . Meanwhile , ABC 's John Parkinson notes that after a nine-day recess , lawmakers return to the Capitol today with just five days remaining until sequestration kicks in . ███ WELCOMES JEFF ZELENY : From ███ President Ben Sherwood : `` I am pleased to announce that Jeff Zeleny is coming to ███ as our Senior Washington Correspondent covering Congress and politics . … Over the past 12 years Jeff has traveled to all 50 states and reported from more than two-dozen countries while covering four Presidential campaigns including Barack Obama 's road to the White House , the Tea Party movement , Capitol Hill and the inside game of politics . … A Nebraska native , Jeff is one of the country 's premier political journalists . … Jeff will bring his many talents to all our broadcasts and platforms . No stranger to the Sunday morning shows , he will contribute regularly to our 'This Week ' roundtable . '' ABC 's RICK KLEIN : For the sequester to have done its intended job - that being to never happen at all - both sides needed to hate it roughly equally . The perfect formula seemed to be to pair domestic spending cuts with defense cuts , a sacred cow for a sacred cow . But Republican religion has changed . As The New York Times ' Jonathan Weisman and Ashley Parker rightly point out , in today 's GOP , fiscal discipline trumps all , even defense spending . The sequester was never going to self-destruct - it had to be destroyed . That would have taken … cooperation . You can read their story here : http : //nyti.ms/124OOWD ABC 's MICHAEL FALCONE : It 's not over yet . The 2012 presidential campaign , that it . At least not if you ask former top Mitt Romney strategist , Stuart Stevens , who penned an Op-Ed in the Washington Post today . `` There seems to be a desire to blame Republicans ' electoral difficulties and the Romney campaign 's loss on technological failings . I wish this were the problem , because it would be relatively easy to fix . But it 's not . '' Stevens goes onto argue that it was a generation and message gap that ailed the GOP last year and ultimately lost Romney the election . The Democrats ' superior technology was only part of it . Stevens has been re-litigating the campaign in Op-Eds like today 's as well as interviews , like his recent conversation with ABC 's Jonathan Karl on `` This Week . '' But we 're about to get a chance to hear from Romney , himself , about what went wrong in 2012 and what the Republican Party needs to get right going forward : First , with an appearance on `` Fox News Sunday '' next weekend ( the former Republican presidential hopeful 's first major interview since the election ) and then the week after , with a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference outside Washington , DC . You can read Stevens ' Op-Ed here : http : //wapo.st/ZCIqEu ANALYSIS : OBAMA FACES 'CLIFF FATIGUE ' IN LATEST BUDGET FIGHT . Call it cliff fatigue . After a series of dramatic confrontations with congressional Republicans , an American electorate that has little trust in Washington - and that 's seeing a soaring stock market , plus a recovering housing market - looks to be tuning out the latest round of fiscal fighting , at least for now , writes ABC 's Rick Klein . That 's troublesome news for Obama , and not just for the recurring fights over spending and deficits . As his second-term agenda gets cranking with Congress ' return this week , the president needs to convince the public not just on the merits of his priorities but also on the urgency . This may be the only time in his presidency where heavy legislative lifts are realistic . That period is starting with a rough stretch : The spending cuts Obama once guaranteed would never take place now almost definitely will . The fight is displaying Washington at its worst - all accusations and finger-pointing , no real attempts at problem-solving . Both sides have plans , but the president is spending far more energy explaining why the sequester is the Republicans ' fault , and how bad the consequences of those cuts will be , than he is trying to negotiate something that would stop it . http : //abcn.ws/ZCFB6h WILL ASHLEY JUDD CHALLENGE MITCH MCCONNELL ? The beautiful movie star tries to take on Washington by defeating a powerful Republican leader . It 's not a plot line , it 's reality : The actress Ashley Judd is making moves to take on GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , reports ABC 's Shushannah Walshe . She has n't announced yet , but her biggest supporter in Kentucky , Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth , told ███ , `` I would be surprised if she does n't run at this point . '' Yarmuth , the only Kentucky Democrat in Congress , said he expects the decision to come soon . The race will be one of the most watched in the country , with outside money pouring into the state . Yarmuth said : `` It would be a great economic stimulus . It would be Christmas for six months or more , '' especially for local television stations that would run political commercials . One thing that 's guaranteed is it will be a brutal race - a 30-year veteran of Washington against a Hollywood star active in liberal Democratic politics from a legendary family . Judd 's mother is the country singer Naomi Judd and her half-sister is the singer Wynonna Judd . Yarmuth says Judd is ready and has even done opposition research on herself to see areas McConnell will try to `` exploit . '' http : //abcn.ws/XSC9AD REP. ELIOT ENGEL : THE SEQUESTER IS 'STUPID . ' Speaking Sunday morning on `` This Week , '' Rep. Eliot Engel , D-NY , called the automatic spending cuts - also known as the `` sequester '' - that are scheduled to go into effect on March 1 a `` stupid thing . '' `` I think the sequester was a stupid thing . I voted against it when it first time came up . Congress keeps kicking the can down the road . It 's really a ridiculous thing to do . The fact is that we need to do things that are smart , not take a meat cleaver and just hack cuts , '' Engel said . `` I think Congress should sit down and avoid the sequester . And if the sequester kicks in , for a week or two , we should then fix it so it does n't become a permanent thing . '' Engel , ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Committee , was joined on the `` This Week '' roundtable by House Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Mike Rogers , R-Mich. , who warned that sequestration would affect national security . http : //abcn.ws/X4E5aI HOUSE INTEL CHAIR CALLS CHINESE CYBER ATTACKS 'UNPRECEDENTED . ' House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Rogers , R-Mich. , said it was `` beyond a shadow of a doubt '' that the Chinese government and military is behind growing cyber attacks against the United States , saying `` we are losing '' the war to prevent the attacks . `` They use their military and intelligence structure to steal intellectual property from American businesses , and European businesses , and Asian businesses , re-purpose it and then compete in the international market against the United States , '' Rogers said Sunday morning on `` This Week . '' `` It is unprecedented , '' Rogers added . `` This has never happened in the history of the world , where one nation steals the intellectual property to re-purpose it - to illegally compete against the country…and I 'll tell you , It is as bad as I 've ever seen it and exponentially getting worse . Why ? There 's no consequence for it . '' http : //abcn.ws/WcAMj8 CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR : WHEN OUT IN THE FIELD , ' I ALWAYS FEAR FOR MY SAFETY . ' ███ ' Global Affairs Anchor Christiane Amanpour said when she 's out in the field , `` I always fear for my safety… all our colleagues do . '' Before joining the `` This Week '' foreign policy roundtable this Sunday , Amanpour sat down for a behind-the-scenes web exclusive interview with ABC 's Kaye Foley answering viewer questions from Facebook and Twitter on her career and experiences in the Middle East . `` Now that does n't mean to say that I do n't go . We do go… Employing that sixth sense that with experience comes , you sort of know when to hold them and when to fold them . You know sort of when to put your foot forward and when to draw back a little bit . You 're not out there gung-ho and… out there sort of being a cowboy , '' Amanpour said . `` But you are out there because it is vital to be there to tell the stories . No matter how dangerous it is out there , you can not just sit back at home as opinion-mongers , armchair warriors , as I like to call people who… think that they can tell you what 's going on overseas from sitting back here in New York or Washington or wherever it is in the United States . '' http : //abcn.ws/YuRIvp `` PRIEBUS TRAVELING WEST TO MEET WITH MINORITIES AND TECH EXPERTS , '' by Roll Call 's David M. Drucker . `` Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus will head west this week to hear from minority voters and technology experts as a part of his committee 's efforts to rebuild and modernize the GOP . Priebus ' four-day swing is scheduled to take him to Denver on Monday for a listening session with Hispanic voters and GOP activists , then to Los Angeles on Tuesday for listening sessions with Hispanic and Asian voters . On Wednesday , Priebus will be in San Francisco for meetings with technology experts ; a visit to Facebook is included on the chairman 's itinerary . Priebus will then travel to Seattle for a meeting focused on early voting , an aspect of voter turnout where Republicans continue to trail the Democrats significantly . Priebus ' trip is part of the Growth and Opportunity Project , the RNC 's autopsy of what went wrong in the 2012 presidential election and how the GOP can improve its prospects going forward . '' http : //bit.ly/VGZjKR @ jimacostacnn : Fmr Romney strategist Stuart Stevens still litigating what happened last November : http : //tinyurl.com/a6s897n @ RyanLizza : THE HOUSE OF PAIN Can Eric Cantor , the Republican Majority Leader , redeem his party and himself ? http : //m.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/03/04/130304fa_fact_lizza … @ SalenaZitoTrib : If you look at a diagram of our electoral history you would see that nothing is permanent in American politics . - > http : //www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/02/24/party_dominance_doesnt_last_117144.html # .UStkiMafOXt.twitter … @ jmartpolitico : From the NGA , how The Hillary Factor could keep a generation of ambitious Dem guvs waiting > http : //www.politico.com/story/2013/02/the-hillary-clinton-factor-88007.html … @ JohnJHarwood : If Medicare spending 's already dropped by more than Simpson-Bowles proposed , will Dems still negotiate ? My NYT story : http : //nyti.ms/ZCcqjZ

Al Behrman/AP Photo By MICHAEL FALCONE ( @michaelpfalcone ) NOTABLES THE SEQUESTER GOES LOCAL: Just days remain for Congress to agree to a deficit-reduction deal that would avoid triggering the $85 billion package of automatic cuts that would be split among the federal government over seven months, half from the Defense Department. ABC's Matthew Larotonda reports that tables released by the White House yesterday indicate each state would receive penalties to mostly similar programs, including meal assistance for seniors and law enforcement grants. But the release is tailored to outline the individual impact to each state in the union. In a sample from military-heavy Virginia, "90,000 civilian Department of Defense employees would be furloughed, reducing gross pay by around $648.4 million in total." The document also says maintenance on 11 Navy vessels serviced in Old Dominion would be cancelled under the cuts. Three-hundred disadvantaged children in Colorado could lose access to child care. Meanwhile in Louisiana, "1,730 fewer children will receive vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, and Hepatitis B due to reduced funding for vaccinations of about $118,000," it reads. http://abcn.ws/UZ8h78 FROM THE SPEAKER'S OFFICE: Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner frames the sequester countdown: "Republicans in the House have voted - twice - to replace President Obama's sequester with smarter spending cuts. The White House needs to spend less time explaining to the press how bad the sequester will be and more time actually working to stop it." ON THE AGENDA: This morning President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden deliver remarks to the National Governors Association at the White House. ABC's Mary Bruce reports that Obama's meeting with the governors comes as the White House is warning of the state-by-state impact of the sequester in its latest attempt to urge lawmakers to compromise on a deal to avert the looming cuts. Meanwhile, ABC's John Parkinson notes that after a nine-day recess, lawmakers return to the Capitol today with just five days remaining until sequestration kicks in. ABC NEWS WELCOMES JEFF ZELENY: From ABC News President Ben Sherwood: "I am pleased to announce that Jeff Zeleny is coming to ABC News as our Senior Washington Correspondent covering Congress and politics. … Over the past 12 years Jeff has traveled to all 50 states and reported from more than two-dozen countries while covering four Presidential campaigns including Barack Obama's road to the White House, the Tea Party movement, Capitol Hill and the inside game of politics. … A Nebraska native, Jeff is one of the country's premier political journalists. … Jeff will bring his many talents to all our broadcasts and platforms. No stranger to the Sunday morning shows, he will contribute regularly to our 'This Week' roundtable." THE ROUNDTABLE ABC's RICK KLEIN: For the sequester to have done its intended job - that being to never happen at all - both sides needed to hate it roughly equally. The perfect formula seemed to be to pair domestic spending cuts with defense cuts, a sacred cow for a sacred cow. But Republican religion has changed. As The New York Times' Jonathan Weisman and Ashley Parker rightly point out, in today's GOP, fiscal discipline trumps all, even defense spending. The sequester was never going to self-destruct - it had to be destroyed. That would have taken … cooperation. You can read their story here: http://nyti.ms/124OOWD ABC's MICHAEL FALCONE: It's not over yet. The 2012 presidential campaign, that it. At least not if you ask former top Mitt Romney strategist, Stuart Stevens, who penned an Op-Ed in the Washington Post today. "There seems to be a desire to blame Republicans' electoral difficulties and the Romney campaign's loss on technological failings. I wish this were the problem, because it would be relatively easy to fix. But it's not." Stevens goes onto argue that it was a generation and message gap that ailed the GOP last year and ultimately lost Romney the election. The Democrats' superior technology was only part of it. Stevens has been re-litigating the campaign in Op-Eds like today's as well as interviews, like his recent conversation with ABC's Jonathan Karl on "This Week." But we're about to get a chance to hear from Romney, himself, about what went wrong in 2012 and what the Republican Party needs to get right going forward: First, with an appearance on "Fox News Sunday" next weekend (the former Republican presidential hopeful's first major interview since the election) and then the week after, with a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference outside Washington, DC. You can read Stevens' Op-Ed here: http://wapo.st/ZCIqEu IN THE NOTE'S INBOX: DEMOCRATS USE REPUBLICANS' SEQUESTER WORDS AGAINST THEM. The American Bridge 21st Century Foundation, an arm of the Democratic super PAC American Bridge 21st Century, is releasing its first non-campaign video today and it's focused on the fight over the sequester on Capitol Hill. The two-minute spot amounts to a response to the Republican Party's "blame Obama for the sequester" talking points. According to a strategist for the group, "We're reminding the world that the only reason it exists is because the GOP held the debt ceiling hostage - and the sequester was what it took to get them to raise it." The video includes footage of top Republicans lauding the deal and calling it a win for the GOP (cameos by House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Sen. John Cornyn, Rep. Paul Ryan, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Reps. Dave Camp and Jeb Hensarling). WATCH: http://bit.ly/VI2PEK BUZZ ANALYSIS: OBAMA FACES 'CLIFF FATIGUE' IN LATEST BUDGET FIGHT. Call it cliff fatigue. After a series of dramatic confrontations with congressional Republicans, an American electorate that has little trust in Washington - and that's seeing a soaring stock market, plus a recovering housing market - looks to be tuning out the latest round of fiscal fighting, at least for now, writes ABC's Rick Klein. That's troublesome news for Obama, and not just for the recurring fights over spending and deficits. As his second-term agenda gets cranking with Congress' return this week, the president needs to convince the public not just on the merits of his priorities but also on the urgency. This may be the only time in his presidency where heavy legislative lifts are realistic. That period is starting with a rough stretch: The spending cuts Obama once guaranteed would never take place now almost definitely will. The fight is displaying Washington at its worst - all accusations and finger-pointing, no real attempts at problem-solving. Both sides have plans, but the president is spending far more energy explaining why the sequester is the Republicans' fault, and how bad the consequences of those cuts will be, than he is trying to negotiate something that would stop it. http://abcn.ws/ZCFB6h WILL ASHLEY JUDD CHALLENGE MITCH MCCONNELL? The beautiful movie star tries to take on Washington by defeating a powerful Republican leader. It's not a plot line, it's reality: The actress Ashley Judd is making moves to take on GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, reports ABC's Shushannah Walshe. She hasn't announced yet, but her biggest supporter in Kentucky, Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth, told ABC News, "I would be surprised if she doesn't run at this point." Yarmuth, the only Kentucky Democrat in Congress, said he expects the decision to come soon. The race will be one of the most watched in the country, with outside money pouring into the state. Yarmuth said: "It would be a great economic stimulus. It would be Christmas for six months or more," especially for local television stations that would run political commercials. One thing that's guaranteed is it will be a brutal race - a 30-year veteran of Washington against a Hollywood star active in liberal Democratic politics from a legendary family. Judd's mother is the country singer Naomi Judd and her half-sister is the singer Wynonna Judd. Yarmuth says Judd is ready and has even done opposition research on herself to see areas McConnell will try to "exploit." http://abcn.ws/XSC9AD REP. ELIOT ENGEL: THE SEQUESTER IS 'STUPID.' Speaking Sunday morning on "This Week," Rep. Eliot Engel, D-NY, called the automatic spending cuts - also known as the "sequester" - that are scheduled to go into effect on March 1 a "stupid thing." "I think the sequester was a stupid thing. I voted against it when it first time came up. Congress keeps kicking the can down the road. It's really a ridiculous thing to do. The fact is that we need to do things that are smart, not take a meat cleaver and just hack cuts," Engel said. "I think Congress should sit down and avoid the sequester. And if the sequester kicks in, for a week or two, we should then fix it so it doesn't become a permanent thing." Engel, ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Committee, was joined on the "This Week" roundtable by House Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who warned that sequestration would affect national security. http://abcn.ws/X4E5aI HOUSE INTEL CHAIR CALLS CHINESE CYBER ATTACKS 'UNPRECEDENTED.' House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said it was "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the Chinese government and military is behind growing cyber attacks against the United States, saying "we are losing" the war to prevent the attacks. "They use their military and intelligence structure to steal intellectual property from American businesses, and European businesses, and Asian businesses, re-purpose it and then compete in the international market against the United States," Rogers said Sunday morning on "This Week." "It is unprecedented," Rogers added. "This has never happened in the history of the world, where one nation steals the intellectual property to re-purpose it - to illegally compete against the country…and I'll tell you, It is as bad as I've ever seen it and exponentially getting worse. Why? There's no consequence for it." http://abcn.ws/WcAMj8 CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: WHEN OUT IN THE FIELD, 'I ALWAYS FEAR FOR MY SAFETY.' ABC News' Global Affairs Anchor Christiane Amanpour said when she's out in the field, "I always fear for my safety… all our colleagues do." Before joining the "This Week" foreign policy roundtable this Sunday, Amanpour sat down for a behind-the-scenes web exclusive interview with ABC's Kaye Foley answering viewer questions from Facebook and Twitter on her career and experiences in the Middle East. "Now that doesn't mean to say that I don't go. We do go… Employing that sixth sense that with experience comes, you sort of know when to hold them and when to fold them. You know sort of when to put your foot forward and when to draw back a little bit. You're not out there gung-ho and… out there sort of being a cowboy," Amanpour said. "But you are out there because it is vital to be there to tell the stories. No matter how dangerous it is out there, you cannot just sit back at home as opinion-mongers, armchair warriors, as I like to call people who… think that they can tell you what's going on overseas from sitting back here in New York or Washington or wherever it is in the United States." http://abcn.ws/YuRIvp WHAT WE'RE READING " PRIEBUS TRAVELING WEST TO MEET WITH MINORITIES AND TECH EXPERTS," by Roll Call's David M. Drucker. "Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus will head west this week to hear from minority voters and technology experts as a part of his committee's efforts to rebuild and modernize the GOP. Priebus' four-day swing is scheduled to take him to Denver on Monday for a listening session with Hispanic voters and GOP activists, then to Los Angeles on Tuesday for listening sessions with Hispanic and Asian voters. On Wednesday, Priebus will be in San Francisco for meetings with technology experts; a visit to Facebook is included on the chairman's itinerary. Priebus will then travel to Seattle for a meeting focused on early voting, an aspect of voter turnout where Republicans continue to trail the Democrats significantly. Priebus' trip is part of the Growth and Opportunity Project, the RNC's autopsy of what went wrong in the 2012 presidential election and how the GOP can improve its prospects going forward." http://bit.ly/VGZjKR WHO'S TWEETING? @jimacostacnn: Fmr Romney strategist Stuart Stevens still litigating what happened last November: http://tinyurl.com/a6s897n @ RyanLizza: THE HOUSE OF PAIN Can Eric Cantor, the Republican Majority Leader, redeem his party and himself? http://m.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/03/04/130304fa_fact_lizza … @SalenaZitoTrib: If you look at a diagram of our electoral history you would see that nothing is permanent in American politics. -> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/02/24/party_dominance_doesnt_last_117144.html#.UStkiMafOXt.twitter … @jmartpolitico: From the NGA, how The Hillary Factor could keep a generation of ambitious Dem guvs waiting > http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/the-hillary-clinton-factor-88007.html … @JohnJHarwood: If Medicare spending's already dropped by more than Simpson-Bowles proposed, will Dems still negotiate? My NYT story: http://nyti.ms/ZCcqjZ

www.abcnews.go.com

left

wYXvjjmML8AT6yQe

test

38kCemT7JjvGhJLV

republican_party

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republicans-love-hate-chris-christie/story?id=20904904

Republicans Who Love to Hate Chris Christie

Alex Lazar

intro : New Jersey Gov . Chris Christie glided easily toward a second term this month . And as soon as he put the race in the `` win '' column , the speculation about his ambitions for higher office kicked into high gear . When asked by ABC 's George Stephanopoulos in a recent interview whether he intended to serve out the full four years of his second gubernatorial term , Christie was coy . `` I do n't know , '' Christie said . `` I 'm going to continue to do my job and finish the job . But [ for ] everybody who is trying to figure out what life is going to bring you a few years from now , I did n't expect to be sitting here four years ago , George . So nobody can make those predictions . '' Both before and after his landslide re-election victory , several prominent Republicans have questioned the charismatic governor 's policies and his chances as a potential GOP presidential contender in 2016 . Though Christie is still seen as one of the Republican presidential short-listers , many members of his own party are wary of his more moderate stances on such issues as immigration and gun control . ███ has compiled a list ( not exhaustive ) of some of the Republicans who have openly expressed doubts about Christie . quicklist : title : 1 . Rick Perry text : In a recent interview with ABC 's Jeff Zeleny , Perry said it 's no guarantee that a New Jersey conservative like Christie could be palatable to conservatives across the country . `` Is a conservative in New Jersey a conservative in the rest of the country ? ... We 'll have that discussion at the appropriate time . '' quicklist : title : 2 . Newt Gingrich text : In an interview with Jonathan Martin of The New York Times , the former House speaker questioned Christie 's conservative bona fides . `` No . I do n't think Chris Christie has any interest in bridging that divide because he 'll run as an aggressive , Northeastern moderate who can get something done . I do n't see him using conservative language . He might be able to get nominated , but it will be running as a personality leader , not a movement leader . '' quicklist : title : 3 . Rand Paul text : During a discussion with CBS Philly 's Dom Giordano , Sen. Rand Paul was asked why he thought Christie won re-election in New Jersey . Paul 's response gave Christie no credit and suggested Christie acted inappropriately in the wake of superstorm Sandy . `` Well , his victory was , in large form , based on that he got a lot of federal money for his state . ... It 's one thing if you want to put your image on TV and say , ' I 'm gon na give a million dollars of my money to help Sandy ... , ' but you 're getting somebody else 's money , and if you 're doing that , should you then take part of that money to promote how good you are at getting somebody else 's money to come to New Jersey ? '' quicklist : title : 4 . Ted Cruz text : The Texas firebrand praised Christie in an interview with ABC 's Jeff Zeleny before he questioned whether the New Jersey governor was ready for the national stage . `` I think it is terrific that he is brash , that he is outspoken and that he won his race . ... But I think we need more leaders in Washington with the courage to stand for principle . And in particular , Obamacare is not working . '' quicklist : title : 5 . Marco Rubio text : The GOP point-man on immigration reform told CNN 's Dana Bash in early November that Christie 's recent re-election victory does n't mean anything for his 2016 chances . `` I think we need to understand that some of these races do n't apply to future races . Every race is different -- it has a different set of factors -- but I congratulate [ Christie ] on his win . '' quicklist : title : 6 . Jim Inhofe text : The Oklahoma Republican senator was very blunt in his criticisms of Christie in a recent interview with The Oklahoman . `` I 'd have a hard time supporting Chris Christie . ... I 'm of the school that you 've got to show a distinction between Democrats and Republicans . And in order to have the base energized , you 've got to show that the party stands for something . Christie I still hold responsible for ... the re-election of Obama . '' quicklist : title : 7 . Sarah Palin text : When CNN 's Jake Tapper asked former Alaska Gov . Sarah Palin about criticisms being levied at Christie 's weight , the former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate did n't pull any punches . `` That 's because it 's been extreme . So it 's hard for some people not to comment on it . ''

intro: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie glided easily toward a second term this month. And as soon as he put the race in the "win" column, the speculation about his ambitions for higher office kicked into high gear. When asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos in a recent interview whether he intended to serve out the full four years of his second gubernatorial term, Christie was coy. "I don't know," Christie said. "I'm going to continue to do my job and finish the job. But [for] everybody who is trying to figure out what life is going to bring you a few years from now, I didn't expect to be sitting here four years ago, George. So nobody can make those predictions." Both before and after his landslide re-election victory, several prominent Republicans have questioned the charismatic governor's policies and his chances as a potential GOP presidential contender in 2016. Though Christie is still seen as one of the Republican presidential short-listers, many members of his own party are wary of his more moderate stances on such issues as immigration and gun control. ABC News has compiled a list (not exhaustive) of some of the Republicans who have openly expressed doubts about Christie. quicklist: title: 1. Rick Perry text: In a recent interview with ABC's Jeff Zeleny, Perry said it's no guarantee that a New Jersey conservative like Christie could be palatable to conservatives across the country. "Is a conservative in New Jersey a conservative in the rest of the country?... We'll have that discussion at the appropriate time." quicklist: title: 2. Newt Gingrich text: In an interview with Jonathan Martin of The New York Times, the former House speaker questioned Christie's conservative bona fides. "No. I don't think Chris Christie has any interest in bridging that divide because he'll run as an aggressive, Northeastern moderate who can get something done. I don't see him using conservative language. He might be able to get nominated, but it will be running as a personality leader, not a movement leader." quicklist: title: 3. Rand Paul text: During a discussion with CBS Philly's Dom Giordano, Sen. Rand Paul was asked why he thought Christie won re-election in New Jersey. Paul's response gave Christie no credit and suggested Christie acted inappropriately in the wake of superstorm Sandy. "Well, his victory was, in large form, based on that he got a lot of federal money for his state. ... It's one thing if you want to put your image on TV and say, 'I'm gonna give a million dollars of my money to help Sandy ... ,' but you're getting somebody else's money, and if you're doing that, should you then take part of that money to promote how good you are at getting somebody else's money to come to New Jersey?" quicklist: title: 4. Ted Cruz text: The Texas firebrand praised Christie in an interview with ABC's Jeff Zeleny before he questioned whether the New Jersey governor was ready for the national stage. "I think it is terrific that he is brash, that he is outspoken and that he won his race. ... But I think we need more leaders in Washington with the courage to stand for principle. And in particular, Obamacare is not working." quicklist: title: 5. Marco Rubio text: The GOP point-man on immigration reform told CNN's Dana Bash in early November that Christie's recent re-election victory doesn't mean anything for his 2016 chances. "I think we need to understand that some of these races don't apply to future races. Every race is different -- it has a different set of factors -- but I congratulate [Christie] on his win." quicklist: title: 6. Jim Inhofe text: The Oklahoma Republican senator was very blunt in his criticisms of Christie in a recent interview with The Oklahoman. "I'd have a hard time supporting Chris Christie. ... I'm of the school that you've got to show a distinction between Democrats and Republicans. And in order to have the base energized, you've got to show that the party stands for something. Christie I still hold responsible for ... the re-election of Obama." quicklist: title: 7. Sarah Palin text: When CNN's Jake Tapper asked former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin about criticisms being levied at Christie's weight, the former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate didn't pull any punches. "That's because it's been extreme. So it's hard for some people not to comment on it."

www.abcnews.go.com

left

38kCemT7JjvGhJLV

test

uYy3LKDRWr8KQMYQ

nuclear_weapons

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44091279

US offers to help rebuild N Korea economy if it denuclearises

America will help rebuild North Korea 's economy if it agrees to give up its nuclear weapons , US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said . The US would be `` prepared to work with North Korea to achieve prosperity on the par with our South Korean friends '' , he told reporters on Friday . Mr Pompeo , who has just returned from Pyongyang , said he had `` good '' talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un . Mr Kim and President Donald Trump will meet in Singapore on 12 June . The two leaders , who had previously exchanged insults and threats , made the announcement after landmark talks between North and South Korea in April . `` If chairman Kim chooses the right path , there is a future brimming with peace and prosperity for the North Korean people , '' he said after Friday 's talks in Washington with South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha . Mr Pompeo urged Pyongyang to take `` bold action to quickly denuclearise '' . But he stressed that this would require a `` robust verification '' programme by the US and other nations . During his surprise visit to North Korea this week , Pyongyang released three US detainees . Daily life in the two countries could n't be more different . After the end of the Korean war in 1953 the South , an ally of the US , embraced a capitalist philosophy . It has developed into one of Asia 's most affluent nations . A government-sponsored industrial push in the 1960s led to huge corporations like Samsung and Hyundai being created . in South Korea ; in North Korea GDP : $ 1.4tn - South Korea ; less than $ 20bn - North Korea Life expectancy : 82 years - South Korea ; 70 years - North Korea South Korea is one of the world 's top 20 economies , with GDP of $ 1.4tn ( £1tn ) . By contrast , North Korea 's GDP is less than $ 20bn , placing it well outside the top 100 economies . It has a communist system , but capitalism is creeping into the country . There are things to buy - but only for some people , those who have money . The majority of people in North Korea live in poverty . Kim Jong-un has made clear that development is a priority .

Image copyright EPA Image caption Mike Pompeo said there could be "a future brimming with peace and prosperity" for the North America will help rebuild North Korea's economy if it agrees to give up its nuclear weapons, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said. The US would be "prepared to work with North Korea to achieve prosperity on the par with our South Korean friends", he told reporters on Friday. Mr Pompeo, who has just returned from Pyongyang, said he had "good" talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Mr Kim and President Donald Trump will meet in Singapore on 12 June. The two leaders, who had previously exchanged insults and threats, made the announcement after landmark talks between North and South Korea in April. What did Mr Pompeo say? "If chairman Kim chooses the right path, there is a future brimming with peace and prosperity for the North Korean people," he said after Friday's talks in Washington with South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha. Mr Pompeo urged Pyongyang to take "bold action to quickly denuclearise". Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption How to talk to North Korea - advice from three North Korean experts But he stressed that this would require a "robust verification" programme by the US and other nations. During his surprise visit to North Korea this week, Pyongyang released three US detainees. How do North and South Korean economies compare? Daily life in the two countries couldn't be more different. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Four defectors talk about what life is like in North Korea After the end of the Korean war in 1953 the South, an ally of the US, embraced a capitalist philosophy. It has developed into one of Asia's most affluent nations. A government-sponsored industrial push in the 1960s led to huge corporations like Samsung and Hyundai being created. Key figures: Population: 51.2m in South Korea; 25.4m in North Korea in South Korea; in North Korea GDP: $1.4tn - South Korea; less than$20bn - North Korea Life expectancy: 82 years - South Korea; 70 years - North Korea South Korea is one of the world's top 20 economies, with GDP of $1.4tn (£1tn). By contrast, North Korea's GDP is less than $20bn, placing it well outside the top 100 economies. It has a communist system, but capitalism is creeping into the country. There are things to buy - but only for some people, those who have money. The majority of people in North Korea live in poverty. Kim Jong-un has made clear that development is a priority.

www.bbc.com

center

uYy3LKDRWr8KQMYQ

test

Ey6lJ4tY9UG7mOGk

race_and_racism

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/25/no_justice_in_ferguson_why_change_in_america_was_too_slow_for_mike_brown/

No justice in America: Why promises of change were too slow for Mike Brown

2014-11-25

Katie Mcdonough

There is no such thing as justice for a dead 18-year-old kid . Justice , to borrow from Mychal Denzel Smith , would mean Mike Brown gets home on that sweltering summer day . Justice would mean a future for Brown , a long stream of years to be spent however he would have spent them . The possibility of justice for Mike Brown died with him back in August . What we had before us with the grand jury hearing was the prospect of fairness , imperfectly defined in a terribly broken and racist system . And here that would have meant a white police officer standing trial for killing an unarmed black kid . It would have meant that 12 people walked into a room and decided , together , that an 18-year-old did not deserve to die because a cop told him to get on the sidewalk , and that Darren Wilson deserved to face a jury of his peers for putting six bullets into Brown ’ s arms and head . Justice is always elusive in this system . What continues to shock , even the cynical , is how the appearance of fairness is often too much to ask . It ’ s more than likely that Wilson would have escaped a conviction had he gone to trial , but an indictment would have been a sign , meager as it was , that the system recognized the value of Mike Brown ’ s life . An acknowledgment that putting Wilson on paid administrative leave or a desk position or an orchestrated resignation was not an appropriate response to an officer killing an unarmed teenager . I thought again of fairness and justice and how our system overwhelmingly fails black Americans on both counts when Marissa Alexander agreed to a plea deal that would grant her release from jail come January . Alexander , who was arrested and jailed after firing a warning shot to ward off the man who had a history of abusing her and had threatened to kill her , likely took the deal because the alternative was 60 years in prison . Alexander pleaded guilty to three charges of aggravated assault and was sentenced to three years , including the time she had already served . Accepting the plea was likely a choice between death and death . Alexander has already spent 1,030 days in jail . Submitting to the will of the court maybe seemed like a burden worth shouldering if it meant getting outside the system that has only vilified her , brought her suffering and cruelty . Alexander wanted justice when she defended herself against her abusive husband . She was arrested for having such an ambition . Once at trial , she expected fairness . The state of Florida denied her that , too . And so it goes for Mike Brown ’ s family . In a statement after the news from the grand jury came down , Brown 's parents called for continued action to fix the unjust system that let Wilson walk and said only , “ We are profoundly disappointed that the killer of our child will not face the consequence of his actions . ” The killer of their child will not face the consequence of his actions . Even the modest consequence of having to stand before a jury that in all likelihood would have let him walk . I ’ m not sure what happens next . Protests have kept the nation ’ s attention on Ferguson for months , and the people organizing there and elsewhere will likely strengthen in the wake of the grand jury ’ s refusal to indict . Their activism has fostered a national and international conversation , one growing from the roots up , about police violence , about the racism of the criminal justice system , about a culture of white supremacy , about who gets to fear for their lives . And Brown 's parents , Lesley McSpadden and Michael Brown Sr. , were right to remind us that , even through their pain , `` We need to work together to fix the system that allowed this to happen . '' Because a Wilson indictment would have been important -- a victory for fairness , of the system working how we 're told that it should . But justice for McSpadden and Brown might just be having their son 's name on the nation 's lips as a movement pushes for a system that can hold officers to account when they kill with impunity . As the body count rises , as the names of the young black kids whose lives have been stolen from them are uttered during marches and across kitchen tables , momentum is building . Change is coming . But it ’ s too slow . Too slow for Mike Brown . Too slow for Tamir Rice . Too slow for Akai Gurley . Too slow for Marissa Alexander . Too slow .

There is no such thing as justice for a dead 18-year-old kid. Justice, to borrow from Mychal Denzel Smith, would mean Mike Brown gets home on that sweltering summer day. Justice would mean a future for Brown, a long stream of years to be spent however he would have spent them. The possibility of justice for Mike Brown died with him back in August. Advertisement: What we had before us with the grand jury hearing was the prospect of fairness, imperfectly defined in a terribly broken and racist system. And here that would have meant a white police officer standing trial for killing an unarmed black kid. It would have meant that 12 people walked into a room and decided, together, that an 18-year-old did not deserve to die because a cop told him to get on the sidewalk, and that Darren Wilson deserved to face a jury of his peers for putting six bullets into Brown’s arms and head. Justice is always elusive in this system. What continues to shock, even the cynical, is how the appearance of fairness is often too much to ask. It’s more than likely that Wilson would have escaped a conviction had he gone to trial, but an indictment would have been a sign, meager as it was, that the system recognized the value of Mike Brown’s life. An acknowledgment that putting Wilson on paid administrative leave or a desk position or an orchestrated resignation was not an appropriate response to an officer killing an unarmed teenager. I thought again of fairness and justice and how our system overwhelmingly fails black Americans on both counts when Marissa Alexander agreed to a plea deal that would grant her release from jail come January. Alexander, who was arrested and jailed after firing a warning shot to ward off the man who had a history of abusing her and had threatened to kill her, likely took the deal because the alternative was 60 years in prison. Alexander pleaded guilty to three charges of aggravated assault and was sentenced to three years, including the time she had already served. Advertisement: Accepting the plea was likely a choice between death and death. Alexander has already spent 1,030 days in jail. Submitting to the will of the court maybe seemed like a burden worth shouldering if it meant getting outside the system that has only vilified her, brought her suffering and cruelty. Alexander wanted justice when she defended herself against her abusive husband. She was arrested for having such an ambition. Once at trial, she expected fairness. The state of Florida denied her that, too. And so it goes for Mike Brown’s family. In a statement after the news from the grand jury came down, Brown's parents called for continued action to fix the unjust system that let Wilson walk and said only, “We are profoundly disappointed that the killer of our child will not face the consequence of his actions.” Advertisement: The killer of their child will not face the consequence of his actions. Even the modest consequence of having to stand before a jury that in all likelihood would have let him walk. I’m not sure what happens next. Protests have kept the nation’s attention on Ferguson for months, and the people organizing there and elsewhere will likely strengthen in the wake of the grand jury’s refusal to indict. Their activism has fostered a national and international conversation, one growing from the roots up, about police violence, about the racism of the criminal justice system, about a culture of white supremacy, about who gets to fear for their lives. Advertisement: And Brown's parents, Lesley McSpadden and Michael Brown Sr., were right to remind us that, even through their pain, "We need to work together to fix the system that allowed this to happen." Because a Wilson indictment would have been important -- a victory for fairness, of the system working how we're told that it should. But justice for McSpadden and Brown might just be having their son's name on the nation's lips as a movement pushes for a system that can hold officers to account when they kill with impunity. As the body count rises, as the names of the young black kids whose lives have been stolen from them are uttered during marches and across kitchen tables, momentum is building. Change is coming. But it’s too slow. Too slow for Mike Brown. Too slow for Tamir Rice. Too slow for Akai Gurley. Too slow for Marissa Alexander. Too slow.

www.salon.com

left

Ey6lJ4tY9UG7mOGk

test

2QGnS7nYoRZcFSBm

politics

John Stossel

https://reason.com/archives/2016/10/26/the-ruling-class

OPINION: The Ruling Class

2016-10-26

Jacob Sullum, Eugene Volokh, Noah Shepardson, Christian Britschgi, Cosmo Wenman, Billy Binion, Joe Setyon

America is often described as a society without the Old World 's aristocracy . Yet we still have people who feel entitled to boss the rest of us around . The `` elite '' media , the political class , Hollywood and university professors think their opinions are obviously correct , so they must educate us peasants . OK , so they do n't call us `` peasants '' anymore . Now we are `` deplorables '' —conservatives or libertarians . Or Trump supporters . The elite have a lot of influence over how we see things . I do n't like Donald Trump . I used to . I once found him refreshing and honest . Now I think he 's a mean bully . I think that partly because he mocked a disabled person . I saw it on TV . He waved his arms around to mimic a New York Times reporter with a disability—but wait ! It turns out that Trump used the same gestures and tone of speech to mock Ted Cruz and a general he did n't like . It 's not nice , but it does n't appear directed at a disability . I only discovered this when researching the media elite . Even though I 'm a media junkie , I had n't seen the other side of the story . The elite spoon-fed me their version of events . Another reason I do n't like Trump is that he supported the Iraq war—and then lied about that . Media pooh-bahs told me Trump pushed for the war years ago on The Howard Stern Show . Trump replied , `` Yeah , I guess … so . '' Later , on Neil Cavuto 's show , Trump said , `` Perhaps ( Bush ) should n't be doing it yet , and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations . '' I would n't call that `` support '' —the way NBC 's debate moderator and many others have . I was stunned by how thoroughly the media have distorted Trump 's position . That 's a privilege you get when you 're part of the media elite : You get to steer the masses ' thinking . At the second debate , we all know that Trump walked over to Hillary Clinton 's podium , as if he was `` stalking Ms. Clinton like prey , '' said The New York Times . CNN said , `` Trump looms behind Hillary Clinton at the debate . '' Afterward , Clinton went on Ellen DeGeneres ' show and said Trump would `` literally stalk me around the stage , and I would just feel this presence behind me . I thought , 'Whoa , this is really weird . ' '' But it was a lie . Watch the video . Clinton walked over to Trump 's podium . Did the mainstream media tell you that ? No . The ruling class has its themes , and it sticks to them . When Clinton wore white to a debate , the Times called the color an `` emblem of hope '' and a Philadelphia Inquirer writer used words like `` soft and strong … a dream come true . '' But when Melania Trump wore white , that same writer called it a `` scary statement , '' as if Melania Trump 's white symbolized white supremacy , `` another reminder that in the G.O.P . white is always right . '' The ruling class decide which ideas are acceptable , which scientific theories to believe , what speech is permitted . In the book Primetime Propaganda , Ben Shapiro writes that the Hollywood ruling class calls conservatives `` moral scum . '' He says , `` If you 're entering the industry , you have to keep ( your beliefs ) under wraps because nobody will hire you … they just assume you 're a bad person . '' They wo n't tell you why you were n't hired . They just tell you , `` You were n't right for the part , '' explains Shapiro . `` Talent is subjective , which means that it 's pretty easy to find an excuse not to call back the guy who voted for George W . Bush . '' Years ago , the ruling class was the Church . Priests said the universe revolved around Earth . Galileo was arrested because he disagreed . Today , college lefties , mainstream media , Hollywood and the Washington establishment have replaced the Church , but they are closed-minded dogmatists , too . We are lucky that now we have a lot of information at our fingertips . We do n't need to rely on the ruling class telling us what to believe . We can make up our own minds .

America is often described as a society without the Old World's aristocracy. Yet we still have people who feel entitled to boss the rest of us around. The "elite" media, the political class, Hollywood and university professors think their opinions are obviously correct, so they must educate us peasants. OK, so they don't call us "peasants" anymore. Now we are "deplorables"—conservatives or libertarians. Or Trump supporters. The elite have a lot of influence over how we see things. I don't like Donald Trump. I used to. I once found him refreshing and honest. Now I think he's a mean bully. I think that partly because he mocked a disabled person. I saw it on TV. He waved his arms around to mimic a New York Times reporter with a disability—but wait! It turns out that Trump used the same gestures and tone of speech to mock Ted Cruz and a general he didn't like. It's not nice, but it doesn't appear directed at a disability. I only discovered this when researching the media elite. Even though I'm a media junkie, I hadn't seen the other side of the story. The elite spoon-fed me their version of events. Another reason I don't like Trump is that he supported the Iraq war—and then lied about that. Media pooh-bahs told me Trump pushed for the war years ago on The Howard Stern Show. But then I listened to what Trump actually said. "Are you for invading Iraq?" Stern asked. Trump replied, "Yeah, I guess … so." Later, on Neil Cavuto's show, Trump said, "Perhaps (Bush) shouldn't be doing it yet, and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations." I wouldn't call that "support"—the way NBC's debate moderator and many others have. I was stunned by how thoroughly the media have distorted Trump's position. That's a privilege you get when you're part of the media elite: You get to steer the masses' thinking. At the second debate, we all know that Trump walked over to Hillary Clinton's podium, as if he was "stalking Ms. Clinton like prey," said The New York Times. CNN said, "Trump looms behind Hillary Clinton at the debate." Afterward, Clinton went on Ellen DeGeneres' show and said Trump would "literally stalk me around the stage, and I would just feel this presence behind me. I thought, 'Whoa, this is really weird.'" But it was a lie. Watch the video. Clinton walked over to Trump's podium. Did the mainstream media tell you that? No. The ruling class has its themes, and it sticks to them. When Clinton wore white to a debate, the Times called the color an "emblem of hope" and a Philadelphia Inquirer writer used words like "soft and strong … a dream come true." But when Melania Trump wore white, that same writer called it a "scary statement," as if Melania Trump's white symbolized white supremacy, "another reminder that in the G.O.P. white is always right." Give me a break. The ruling class decide which ideas are acceptable, which scientific theories to believe, what speech is permitted. In the book Primetime Propaganda, Ben Shapiro writes that the Hollywood ruling class calls conservatives "moral scum." He says, "If you're entering the industry, you have to keep (your beliefs) under wraps because nobody will hire you … they just assume you're a bad person." They won't tell you why you weren't hired. They just tell you, "You weren't right for the part," explains Shapiro. "Talent is subjective, which means that it's pretty easy to find an excuse not to call back the guy who voted for George W. Bush." Years ago, the ruling class was the Church. Priests said the universe revolved around Earth. Galileo was arrested because he disagreed. Today, college lefties, mainstream media, Hollywood and the Washington establishment have replaced the Church, but they are closed-minded dogmatists, too. We are lucky that now we have a lot of information at our fingertips. We don't need to rely on the ruling class telling us what to believe. We can make up our own minds. COPYRIGHT 2016 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

www.reason.com

right

2QGnS7nYoRZcFSBm

test

1VZZpntKrByPzcye

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-mcconnell/trump-keeping-options-open-as-republican-feud-rages-idUSKBN1CL2MG

Trump keeping options open as Republican feud rages

2017-10-17

James Oliphant

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - Like the deal-maker he says he is , U.S. President Donald Trump appears to be keeping his options open as his Republican Party threatens to erupt into full-scale war . On Monday , almost immediately after saying he empathized with the effort by his former strategist Steve Bannon to back challenges against Republican senators in next year ’ s congressional elections , Trump stood with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , pledging party unity and saying they were “ fighting for the same thing . ” For months , McConnell had been the object of Trump ’ s wrath for the failure of the Republican-led Congress to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act , known as Obamacare - a longtime Republican goal and a key promise of Trump ’ s 2016 campaign . In the White House Rose Garden , Trump played down any conflict , saying the two were “ closer than ever before . ” But Trump would not disavow Bannon ’ s pledge to take down Republicans who are not fully behind Trump ’ s agenda and to drive McConnell from the Senate ’ s leadership . Bannon , who helped mastermind Trump ’ s election campaign but left the White House in August , appeared at a gathering of conservative activists on Saturday and declared : “ Right now , it ’ s a season of war against a GOP establishment . ” In comments directed at McConnell , Bannon told the gathering : “ Up on Capitol Hill , it ’ s like the Ides of March . They ’ re just looking to find out who is going to be Brutus to your Julius Caesar . ” Brutus , once an ally of Caesar , was among the assassins of the Roman leader on the Ides of March in 44 B.C . U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media with U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at his side in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington , U.S. , October 16 , 2017 . ███/Kevin Lamarque Working with well-funded outside political groups , Bannon is encouraging anti-establishment candidates to challenge Republican incumbents in the party ’ s nominating races for the 2018 elections in which all the seats in the House of Representatives and a third of the Senate are up for election . Republican leaders , such as McConnell , worry that the anti-establishment candidates might be less palatable to general election voters and cause Republicans to lose their majority in the Senate and possibly also the House . Asked about Bannon before a meeting of his Cabinet on Monday , Trump said he could “ understand where Steve Bannon ’ s coming from ” and took a jab at the Republican-led Congress in the process . “ We ’ re not getting the job done , ” Trump said . “ And I ’ m not going to blame myself , I ’ ll be honest . They are not getting the job done . ” At the later news conference with McConnell , Trump said , however , he may try to persuade Bannon not to back primary challengers in several upcoming congressional races . “ Steve is doing what Steve thinks is the right thing , ” Trump said . “ Some of the people that he may be looking at ( challenging ) , I ’ m going to see if we talk him out of that , because frankly , they ’ re great people . ” Still , when McConnell went further , criticizing Bannon for favoring fringe candidates who can not “ appeal to a broader electorate , ” Trump was noticeably silent . Trump is still stinging from his decision to support the Republican incumbent in the recent Alabama Senate primary , Luther Strange , at McConnell ’ s behest . Strange was beaten handily by arch-conservative Roy Moore , the challenger backed by Bannon . While it has been unusual for a president to support a primary challenger in his own party , Trump has signaled he may be willing to do so in states such as Arizona , where Senator Jeff Flake , up for re-election next year , has been critical of the White House .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Like the deal-maker he says he is, U.S. President Donald Trump appears to be keeping his options open as his Republican Party threatens to erupt into full-scale war. On Monday, almost immediately after saying he empathized with the effort by his former strategist Steve Bannon to back challenges against Republican senators in next year’s congressional elections, Trump stood with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, pledging party unity and saying they were “fighting for the same thing.” For months, McConnell had been the object of Trump’s wrath for the failure of the Republican-led Congress to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare - a longtime Republican goal and a key promise of Trump’s 2016 campaign. In the White House Rose Garden, Trump played down any conflict, saying the two were “closer than ever before.” But Trump would not disavow Bannon’s pledge to take down Republicans who are not fully behind Trump’s agenda and to drive McConnell from the Senate’s leadership. Bannon, who helped mastermind Trump’s election campaign but left the White House in August, appeared at a gathering of conservative activists on Saturday and declared: “Right now, it’s a season of war against a GOP establishment.” In comments directed at McConnell, Bannon told the gathering: “Up on Capitol Hill, it’s like the Ides of March. They’re just looking to find out who is going to be Brutus to your Julius Caesar.” Brutus, once an ally of Caesar, was among the assassins of the Roman leader on the Ides of March in 44 B.C. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media with U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at his side in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, U.S., October 16, 2017. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque Working with well-funded outside political groups, Bannon is encouraging anti-establishment candidates to challenge Republican incumbents in the party’s nominating races for the 2018 elections in which all the seats in the House of Representatives and a third of the Senate are up for election. Republican leaders, such as McConnell, worry that the anti-establishment candidates might be less palatable to general election voters and cause Republicans to lose their majority in the Senate and possibly also the House. ‘NOT GOING TO BLAME MYSELF’ Asked about Bannon before a meeting of his Cabinet on Monday, Trump said he could “understand where Steve Bannon’s coming from” and took a jab at the Republican-led Congress in the process. “We’re not getting the job done,” Trump said. “And I’m not going to blame myself, I’ll be honest. They are not getting the job done.” At the later news conference with McConnell, Trump said, however, he may try to persuade Bannon not to back primary challengers in several upcoming congressional races. “Steve is doing what Steve thinks is the right thing,” Trump said. “Some of the people that he may be looking at (challenging), I’m going to see if we talk him out of that, because frankly, they’re great people.” Still, when McConnell went further, criticizing Bannon for favoring fringe candidates who cannot “appeal to a broader electorate,” Trump was noticeably silent. Slideshow (2 Images) Trump is still stinging from his decision to support the Republican incumbent in the recent Alabama Senate primary, Luther Strange, at McConnell’s behest. Strange was beaten handily by arch-conservative Roy Moore, the challenger backed by Bannon. While it has been unusual for a president to support a primary challenger in his own party, Trump has signaled he may be willing to do so in states such as Arizona, where Senator Jeff Flake, up for re-election next year, has been critical of the White House.

www.reuters.com

center

1VZZpntKrByPzcye

test

2KMGmiHGVQXX7QZo

education

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/05/06/betsy-devos-title-ix-due-process-college-sexual-misconduct/

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos Issues New Title IX Rules To Protect Free Speech, Due Process for Accused Students

2020-05-06

Scott Shackford, David Bernstein, J.D. Tuccille, Eugene Volokh, Nancy Rommelmann, Zuri Davis, Damon Root, Eric Boehm, Baylen Linnekin, Tyler Lindholm

On Wednesday , Education Secretary Betsy DeVos formally announced the new rules related to Title IX—the federal statute that governs sexual misconduct in schools—thus completing a process that began more than a year ago , when the government first unveiled its proposed changes . The new rules aim to protect victims of sexual misconduct while also establishing fairer procedures for the accused . The department believes the new rules will `` balance the scales of justice on campuses across America , '' a Department of Education spokesperson said during today 's press briefing . Justin Dillon , an attorney with the firm KaiserDillon who specializes in campus misconduct adjudication , hailed the new rules as tremendously well thought out . `` Nothing Betsy DeVos has done since she took office will have a more lasting effect on people 's lives than this , '' Dillon tells ███ . `` It 's frankly inspiring to see how hard she and her staff have worked to get these regulations done and get them right . '' The new rules are similar to what the Department of Education proposed in November 2018 . Most notably , the government has abolished the single-investigator model , which previously permitted a sole university official to investigate an accusation of misconduct , decide which evidence to consider , and produce a report recommending an outcome . Under the new rules , the final decision maker must be a different person than the investigator , and a finding of responsibility can only be rendered after a hearing in which a representative for the accused is able to pose questions to the accuser—i.e. , cross-examination . Importantly , the new rules narrow the scope of actionable sexual harassment to exclude conduct that ought to be protected under the First Amendment . Obama-era guidance had defined sexual harassment as `` any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature . '' The new rules keep this definition but add that the conduct must be offensive to a reasonable person , severe , and pervasive . In practice , this should mean that schools will no longer initiate Title IX investigations that impugn free speech . `` This new rule strikes a powerful blow against campus censorship , '' said a Department of Education spokesperson . `` Campus free speech must not be sacrificed in the misguided pursuit of any other value . '' The new rules will also end the pernicious practice of universities initiating Title IX investigations in cases where the alleged victims are not interested in this course of action . Under previous guidance , any university official who became aware of a potential Title IX issue had to report it , thus triggering an investigation . Under the new guidance , school employees should make the Title IX office aware of potential issues , which will prompt these officials to reach out and offer support to victims . But a formal complaint that results in adjudication can only be initiated by the victim or their parents/legal guardians . This approach gives agency to victims and prevents schools from taking actions contrary to their wishes . Nevertheless , victims ' rights advocates intend to fight the new rules in court . Catherine Lhamon , current chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the former Obama administration official who presided over the changes that compromised due process , slammed the reforms as `` taking us back to the bad old days , that predate my birth , when it was permissible to rape and sexually harass students with impunity . '' That 's a gross misrepresentation of what DeVos has done , though not an unexpected one , given how irresponsibly activists and members of the media have characterized DeVos 's work . It remains to be seen whether colleges and universities will carefully follow the new rules—much is uncertain about the future of higher education right now . Nevertheless , today is a big day for the restoration of basic due process and free speech rights in schools . The new rules , which take effect in August , are available here .

On Wednesday, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos formally announced the new rules related to Title IX—the federal statute that governs sexual misconduct in schools—thus completing a process that began more than a year ago, when the government first unveiled its proposed changes. The new rules aim to protect victims of sexual misconduct while also establishing fairer procedures for the accused. The department believes the new rules will "balance the scales of justice on campuses across America," a Department of Education spokesperson said during today's press briefing. Justin Dillon, an attorney with the firm KaiserDillon who specializes in campus misconduct adjudication, hailed the new rules as tremendously well thought out. "Nothing Betsy DeVos has done since she took office will have a more lasting effect on people's lives than this," Dillon tells Reason. "It's frankly inspiring to see how hard she and her staff have worked to get these regulations done and get them right." The new rules are similar to what the Department of Education proposed in November 2018. Most notably, the government has abolished the single-investigator model, which previously permitted a sole university official to investigate an accusation of misconduct, decide which evidence to consider, and produce a report recommending an outcome. Under the new rules, the final decision maker must be a different person than the investigator, and a finding of responsibility can only be rendered after a hearing in which a representative for the accused is able to pose questions to the accuser—i.e., cross-examination. Importantly, the new rules narrow the scope of actionable sexual harassment to exclude conduct that ought to be protected under the First Amendment. Obama-era guidance had defined sexual harassment as "any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature." The new rules keep this definition but add that the conduct must be offensive to a reasonable person, severe, and pervasive. In practice, this should mean that schools will no longer initiate Title IX investigations that impugn free speech. "This new rule strikes a powerful blow against campus censorship," said a Department of Education spokesperson. "Campus free speech must not be sacrificed in the misguided pursuit of any other value." The new rules will also end the pernicious practice of universities initiating Title IX investigations in cases where the alleged victims are not interested in this course of action. Under previous guidance, any university official who became aware of a potential Title IX issue had to report it, thus triggering an investigation. Under the new guidance, school employees should make the Title IX office aware of potential issues, which will prompt these officials to reach out and offer support to victims. But a formal complaint that results in adjudication can only be initiated by the victim or their parents/legal guardians. This approach gives agency to victims and prevents schools from taking actions contrary to their wishes. Nevertheless, victims' rights advocates intend to fight the new rules in court. Catherine Lhamon, current chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the former Obama administration official who presided over the changes that compromised due process, slammed the reforms as "taking us back to the bad old days, that predate my birth, when it was permissible to rape and sexually harass students with impunity." That's a gross misrepresentation of what DeVos has done, though not an unexpected one, given how irresponsibly activists and members of the media have characterized DeVos's work. It remains to be seen whether colleges and universities will carefully follow the new rules—much is uncertain about the future of higher education right now. Nevertheless, today is a big day for the restoration of basic due process and free speech rights in schools. The new rules, which take effect in August, are available here.

www.reason.com

right

2KMGmiHGVQXX7QZo

test

brEHQQz5WE0GIg0u

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/30/scott_walker_is_falling_apart_the_little_corruption_problem_he_just_cant_shake/

Scott Walker is falling apart: The little corruption problem he just can?t shake

2014-05-30

Heather Digparton

It seems as though every presidential race in recent years offers up a Republican governor from the upper Midwest as the great white hope . They 're usually talked up as `` reformers , '' perhaps trying to capitalize on the tradition of Robert La Follette , the famous Wisconsin iconoclast , at times when the Republican establishment feels it needs to pretend to be more `` with it '' than it actually is . At one point it was Wisconsin Gov . Tommy Thompson , widely hailed in the media as an innovative thinker who would be practically unbeatable . Unfortunately , when he finally took the bait and ran in 2008 he flamed out spectacularly with a series of gaffes in which he endorsed discrimination in employment and insulted Jewish people . Then there was Tim Pawlenty , a former Michigan Minnesota governor , who had been on the short list for years , withering into an afterthought despite spending lots of donor money on histrionic , Michael Bay-style campaign ads designed to enhance his manly appeal . And now we have Wisconsin Gov . Scott Walker , scourge of teachers unions and liberal activists everywhere , who has , as usual , been talked up in the national political media for years . He even made the pilgrimage to the Venetian in Vegas to kiss Sheldon Adelson 's wad of cash . The New Republic proclaimed him the one candidate who could unite the party : Scott Walker , the battle-hardened governor of Wisconsin , is the candidate that the factional candidates should fear . Not only does he seem poised to run—he released a book last week—but he possesses the tools and positions necessary to unite the traditional Republican coalition and marginalize its discontents . Oooh baby . And they were n't exactly wrong . Walker does have some things going for him that other Republican candidates do not . He 's got that Midwest maverick image , but his reforms are all policies the Tea Partyers can wrap their arms around . He 's a proven winner against the alleged Democratic union `` machine . '' And he 's a right-wing politician who does n't seem like a hater , a somewhat unique skill in the modern GOP . What 's not to like ? Well , Walker has a little corruption problem that he just ca n't seem to shake . In brief , the governor is being investigated by prosecutors for illegally coordinating with conservative groups , an investigation that sprang from an earlier one investigating Walker 's previous tenure as Milwaukee Country executive . Three of Walker 's close aides were indicted on felony embezzlement charges and charges were brought against a major campaign donor along with one of his appointees . But it 's the newer investigation that 's giving the Walker people heartburn : The John Doe probe began in August of 2012 and is examining possible `` illegal campaign coordination between ( name redacted ) , a campaign committee , and certain special interest groups , '' according to an unsealed filing in the case . Sources told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel the redacted committee is the Walker campaign , Friends of Scott Walker . Campaign filings show that Walker spent $ 86,000 on legal fees in the second half of 2013 . A John Doe is similar to a grand jury investigation , but in front of a judge rather than a jury , and is conducted under strict secrecy orders . The Wall Street Journal editorial page has been on a crusade about this case , casting it as an attack on free speech , stretching even the new elastic meaning of campaign finance laws to the limit . And until a couple of days ago , they and their allies were reveling in their recent victories in the courts . The investigation had been most recently turned on its head by a friend of the Koch brothers and a Federalist Society judge by the name of Rudolph Randa who halted the investigation , calling it a `` partisan witch hunt . '' The Wall Street Journal inanely trumpeted the headline : `` Wisconsin Civil-Rights March '' Score another one for free political speech . On Tuesday , Federal District Judge Rudolph Randa soundly rejected a motion to dismiss a federal civil-rights lawsuit against Wisconsin prosecutors who are investigating the political activities of conservative groups ( but not liberals ) . And then they broke into a rousing rendition of `` We shall overcome . '' The affiliated big money right-wing groups like Club for Growth and American Crossroads and Americans for Prosperity were undoubtedly very pleased at that outcome . And they were also undoubtedly very pleased with one Scott Walker who was standing up nicely to the pressure and getting their backs when they had so generously padded his campaign coffers . That 's how it 's supposed to work . And then the bottom fell out : A legal civil war broke out Wednesday among targets of a John Doe probe , as a conservative group sought Wednesday to block prosecutors from having settlement talks with Gov . Scott Walker 's campaign . In a letter sent Wednesday , the Washington , D.C. , attorney representing the Wisconsin Club for Growth and one of its directors questioned whether a special prosecutor in the case is negotiating with the GOP governor 's campaign to seek concessions that the club might oppose . Oops . It would appear that Gov . Walker forgot whom he was working for for a moment there . It 's one thing to want to put a political scandal behind you , it 's quite another to fail to comprehend that you have been chosen as a designated test case for Big Money and they expect you to fight it all the way for the good of the team . And the team leaders are hopping mad . Here 's the Wall Street Journal 's reaction to the news : Walker might think he can help himself with a settlement , but he 'd be letting down his allies if he did so in a way that lets the bogus theory of illegal coordination survive . Wisconsin has an especially pernicious regulatory machine that targets political speech , and the legal backlash to the John Doe probe offers a rare chance to dismantle it . Mr. Walker is a hero to many for his fight against public unions , but he will tarnish that image if he sells out the cause for some short-term re-election reassurance . Yes , and all those allies who might `` help '' with that presidential campaign Gov . Walker is obviously trying to salvage will likely not be there with the money that 's been implicitly promised . Scott Walker has a problem . He is obviously spooked by this probe and would like to put it behind him because he knows it could derail his larger ambitions . But his backers want him to fight all the way , at maximum danger to himself , so they can make a political point . And he needs those backers -- every Republican presidential candidate does . What to do ? Will he throw himself on the sacrificial altar for the Koch brothers and just hope he comes out alive ? Stay tuned .

It seems as though every presidential race in recent years offers up a Republican governor from the upper Midwest as the great white hope. They're usually talked up as "reformers," perhaps trying to capitalize on the tradition of Robert La Follette, the famous Wisconsin iconoclast, at times when the Republican establishment feels it needs to pretend to be more "with it" than it actually is. At one point it was Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, widely hailed in the media as an innovative thinker who would be practically unbeatable. Unfortunately, when he finally took the bait and ran in 2008 he flamed out spectacularly with a series of gaffes in which he endorsed discrimination in employment and insulted Jewish people. Then there was Tim Pawlenty, a former Michigan Minnesota governor, who had been on the short list for years, withering into an afterthought despite spending lots of donor money on histrionic, Michael Bay-style campaign ads designed to enhance his manly appeal. Advertisement: And now we have Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, scourge of teachers unions and liberal activists everywhere, who has, as usual, been talked up in the national political media for years. He even made the pilgrimage to the Venetian in Vegas to kiss Sheldon Adelson's wad of cash. The New Republic proclaimed him the one candidate who could unite the party: Scott Walker, the battle-hardened governor of Wisconsin, is the candidate that the factional candidates should fear. Not only does he seem poised to run—he released a book last week—but he possesses the tools and positions necessary to unite the traditional Republican coalition and marginalize its discontents. Oooh baby. And they weren't exactly wrong. Walker does have some things going for him that other Republican candidates do not. He's got that Midwest maverick image, but his reforms are all policies the Tea Partyers can wrap their arms around. He's a proven winner against the alleged Democratic union "machine." And he's a right-wing politician who doesn't seem like a hater, a somewhat unique skill in the modern GOP. What's not to like? Well, Walker has a little corruption problem that he just can't seem to shake. In brief, the governor is being investigated by prosecutors for illegally coordinating with conservative groups, an investigation that sprang from an earlier one investigating Walker's previous tenure as Milwaukee Country executive. Three of Walker's close aides were indicted on felony embezzlement charges and charges were brought against a major campaign donor along with one of his appointees. But it's the newer investigation that's giving the Walker people heartburn: Advertisement: The John Doe probe began in August of 2012 and is examining possible "illegal campaign coordination between (name redacted), a campaign committee, and certain special interest groups," according to an unsealed filing in the case. Sources told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel the redacted committee is the Walker campaign, Friends of Scott Walker. Campaign filings show that Walker spent $86,000 on legal fees in the second half of 2013. A John Doe is similar to a grand jury investigation, but in front of a judge rather than a jury, and is conducted under strict secrecy orders. The Wall Street Journal editorial page has been on a crusade about this case, casting it as an attack on free speech, stretching even the new elastic meaning of campaign finance laws to the limit. And until a couple of days ago, they and their allies were reveling in their recent victories in the courts. The investigation had been most recently turned on its head by a friend of the Koch brothers and a Federalist Society judge by the name of Rudolph Randa who halted the investigation, calling it a "partisan witch hunt." The Wall Street Journal inanely trumpeted the headline: "Wisconsin Civil-Rights March" Score another one for free political speech. On Tuesday, Federal District Judge Rudolph Randa soundly rejected a motion to dismiss a federal civil-rights lawsuit against Wisconsin prosecutors who are investigating the political activities of conservative groups (but not liberals). And then they broke into a rousing rendition of "We shall overcome." The affiliated big money right-wing groups like Club for Growth and American Crossroads and Americans for Prosperity were undoubtedly very pleased at that outcome. And they were also undoubtedly very pleased with one Scott Walker who was standing up nicely to the pressure and getting their backs when they had so generously padded his campaign coffers. That's how it's supposed to work. And then the bottom fell out: A legal civil war broke out Wednesday among targets of a John Doe probe, as a conservative group sought Wednesday to block prosecutors from having settlement talks with Gov. Scott Walker's campaign. In a letter sent Wednesday, the Washington, D.C., attorney representing the Wisconsin Club for Growth and one of its directors questioned whether a special prosecutor in the case is negotiating with the GOP governor's campaign to seek concessions that the club might oppose. Oops. It would appear that Gov. Walker forgot whom he was working for for a moment there. It's one thing to want to put a political scandal behind you, it's quite another to fail to comprehend that you have been chosen as a designated test case for Big Money and they expect you to fight it all the way for the good of the team. Advertisement: And the team leaders are hopping mad. Here's the Wall Street Journal's reaction to the news: Walker might think he can help himself with a settlement, but he'd be letting down his allies if he did so in a way that lets the bogus theory of illegal coordination survive. Wisconsin has an especially pernicious regulatory machine that targets political speech, and the legal backlash to the John Doe probe offers a rare chance to dismantle it. Mr. Walker is a hero to many for his fight against public unions, but he will tarnish that image if he sells out the cause for some short-term re-election reassurance. Yes, and all those allies who might "help" with that presidential campaign Gov. Walker is obviously trying to salvage will likely not be there with the money that's been implicitly promised. Advertisement: Scott Walker has a problem. He is obviously spooked by this probe and would like to put it behind him because he knows it could derail his larger ambitions. But his backers want him to fight all the way, at maximum danger to himself, so they can make a political point. And he needs those backers -- every Republican presidential candidate does. What to do? Will he throw himself on the sacrificial altar for the Koch brothers and just hope he comes out alive? Stay tuned.

www.salon.com

left

brEHQQz5WE0GIg0u

test

6HgEJ45tu0dAFH1I

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2019/february/all-children-born-and-unborn-are-made-in-the-holy-image-of-god-trumps-biggest-state-of-the-union-moments

'All Children, Born And Unborn, Are Made in the Holy Image of God': Trump's Biggest State of the Union Moments

2019-02-06

WASHINGTON – For the first time in his presidency , Donald Trump gave his State of the Union address to a divided Congress . The president did n't flinch as he faced a House of Representatives led by Democrats who have recently pushed for late-term abortions . Trump boldly pushed back on that agenda , saying America 's leaders need to `` work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life . '' The president then called on Congress to pass legislation to prohibit late-term abortions . `` Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother 's womb moments before birth , '' Trump said . `` These are living , feeling , beautiful babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world . '' `` And then , we had the case of the governor of Virginia where he basically stated he would execute a baby after birth , '' the president continued . `` All children – born and unborn – are made in the holy image of God . '' The commander in chief also broke down his vision for safe and legal immigration , demanding a wall be constructed along America 's southern border . He illustrated his point by hosting the family members of Gerald and Sharon David , an elderly couple murdered in their Nevada home just last month by an immigrant who was in the US illegally . `` I will never forget , and I will fight for the memory of Gerald and Sharon , that it should never happen again , '' Trump said . `` Not one more American life should be lost because our nation failed to control its very dangerous border . '' `` Simply put – walls save lives , '' he stated . `` In the past , most people in this room voted for a wall – but the proper wall never got built . I 'll get it built . '' Meanwhile , the future of the wall still remains in question as congressional negotiators continue to work on a deal to prevent another government shutdown . In the Democrats ' response to the president 's address , former Georgia governor candidate Stacey Abrams placed blame for the recent closing of the government directly on the president . `` The shutdown was a stunt engineered by the President of the United States , one that defied every tenet of fairness and abandoned not just our people – but our values , '' she charged . Trump struck a bipartisan tone when talking about rebuilding America , fighting cancer , eradicating HIV , lowering the cost of healthcare and his handling of the economy . `` An economic miracle is happening in the United States , '' he declared . `` The only thing that can stop it are foolish wars , politics , or ridiculous partisan investigations . '' President Trump got a standing ovation from both sides after stating women have filled more than 50 percent of new jobs created in the last year . `` We also have more women in the Congress than ever before , '' he said . Trump then reaffirmed his determination to protect American interests and end foreign wars . To that end , the president confirmed his second summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un for Feb. 27-28 in Vietnam . `` If I had not been elected president of the US , we would right now , in my opinion , be in a major war with North Korea , '' he said . Meanwhile , lawmakers ' reactions to the president 's State of the Union address fell along partisan lines . Republicans praised the president 's remarks . `` It was very inspirational , '' remarked Rep. Vicky Hartzler ( R-MO ) . Rep. Mark Walker ( R-AL ) agreed , saying , `` He did a great job . '' Likewise , Rep. Jody Hice ( R-GA ) noted , `` The president did an outstanding job . To me , he knocked it out of the park . '' Democrats , however , were not impressed , with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) slamming the president 's call for unity even before the speech . `` The president has n't been acting on unity for two years , up and down the line , '' the New York lawmaker charged . `` Let 's see what happens tomorrow and the day after and the day after , because in the past , he 's called for unity and forgotten about it the day after . '' Democrats also took the president to task for his suggestion that `` foolish wars , politics '' and `` ridiculous partisan investigations '' like the Russia probe were hindering Congress from doing its job . `` If there is going to peace and legislation , there can not be war and investigation . It just does n't work that way ! '' Trump said during Tuesday night 's address . But Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi ( D-IL ) , who sits on the House Oversight Committee , told ███ News his party is intent on keeping its foot on the investigation pedal . `` That 's my constitutionally prescribed duty to conduct oversight , '' he said . `` The American people hired us to be in the majority to serve as a check and balance on the Trump administration . '' Still , Democrats acknowledged they supported some of the president 's remarks and that unity might just be possible – even in the most divisive area . `` First of all , I have to say one thing that really stuck out was the president never said , ' I 'm going to have a shutdown if I do n't get my $ 5.7 billion dollars of fence ' – he never said that . I think that 's a message to my Republican colleauges that we can sit down , negotiate on border security . We are going to put billions of dollars , but it 's not going to be billions of dollars on a fence , '' Rep. Henry Cuellar ( D-TX ) told ███ News . The Texas lawmaker serves on the bipartisan conference committee that 's currently negotiating the compromise bill for border security . `` We have to find a balance between our neighbor to the south and at the same time ... have security , and I feel very confident that if we put the technology , the personnel , and , I 'll say this as a Democrat find ways to do enhanced physical barriers , we can get there , '' Cuellar said . He 's one of just a handful of Democrats pleased to hear the president re-affirm his commitment to protecting the unborn . `` I 'm one of four , five , six Democrats - I 'm pro-life . I 'll do whatever I can to make sure we protect life , but I do know the makeup of House and you have to get to 60 over there ( in the Senate ) – and so to get to where the president wants to get to might be difficult at this time , '' he acknowledged . Many Republicans supported the president 's strong pro-life statements as well . `` He talked about the unborn ; I was very appreciative of that moment , too , '' Rep. Vicky Hartzler ( R-MO ) told ███ News . `` To recognize that life is precious and that it should be protected , unlike what 's going on in New York and Virginia . So those were all very inspiring moments . '' However , the high from this year 's address will be short-lived for Republicans if lawmakers fail to reach a compromise by the end of next week to prevent another government shutdown .

WASHINGTON – For the first time in his presidency, Donald Trump gave his State of the Union address to a divided Congress. The president didn't flinch as he faced a House of Representatives led by Democrats who have recently pushed for late-term abortions. Trump boldly pushed back on that agenda, saying America's leaders need to "work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life." The president then called on Congress to pass legislation to prohibit late-term abortions. "Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother's womb moments before birth," Trump said. "These are living, feeling, beautiful babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world." "And then, we had the case of the governor of Virginia where he basically stated he would execute a baby after birth," the president continued. "All children – born and unborn – are made in the holy image of God." The Case for a Border Wall The commander in chief also broke down his vision for safe and legal immigration, demanding a wall be constructed along America's southern border. He illustrated his point by hosting the family members of Gerald and Sharon David, an elderly couple murdered in their Nevada home just last month by an immigrant who was in the US illegally. "I will never forget, and I will fight for the memory of Gerald and Sharon, that it should never happen again," Trump said. "Not one more American life should be lost because our nation failed to control its very dangerous border." "Simply put – walls save lives," he stated. "In the past, most people in this room voted for a wall – but the proper wall never got built. I'll get it built." Meanwhile, the future of the wall still remains in question as congressional negotiators continue to work on a deal to prevent another government shutdown. In the Democrats' response to the president's address, former Georgia governor candidate Stacey Abrams placed blame for the recent closing of the government directly on the president. "The shutdown was a stunt engineered by the President of the United States, one that defied every tenet of fairness and abandoned not just our people – but our values," she charged. Healthcare and the Economy Trump struck a bipartisan tone when talking about rebuilding America, fighting cancer, eradicating HIV, lowering the cost of healthcare and his handling of the economy. "An economic miracle is happening in the United States," he declared. "The only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics, or ridiculous partisan investigations." President Trump got a standing ovation from both sides after stating women have filled more than 50 percent of new jobs created in the last year. "We also have more women in the Congress than ever before," he said. Trump then reaffirmed his determination to protect American interests and end foreign wars. To that end, the president confirmed his second summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un for Feb. 27-28 in Vietnam. "If I had not been elected president of the US, we would right now, in my opinion, be in a major war with North Korea," he said. State of the Union Draws Mixed Reaction from Lawmakers Meanwhile, lawmakers' reactions to the president's State of the Union address fell along partisan lines. Republicans praised the president's remarks. "It was very inspirational," remarked Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO). Rep. Mark Walker (R-AL) agreed, saying, "He did a great job." Likewise, Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA) noted, "The president did an outstanding job. To me, he knocked it out of the park." Democrats, however, were not impressed, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) slamming the president's call for unity even before the speech. "The president hasn't been acting on unity for two years, up and down the line," the New York lawmaker charged. "Let's see what happens tomorrow and the day after and the day after, because in the past, he's called for unity and forgotten about it the day after." Democrats also took the president to task for his suggestion that "foolish wars, politics" and "ridiculous partisan investigations" like the Russia probe were hindering Congress from doing its job. "If there is going to peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn't work that way!" Trump said during Tuesday night's address. But Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), who sits on the House Oversight Committee, told CBN News his party is intent on keeping its foot on the investigation pedal. "That's my constitutionally prescribed duty to conduct oversight," he said. "The American people hired us to be in the majority to serve as a check and balance on the Trump administration." A Glimmer of Hope for Bipartisan Unity Still, Democrats acknowledged they supported some of the president's remarks and that unity might just be possible – even in the most divisive area. "First of all, I have to say one thing that really stuck out was the president never said, 'I'm going to have a shutdown if I don't get my $5.7 billion dollars of fence' – he never said that. I think that's a message to my Republican colleauges that we can sit down, negotiate on border security. We are going to put billions of dollars, but it's not going to be billions of dollars on a fence," Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) told CBN News. The Texas lawmaker serves on the bipartisan conference committee that's currently negotiating the compromise bill for border security. "We have to find a balance between our neighbor to the south and at the same time...have security, and I feel very confident that if we put the technology, the personnel, and, I'll say this as a Democrat find ways to do enhanced physical barriers, we can get there," Cuellar said. He's one of just a handful of Democrats pleased to hear the president re-affirm his commitment to protecting the unborn. "I'm one of four, five, six Democrats - I'm pro-life. I'll do whatever I can to make sure we protect life, but I do know the makeup of House and you have to get to 60 over there (in the Senate) – and so to get to where the president wants to get to might be difficult at this time," he acknowledged. Many Republicans supported the president's strong pro-life statements as well. "He talked about the unborn; I was very appreciative of that moment, too," Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) told CBN News. "To recognize that life is precious and that it should be protected, unlike what's going on in New York and Virginia. So those were all very inspiring moments." However, the high from this year's address will be short-lived for Republicans if lawmakers fail to reach a compromise by the end of next week to prevent another government shutdown.

www1.cbn.com

right

6HgEJ45tu0dAFH1I

test

b7EMVzOxrVzlHdjm

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/the-democratic-party-a-study-in-terminal-lucidity/

The Democratic Party: A Study in Terminal Lucidity

David Catron, Jeffrey Lord, Brandon J. Weichert, Veronique De Rugy, Ben Stein, Sam Westrop, Dov Fischer

The Democratic Party exhibits all the symptoms of terminal lucidity . Sometimes called “ the end-of-life rally , ” this phenomenon involves temporary bursts of physical and mental activity in terminally ill patients immediately prior to death . It can cruelly mislead family members , who unrealistically take the apparent improvement as a sign that there is hope after all . This is how the left has responded to Democratic gains in the recent midterms . But such episodes rarely indicate any real change in the patient ’ s underlying condition , and the Democratic Party remains infected by fatal strains of Trump Derangement Syndrome ( TDS ) , utopian socialist fantasies , and identity politics . The party ’ s TDS infection was on display over the weekend in a column published by USA Today titled , “ Now is the time to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump. ” That this loony effusion was written by a congresswoman who has been a member of the House for one week , and appeared in a national “ news ” outlet indicates that many Democrats and members of the media are hopelessly out of touch with the voters . Articles of impeachment were introduced in the House last week by a Democrat to much fanfare in the media , yet the left-leaning Brookings Institution just published a summary of recent surveys and concludes that this isn ’ t what the voters want from their representatives : Memo to Democrats : unless Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation delivers a smoking gun , don ’ t rush to impeach President Trump.… Of 21 possible priorities for the new Congress , impeaching the president was tied for last , with only 38 percent of Americans deeming it “ extremely important. ” Republicans are united against it ; no surprise there . But tellingly , it receives less support among Independents than does any other option , and Democrats rank it only 14th on their priority list . And yet the USA Today column , which was written by Rashida “ impeach the motherf * * * er ” Tlaib , explicitly states that her party need not — and should not — wait for Mueller to finish his $ 40 million snipe hunt before going ahead with the impeachment of President Trump : Those who say we must wait for Mueller to complete his criminal investigation before Congress can start any impeachment proceedings ignore this crucial distinction . There is no requirement whatsoever that a president be charged with or be convicted of a crime before Congress can impeach him . They also ignore the fact that many of the impeachable offenses committed by this president are beyond the scope of the special counsel ’ s investigation . Representative Tlaib is evidently unaware that “ those who say we must wait for Mueller ” are the voters . Like many Democrats , Tlaib has mistaken her party ’ s terminal lucidity for a national mandate . This error is particularly common among her fellow first-termers . Just as she demands President Trump ’ s head on a stake without regard to the wishes of the electorate , another newly minted representative has been pitching a package of utopian socialist programs that is conspicuously absent from the list of top voter priorities for Congress . Even worse , the primary proponent of this package of pie-in-the-sky proposals seems to regard questions about its $ 40 Trillion cost to be impertinent . On Sunday , Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appeared on 60 Minutes and discussed some of the proposals she has vocally advocated , such as universal healthcare ( i.e . Medicare for All ) , a gigantic government program to combat climate change ( i.e . the Green New Deal ) , and tuition-free public college . Predictably , the self-styled “ girl from the Bronx ” received the obsequious treatment the media always reserves for Democrats in general and avowed socialists in particular . But , inevitably , even Anderson Cooper was obligated to ask how the nation was going to come up with all the money to pay for the goodies . Ocasio-Cortez responded by becoming “ snippy , ” as Al Gore might put it : No one asks how we ’ re gon na pay for this Space Force . No one asked how we paid for a $ 2 trillion tax cut . We only ask how we pay for it on issues of housing , healthcare and education . How do we pay for it ? With the same exact mechanisms that we pay for military increases.… I think that there ’ s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely , factually , and semantically correct than about being morally right . Like Representative Tlaib , Ocasio-Cortez doesn ’ t seem to realize that the people who seem so inexplicably concerned about being factually correct rather than morally right are those of us who pay her salary — the taxpayers . She does , however , admit that it will involve raising taxes and then embarks on an ill-advised attempt to explain how the progressive tax system works : “ Your tax rate , you know , let ’ s say , from zero to $ 75,000 may be ten percent or 15 percent , et cetera . But once you get to , like , the tippy tops —on your 10 millionth dollar — sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent. ” At the mention of “ tippy tops , ” Cooper decided it was time to change the subject to racism . And this brings us to the Democratic Party ’ s increasing reliance on identity politics ( the art formerly known as race-baiting ) to win elections . This art was perfected by Barack Obama at the presidential level , but it decimated the party at the state and local strata . In fact , the Democrats incurred so much damage during Obama ’ s White House tenure that despite their relatively successful 2018 midterm performance , the Republicans retain the majority of governorships , state legislatures , and an expanded majority in the United States Senate . Finally , as Victor Davis Hanson has pointed out , Obama ’ s successful exploitation of race almost certainly constituted the apogee of identity politics : The 2016 election marked an earthquake in the diversity industry . It is increasingly difficult to judge who we are merely by our appearances , which means that identity politics may lose its influence . These fissures probably explain some of the ferocity of the protests we ’ ve seen in recent weeks . A dying lobby is fighting to hold on to its power . Progressive propaganda notwithstanding , the current ascendency of the Democrats in the House of Representatives and a few state offices here and there constitutes little more than the party ’ s temporary state of terminal lucidity as death draws nigh . This end-of-life rally doesn ’ t signify any real change in the syndrome that has been slowly killing the Democratic Party — the lethal combination of identity politics , utopian socialist fantasies , and TDS . This disease doomed Hillary Clinton in 2016 , and it can ’ t be cured by comediennes like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or crazies like Rashida Tlaib . The voters don ’ t want snake oil . They want solutions to real problems and the Democrats don ’ t have any .

The Democratic Party exhibits all the symptoms of terminal lucidity. Sometimes called “the end-of-life rally,” this phenomenon involves temporary bursts of physical and mental activity in terminally ill patients immediately prior to death. It can cruelly mislead family members, who unrealistically take the apparent improvement as a sign that there is hope after all. This is how the left has responded to Democratic gains in the recent midterms. But such episodes rarely indicate any real change in the patient’s underlying condition, and the Democratic Party remains infected by fatal strains of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), utopian socialist fantasies, and identity politics. The party’s TDS infection was on display over the weekend in a column published by USA Today titled, “Now is the time to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump.” That this loony effusion was written by a congresswoman who has been a member of the House for one week, and appeared in a national “news” outlet indicates that many Democrats and members of the media are hopelessly out of touch with the voters. Articles of impeachment were introduced in the House last week by a Democrat to much fanfare in the media, yet the left-leaning Brookings Institution just published a summary of recent surveys and concludes that this isn’t what the voters want from their representatives: Memo to Democrats: unless Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation delivers a smoking gun, don’t rush to impeach President Trump.… Of 21 possible priorities for the new Congress, impeaching the president was tied for last, with only 38 percent of Americans deeming it “extremely important.” Republicans are united against it; no surprise there. But tellingly, it receives less support among Independents than does any other option, and Democrats rank it only 14th on their priority list. And yet the USA Today column, which was written by Rashida “impeach the motherf***er” Tlaib, explicitly states that her party need not — and should not — wait for Mueller to finish his $40 million snipe hunt before going ahead with the impeachment of President Trump: Those who say we must wait for Mueller to complete his criminal investigation before Congress can start any impeachment proceedings ignore this crucial distinction. There is no requirement whatsoever that a president be charged with or be convicted of a crime before Congress can impeach him. They also ignore the fact that many of the impeachable offenses committed by this president are beyond the scope of the special counsel’s investigation. Representative Tlaib is evidently unaware that “those who say we must wait for Mueller” are the voters. Like many Democrats, Tlaib has mistaken her party’s terminal lucidity for a national mandate. This error is particularly common among her fellow first-termers. Just as she demands President Trump’s head on a stake without regard to the wishes of the electorate, another newly minted representative has been pitching a package of utopian socialist programs that is conspicuously absent from the list of top voter priorities for Congress. Even worse, the primary proponent of this package of pie-in-the-sky proposals seems to regard questions about its $40 Trillion cost to be impertinent. On Sunday, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appeared on 60 Minutes and discussed some of the proposals she has vocally advocated, such as universal healthcare (i.e. Medicare for All), a gigantic government program to combat climate change (i.e. the Green New Deal), and tuition-free public college. Predictably, the self-styled “girl from the Bronx” received the obsequious treatment the media always reserves for Democrats in general and avowed socialists in particular. But, inevitably, even Anderson Cooper was obligated to ask how the nation was going to come up with all the money to pay for the goodies. Ocasio-Cortez responded by becoming “snippy,” as Al Gore might put it: No one asks how we’re gonna pay for this Space Force. No one asked how we paid for a $2 trillion tax cut. We only ask how we pay for it on issues of housing, healthcare and education. How do we pay for it? With the same exact mechanisms that we pay for military increases.… I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right. Like Representative Tlaib, Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t seem to realize that the people who seem so inexplicably concerned about being factually correct rather than morally right are those of us who pay her salary — the taxpayers. She does, however, admit that it will involve raising taxes and then embarks on an ill-advised attempt to explain how the progressive tax system works: “Your tax rate, you know, let’s say, from zero to $75,000 may be ten percent or 15 percent, et cetera. But once you get to, like, the tippy tops —on your 10 millionth dollar — sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent.” At the mention of “tippy tops,” Cooper decided it was time to change the subject to racism. And this brings us to the Democratic Party’s increasing reliance on identity politics (the art formerly known as race-baiting) to win elections. This art was perfected by Barack Obama at the presidential level, but it decimated the party at the state and local strata. In fact, the Democrats incurred so much damage during Obama’s White House tenure that despite their relatively successful 2018 midterm performance, the Republicans retain the majority of governorships, state legislatures, and an expanded majority in the United States Senate. Finally, as Victor Davis Hanson has pointed out, Obama’s successful exploitation of race almost certainly constituted the apogee of identity politics: The 2016 election marked an earthquake in the diversity industry. It is increasingly difficult to judge who we are merely by our appearances, which means that identity politics may lose its influence. These fissures probably explain some of the ferocity of the protests we’ve seen in recent weeks. A dying lobby is fighting to hold on to its power. Progressive propaganda notwithstanding, the current ascendency of the Democrats in the House of Representatives and a few state offices here and there constitutes little more than the party’s temporary state of terminal lucidity as death draws nigh. This end-of-life rally doesn’t signify any real change in the syndrome that has been slowly killing the Democratic Party — the lethal combination of identity politics, utopian socialist fantasies, and TDS. This disease doomed Hillary Clinton in 2016, and it can’t be cured by comediennes like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or crazies like Rashida Tlaib. The voters don’t want snake oil. They want solutions to real problems and the Democrats don’t have any.

www.spectator.org

right

b7EMVzOxrVzlHdjm

test

CpPOuc7yrYMjVmp9

politics

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ten-call-recession-trump-approval-drops-points-poll/story?id=65414875&cid=clicksource_77_null_bsq_hed

6 in 10 call a recession likely; Trump approval drops by 6 points: POLL

Six in 10 Americans say a recession is likely in the next year and as many are concerned about higher prices because of the trade war with China , helping to knock 6 points off President Donald Trump ’ s job approval rating in the latest ███/Washington Post poll . Interested in Donald Trump ? Add Donald Trump as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Donald Trump news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest Trump fell from a career-high 44 % approval in July to 38 % now , a point off his career average , with 56 % disapproving . His average rating since taking office remains the lowest on record for any modern president at a comparable point in his term , and he is the first never to have achieved majority approval . Trump has slipped by a slight 5 percentage points specifically on his handling of the economy , from 51 % approval in midsummer to 46 % now . Fewer -- 35 % -- approve of his handling of trade negotiations with China , and 60 % are concerned that the trade dispute will raise the price of things they buy . Ratings of the U.S. economy overall , 56 % positive , are down from 65 % last fall in this poll , produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates . Most ominously , 60 % see a recession as very or somewhat likely in the next year . That ’ s within sight of the 69 % who said so in November 2007 , in advance of the Great Recession . In another measure , Trump gets far more criticism than credit for his economic stewardship . Americans by nearly a 3-1 margin , 43-16 % , say his trade and economic policies have increased rather than decreased the chance of a recession in the next year . Economic attitudes are related to Trump ’ s overall job performance rating . He gets just 20 % approval from those who see a recession as likely and 19 % from those who are concerned the trade dispute with China will cost them money . His ratings from those who are less pessimistic about the economy and the trade dispute are 50 and 51 points higher , respectively . Economic attitudes include a high degree of partisanship . Ninety % of Republicans rate the economy positively , compared with 52 % of independents and 33 % of Democrats . One in three Republicans sees a recession as very or somewhat likely in the next year ; that rises to 60 % of independents and 83 % of Democrats . That said , looking just at Republicans and Republican-leaning independents – “ leaned Republicans ” – shows the risk that negative economic attitudes pose to Trump . His approval rating is 58 % among leaned Republicans who are concerned that the trade dispute with China will raise the price of things they buy , compared with 90 % among those who are less worried about that outcome . There ’ s a similar gap among leaned Republicans based on whether or not they think a recession is more or less likely in the next year . A statistical analysis called regression backs this result . Controlling for demographics , partisanship and political ideology , seeing a recession as more likely independently predicts lower approval for Trump , as do both being concerned about paying more because of the trade dispute with China and holding more negative views of the economy overall . Indeed , each of these alone , in its respective equation , is the single strongest predictor of Trump ’ s approval rating – more so than the customary prime factors in presidential approval , partisanship , ideology and race or ethnicity . In a further sign of political risk , economic anxiety is nearly as high in the red states Trump won in 2016 – 58 % there see a recession as very or somewhat likely – as in the blue states , where it ’ s 63 % . ( Most in the red states , 57 % , also are concerned that the trade dispute with China will raise the price of things they buy , as are 65 % in the blue states . ) Trump ’ s overall approval rating is underwater in the red states , 43 % , if not so much as in the blue states , where he has 32 % approval . The president ’ s overall approval rating continues to vary widely among groups . Among the sharpest declines , he ’ s lost 10 points since July among urban residents , 9 points among college graduates and 8 points among women . ( A broad gender gap remains ; he has 47 % approval among men , 30 % among women . ) He ’ s also fallen just under 50 % approval from whites – down a slight 6 points to 48 % . That compares with 25 % approval among Hispanics and just 10 % among blacks , one of the country ’ s most Democratic-leaning groups . Two other shifts this month make Trump appear increasingly isolated in a core support group , white men who don ’ t have a college degree . They give him 69 % approval . But he ’ s lost 12 points among non-college white women , to 42 % ; and Trump is down 15 points among college-educated white men , to 34 % , a new low . They ’ re now as critical of the president as are college-educated white women . Lastly , Trump has 82 % approval among Republicans , back near his career average after peaking at 87 % in July . Marking the extent of polarization , his approval rating is 8 % among Democrats . Among independents – often , though not always , swing voters in national elections – it ’ s 36 % . This ███/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Sept. 2-5 , 2019 , in English and Spanish , among a random national sample of 1,003 adults . Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points , including the design effect . Partisan divisions are 28-24-37 % , Democrats-Republicans-independents . The survey was produced for ███ by Langer Research Associates of New York , New York , with sampling and data collection by Abt Associates of Rockville , Md . See details on the survey ’ s methodology here .

Six in 10 Americans say a recession is likely in the next year and as many are concerned about higher prices because of the trade war with China, helping to knock 6 points off President Donald Trump’s job approval rating in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll. Interested in Donald Trump? Add Donald Trump as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Donald Trump news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest Trump fell from a career-high 44% approval in July to 38% now, a point off his career average, with 56% disapproving. His average rating since taking office remains the lowest on record for any modern president at a comparable point in his term, and he is the first never to have achieved majority approval. Trump has slipped by a slight 5 percentage points specifically on his handling of the economy, from 51% approval in midsummer to 46% now. Fewer -- 35% -- approve of his handling of trade negotiations with China, and 60% are concerned that the trade dispute will raise the price of things they buy. See PDF for full results, charts and tables. Ratings of the U.S. economy overall, 56% positive, are down from 65% last fall in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates. Most ominously, 60% see a recession as very or somewhat likely in the next year. That’s within sight of the 69% who said so in November 2007, in advance of the Great Recession. In another measure, Trump gets far more criticism than credit for his economic stewardship. Americans by nearly a 3-1 margin, 43-16%, say his trade and economic policies have increased rather than decreased the chance of a recession in the next year. Impacts Economic attitudes are related to Trump’s overall job performance rating. He gets just 20% approval from those who see a recession as likely and 19% from those who are concerned the trade dispute with China will cost them money. His ratings from those who are less pessimistic about the economy and the trade dispute are 50 and 51 points higher, respectively. Economic attitudes include a high degree of partisanship. Ninety% of Republicans rate the economy positively, compared with 52% of independents and 33% of Democrats. One in three Republicans sees a recession as very or somewhat likely in the next year; that rises to 60% of independents and 83% of Democrats. That said, looking just at Republicans and Republican-leaning independents – “leaned Republicans” – shows the risk that negative economic attitudes pose to Trump. His approval rating is 58% among leaned Republicans who are concerned that the trade dispute with China will raise the price of things they buy, compared with 90% among those who are less worried about that outcome. There’s a similar gap among leaned Republicans based on whether or not they think a recession is more or less likely in the next year. A statistical analysis called regression backs this result. Controlling for demographics, partisanship and political ideology, seeing a recession as more likely independently predicts lower approval for Trump, as do both being concerned about paying more because of the trade dispute with China and holding more negative views of the economy overall. Indeed, each of these alone, in its respective equation, is the single strongest predictor of Trump’s approval rating – more so than the customary prime factors in presidential approval, partisanship, ideology and race or ethnicity. In a further sign of political risk, economic anxiety is nearly as high in the red states Trump won in 2016 – 58% there see a recession as very or somewhat likely – as in the blue states, where it’s 63%. (Most in the red states, 57%, also are concerned that the trade dispute with China will raise the price of things they buy, as are 65% in the blue states.) Trump’s overall approval rating is underwater in the red states, 43%, if not so much as in the blue states, where he has 32% approval. Approval The president’s overall approval rating continues to vary widely among groups. Among the sharpest declines, he’s lost 10 points since July among urban residents, 9 points among college graduates and 8 points among women. (A broad gender gap remains; he has 47% approval among men, 30% among women.) He’s also fallen just under 50% approval from whites – down a slight 6 points to 48%. That compares with 25% approval among Hispanics and just 10% among blacks, one of the country’s most Democratic-leaning groups. Two other shifts this month make Trump appear increasingly isolated in a core support group, white men who don’t have a college degree. They give him 69% approval. But he’s lost 12 points among non-college white women, to 42%; and Trump is down 15 points among college-educated white men, to 34%, a new low. They’re now as critical of the president as are college-educated white women. Lastly, Trump has 82% approval among Republicans, back near his career average after peaking at 87% in July. Marking the extent of polarization, his approval rating is 8% among Democrats. Among independents – often, though not always, swing voters in national elections – it’s 36%. Methodology This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Sept. 2-5, 2019, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 1,003 adults. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 28-24-37%, Democrats-Republicans-independents. The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, New York, with sampling and data collection by Abt Associates of Rockville, Md. See details on the survey’s methodology here.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

CpPOuc7yrYMjVmp9

test

V3TwMJnV5uJIPTkE

lgbt_rights

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-transgender/second-court-rejects-trump-bid-to-stop-transgender-military-recruits-idUSKBN1EH00R

Second court rejects Trump bid to stop transgender military recruits

2017-12-23

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - A federal appeals court in Washington on Friday rejected a bid by President Donald Trump ’ s administration to prevent the U.S. military from accepting transgender recruits starting Jan. 1 , the second court to issue such a ruling this week . Four federal judges around the country have issued injunctions blocking Trump ’ s ban on transgender people from the military , including one that was also handed down on Friday . The administration has appealed the previous three rulings . In a six-page order , the three-judge-panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the administration had “ not shown a strong likelihood that they will succeed on the merits of their challenge ” to a district court ’ s order blocking the ban . On Thursday the Richmond , Virginia-based 4th U.S . Circuit Court of Appeals said it was denying the administration ’ s request while the appeal proceeds . The two courts ’ actions could prompt the administration to ask the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court to intervene . Also on Friday , a federal trial court in Riverside , California , blocked the ban while the case proceeds , making it the fourth to do so , after similar rulings in Baltimore , Seattle and Washington , D.C . U.S. District Judge Jesus Bernal said without the injunction the plaintiffs , including current and aspiring service members , would suffer irreparable harm . “ There is nothing any court can do to remedy a government-sent message that some citizens are not worthy of the military uniform simply because of their gender , ” he added . The administration had argued that the Jan. 1 deadline for accepting transgender recruits was problematic because tens of thousands of personnel would have to be trained on the medical standards needed to process transgender applicants , and the military was not ready for that . The Obama administration had set a deadline of July 1 , 2017 , to begin accepting transgender recruits , but Trump ’ s defense secretary , James Mattis , postponed that date to Jan. 1 . In an August memorandum , Trump gave the military until March 2018 to revert to a policy prohibiting openly transgender individuals from joining the military and authorizing their discharge . The memo also halted the use of government funds for sex-reassignment surgery for active-duty personnel .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal appeals court in Washington on Friday rejected a bid by President Donald Trump’s administration to prevent the U.S. military from accepting transgender recruits starting Jan. 1, the second court to issue such a ruling this week. FILE PHOTO: U.S. Navy sailors stand in the audience as President Donald Trump participates in the commissioning ceremony of the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford at Naval Station Norfolk in Norfolk, Virginia, U.S. July 22, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst Four federal judges around the country have issued injunctions blocking Trump’s ban on transgender people from the military, including one that was also handed down on Friday. The administration has appealed the previous three rulings. In a six-page order, the three-judge-panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the administration had “not shown a strong likelihood that they will succeed on the merits of their challenge” to a district court’s order blocking the ban. On Thursday the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it was denying the administration’s request while the appeal proceeds. The two courts’ actions could prompt the administration to ask the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. Also on Friday, a federal trial court in Riverside, California, blocked the ban while the case proceeds, making it the fourth to do so, after similar rulings in Baltimore, Seattle and Washington, D.C. U.S. District Judge Jesus Bernal said without the injunction the plaintiffs, including current and aspiring service members, would suffer irreparable harm. “There is nothing any court can do to remedy a government-sent message that some citizens are not worthy of the military uniform simply because of their gender,” he added. The administration had argued that the Jan. 1 deadline for accepting transgender recruits was problematic because tens of thousands of personnel would have to be trained on the medical standards needed to process transgender applicants, and the military was not ready for that. The Obama administration had set a deadline of July 1, 2017, to begin accepting transgender recruits, but Trump’s defense secretary, James Mattis, postponed that date to Jan. 1. In an August memorandum, Trump gave the military until March 2018 to revert to a policy prohibiting openly transgender individuals from joining the military and authorizing their discharge. The memo also halted the use of government funds for sex-reassignment surgery for active-duty personnel.

www.reuters.com

center

V3TwMJnV5uJIPTkE

test

4qfyW8hyC41khfTZ

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/04/04/coronavirus-reveals-utter-sameness-of-democrats-and-republicans/

Coronavirus Reveals Utter Sameness of Democrats and Republicans

2020-04-04

Nick Gillespie, Josh Blackman, Christy Ford Chapin, Eugene Volokh, Ronald Bailey, Baylen Linnekin, Kurt Loder, Jacob Sullum

Libertarians keep saying that there are very few meaningful differences between the Republicans and the Democrats . And one of the many things revealed by the political response to the coronavirus pandemic is…that there are very few meaningful differences between the Republicans and Democrats . You can see that in the $ 2 trillion CARES Act , the single largest spending bill in U.S. history . It passed with 96 yes votes and zero no votes in the Senate . ( Four senators could not attend the vote . ) After Rep. Thomas Massie ( R–Ky . ) tried to instigate a conventional recorded vote on the measure , the House passed it on a voice vote so that individual members did n't have to go on the record supporting it . That was something on which the top Democrat ( Nancy Pelosi ) and top Republican ( Kevin McCarthy ) joined forces . As Massie told me , they did that to shield current members from having to explain their votes in the fall 's election . Technically , the bill passed unanimously , even though he and a few others said they would have voted against it if given the opportunity . One of the other dissenters was Rep. Justin Amash , the Michigan independent who left the Republican Party last summer because he felt that it no longer represented his libertarianish philosophy . On Friday , Amash , who consistently criticized the CARES Act for giving the lion 's share of the money to corporations and other special interests rather than individuals , officially submitted a no vote . Here are two tweets posted yesterday afternoon by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ( DCCC ) , `` the official campaign arm of the Democrats in the House of Representatives '' : Congressman Justin Amash officially submitted his 'no ' vote in the congressional record on the bipartisan coronavirus relief bill that puts # FamiliesFirst amid the COVID-19 pandemic . # MI03 `` During a national crisis , it 's unfortunate that Congressman Justin Amash would once again adhere to an extreme , out-of-touch ideology , even when it means risking the health , well-being , and economic security of thousands of # MI03 . '' —DCCC Spokesperson @ Court_Rice Thirty minutes later , the National Republican Congressional Committee ( NRCC ) , `` a political committee devoted to increasing the number of Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives , '' posted these two tweets : Congressman Justin Amash officially submitted his 'no ' vote in the congressional record on the bipartisan coronavirus relief bill that puts # FamiliesFirst amid the COVID-19 pandemic . # MI03 `` During a national crisis , it 's unfortunate that Congressman Justin Amash would once again work against President Trump , even when it means risking the health , well-being , and economic security of thousands of # MI03 . '' —NRCC Spokeswoman @ CarlyAtch To which Amash replied : `` There 's about as much independent thinking here as there is in Congress . '' There 's about as much independent thinking here as there is in Congress . pic.twitter.com/o3cgVN6tVU — Justin Amash ( @ justinamash ) April 3 , 2020 We 're constantly being told that we live in increasingly and uniquely polarized times , when the differences between liberals and conservatives , Democrats and Republicans , have never been more pronounced or stark . And yet by the most basic measure of government—spending—we have effectively been living under one-party rule for the entire 21st century . Despite regular turnover of the White House and both houses of Congress , Democrats and Republicans have consistently come together to spend more money , through major terrorist attacks , a historic financial crisis , and now a once-in-a-lifetime ( hopefully ) pandemic . Since 2000 , we 've had only three years in which federal spending declined year over year ( 2010 , 2012 , and 2013 ; see table 1.1 ) . Since Donald Trump was elected in 2016 , Washington has increased real spending by $ 1,441 per person—and that was before the CARES Act passed . There will surely be still more federal spending increases between now and the end of the fiscal year on September 30 . The 2020 budget was already a record-high $ 4.8 trillion ; it will likely end up coming in somewhere between $ 6 trillion and $ 7 trillion . Democrats and Republicans will surely continue to disagree about exactly what to spend ever-larger sums of money on , but as that record—and the identical responses to Amash 's dissent—make clear , they agree completely on more fundamental issues . Here 's my interview with Thomas Massie about his attempt to force a recorded vote on the CARES Act and the bipartisan anger directed his way :

Libertarians keep saying that there are very few meaningful differences between the Republicans and the Democrats. And one of the many things revealed by the political response to the coronavirus pandemic is…that there are very few meaningful differences between the Republicans and Democrats. You can see that in the $2 trillion CARES Act, the single largest spending bill in U.S. history. It passed with 96 yes votes and zero no votes in the Senate. (Four senators could not attend the vote.) After Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) tried to instigate a conventional recorded vote on the measure, the House passed it on a voice vote so that individual members didn't have to go on the record supporting it. That was something on which the top Democrat (Nancy Pelosi) and top Republican (Kevin McCarthy) joined forces. As Massie told me, they did that to shield current members from having to explain their votes in the fall's election. Technically, the bill passed unanimously, even though he and a few others said they would have voted against it if given the opportunity. One of the other dissenters was Rep. Justin Amash, the Michigan independent who left the Republican Party last summer because he felt that it no longer represented his libertarianish philosophy. On Friday, Amash, who consistently criticized the CARES Act for giving the lion's share of the money to corporations and other special interests rather than individuals, officially submitted a no vote. Here are two tweets posted yesterday afternoon by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), "the official campaign arm of the Democrats in the House of Representatives": Congressman Justin Amash officially submitted his 'no' vote in the congressional record on the bipartisan coronavirus relief bill that puts #FamiliesFirst amid the COVID-19 pandemic. #MI03 "During a national crisis, it's unfortunate that Congressman Justin Amash would once again adhere to an extreme, out-of-touch ideology, even when it means risking the health, well-being, and economic security of thousands of #MI03." —DCCC Spokesperson @Court_Rice Thirty minutes later, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), "a political committee devoted to increasing the number of Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives," posted these two tweets: Congressman Justin Amash officially submitted his 'no' vote in the congressional record on the bipartisan coronavirus relief bill that puts #FamiliesFirst amid the COVID-19 pandemic. #MI03 "During a national crisis, it's unfortunate that Congressman Justin Amash would once again work against President Trump, even when it means risking the health, well-being, and economic security of thousands of #MI03." —NRCC Spokeswoman @CarlyAtch To which Amash replied: "There's about as much independent thinking here as there is in Congress." There's about as much independent thinking here as there is in Congress. pic.twitter.com/o3cgVN6tVU — Justin Amash (@justinamash) April 3, 2020 We're constantly being told that we live in increasingly and uniquely polarized times, when the differences between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, have never been more pronounced or stark. And yet by the most basic measure of government—spending—we have effectively been living under one-party rule for the entire 21st century. Despite regular turnover of the White House and both houses of Congress, Democrats and Republicans have consistently come together to spend more money, through major terrorist attacks, a historic financial crisis, and now a once-in-a-lifetime (hopefully) pandemic. Since 2000, we've had only three years in which federal spending declined year over year (2010, 2012, and 2013; see table 1.1). Since Donald Trump was elected in 2016, Washington has increased real spending by $1,441 per person—and that was before the CARES Act passed. There will surely be still more federal spending increases between now and the end of the fiscal year on September 30. The 2020 budget was already a record-high $4.8 trillion; it will likely end up coming in somewhere between $6 trillion and $7 trillion. Democrats and Republicans will surely continue to disagree about exactly what to spend ever-larger sums of money on, but as that record—and the identical responses to Amash's dissent—make clear, they agree completely on more fundamental issues. Here's my interview with Thomas Massie about his attempt to force a recorded vote on the CARES Act and the bipartisan anger directed his way:

www.reason.com

right

4qfyW8hyC41khfTZ

test

o5yDzGlGBuc35Zvu

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45034092

Trump claims Americans need ID to go shopping

US President Donald Trump has been accused of being out of touch with voters after saying Americans need identification to go shopping . At a rally in Tampa , Florida , he said : `` You know , if you go out and you want to buy groceries , you need a picture on a card , you need ID . '' ID is not required at US supermarkets unless for buying alcohol or , in some cases , for credit card purchases . The Republican president was arguing for tougher ID checks on voters . `` You go out and you want to buy anything , you need ID and you need your picture , '' he told the crowd at the `` Make America Great Again '' rally on Tuesday night . `` In this country , the only time you do n't need it in many cases is when you want to vote for a president , when you want to vote for a senator , when you want to vote for a governor or a congressman . It is not known when the president last went to a supermarket . CNN journalist Jim Acosta tweeted : `` Trump out of touch here ... you do n't need an ID to buy groceries . '' Acosta was later heckled live on air by Trump supporters who shouted `` liar '' and `` CNN sucks '' . The presenter tweeted a clip , which contains strong language . A Texas Democrat , Carol Alvarado , was among those who took a jab at the president . At Wednesday 's White House news conference , a reporter asked about Mr Trump 's remark , adding that she had never had to present identification at a supermarket . Press secretary Sarah Sanders said : `` Certainly if you go to a grocery store and you buy beer and wine you 're going to show your ID . '' Being seen as out of touch with ordinary Americans has caused embarrassment for other US politicians . In 1992 , President George H W Bush was ridiculed after he expressed amazement at a supermarket scanner while attending a grocers ' convention . But the White House said Mr Bush was merely impressed the machine could read damaged labels . Hillary Clinton was mocked for revealing in 2014 that she had not driven a car for nearly two decades . Barack Obama provoked scorn in 2007 when he tried to relate with Iowa farmers by saying : `` Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula ? '' `` They just came out with a poll , did you hear ? The most popular person in the history of the Republican party is Trump ! '' Mr Trump has a popularity rate in the party of about 87 % , which is historically high compared to predecessors at this point in the presidency . But it 's not the highest , and his repeated claim to be more popular than Abraham Lincoln ca n't be confirmed since there were no scientific polls back then . Mr Trump has asked for $ 25bn for his key campaign promise , a wall on the southern border . But he has only secured $ 1.5bn and that must only be spent on existing barriers , not new ones . This week he said he was prepared to shut down the government to get the cash . `` By the way , outside , if you want to go , we set up for the first time a tremendous movie screen , because we have thousands and thousands of people outside that could n't get in . '' A BBC team at the rally said they did not see any big screens outside . And a Tampa Bay Times reporter said the same .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Donald Trump isn't the first politician to find himself out of touch US President Donald Trump has been accused of being out of touch with voters after saying Americans need identification to go shopping. At a rally in Tampa, Florida, he said: "You know, if you go out and you want to buy groceries, you need a picture on a card, you need ID." ID is not required at US supermarkets unless for buying alcohol or, in some cases, for credit card purchases. The Republican president was arguing for tougher ID checks on voters. "You go out and you want to buy anything, you need ID and you need your picture," he told the crowd at the "Make America Great Again" rally on Tuesday night. "In this country, the only time you don't need it in many cases is when you want to vote for a president, when you want to vote for a senator, when you want to vote for a governor or a congressman. "It's crazy. It's crazy. But we're turning it around." It is not known when the president last went to a supermarket. CNN journalist Jim Acosta tweeted: "Trump out of touch here... you don't need an ID to buy groceries." Acosta was later heckled live on air by Trump supporters who shouted "liar" and "CNN sucks". The presenter tweeted a clip, which contains strong language. A Texas Democrat, Carol Alvarado, was among those who took a jab at the president. At Wednesday's White House news conference, a reporter asked about Mr Trump's remark, adding that she had never had to present identification at a supermarket. Press secretary Sarah Sanders said: "Certainly if you go to a grocery store and you buy beer and wine you're going to show your ID." Being seen as out of touch with ordinary Americans has caused embarrassment for other US politicians. In 1992, President George H W Bush was ridiculed after he expressed amazement at a supermarket scanner while attending a grocers' convention. But the White House said Mr Bush was merely impressed the machine could read damaged labels. Hillary Clinton was mocked for revealing in 2014 that she had not driven a car for nearly two decades. Barack Obama provoked scorn in 2007 when he tried to relate with Iowa farmers by saying: "Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?" Other Trump quotes in Tampa, dissected "They just came out with a poll, did you hear? The most popular person in the history of the Republican party is Trump!" Mr Trump has a popularity rate in the party of about 87%, which is historically high compared to predecessors at this point in the presidency. But it's not the highest, and his repeated claim to be more popular than Abraham Lincoln can't be confirmed since there were no scientific polls back then. "We've started large portions of the wall." Mr Trump has asked for $25bn for his key campaign promise, a wall on the southern border. But he has only secured $1.5bn and that must only be spent on existing barriers, not new ones. This week he said he was prepared to shut down the government to get the cash. "By the way, outside, if you want to go, we set up for the first time a tremendous movie screen, because we have thousands and thousands of people outside that couldn't get in." A BBC team at the rally said they did not see any big screens outside. And a Tampa Bay Times reporter said the same. Meanwhile, Twitter users suggested names for Trump-branded grocery stores.

www.bbc.com

center

o5yDzGlGBuc35Zvu

test

UBhLssPYbU2vImP0

justice_department

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/12/collins-says-irs-revelations-will-fuel-government-distrust/?hpt=po_c1

Collins says IRS revelations will fuel government distrust

2013-05-12

( CNN ) – President Barack Obama should personally condemn the Internal Revenue Service for putting extra scrutiny on conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status , Sen. Susan Collins said Sunday . The Maine Republican said the disclosure that a government agency would go after groups with `` tea party '' or `` patriot '' in their names would only add to a growing sense of mistrust Americans have in their government . She was one of a number of Republicans who blasted the IRS on Sunday 's talk shows . `` This is truly outrageous . And it contributes to the profound distrust that the American people have in government . It is absolutely chilling that the IRS was singling out conservative groups for extra review . And I think that it 's very disappointing that the president has n't personally condemned this and spoken out , '' Collins told CNN chief political correspondent Candy Crowley on `` State of the Union . '' Obama spokesman Jay Carney said Saturday the president believes the government should be staffed with `` the very best public servants with the highest levels of integrity '' and that `` based on recent media reports , ( the president ) is concerned that the conduct of a small number of Internal Revenue Service employees may have fallen short of that standard . '' That does n't go far enough for Collins , who said `` the president needs to make crystal clear that this is totally unacceptable in America . '' Rep. Mike Rogers , who chairs the House Intelligence Committee , called for a full investigation of the IRS ' practices , something Republicans and Democrats have said is necessary after learning of the conservative targeting . `` I do n't care if you 're a conservative , a liberal , a Democrat or a Republican , this should send a chill up your spine , '' Rogers said on `` Fox News Sunday . '' A congressional investigation would probe who knew what and when , Rep. Darrell Issa told CNN Sunday . Issa is the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight . `` The fact is if you 're doing something and it 's wrong , it 's illegal , it 's the kind of thing that scares the American people to their core , when Americans are being targeted for audits based on their political beliefs , that needs to change , '' he said . Collins questioned the IRS assertion that only a small group of its employees were responsible for the targeting of conservative groups , and wondered why a similar screening process was n't established for groups with `` progressive '' in their names . And she pointed to new reports indicating senior IRS officials were aware of the targeting of conservative groups beginning in 2011 , saying those officials should have taken disciplinary action against the employees involved . `` You would think that the high level IRS supervisors would have rushed to make this public , fired the employees involved and apologize to the American people and informed Congress . None of that happened in a timely way , '' she said .

7 years ago (CNN) – President Barack Obama should personally condemn the Internal Revenue Service for putting extra scrutiny on conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, Sen. Susan Collins said Sunday. The Maine Republican said the disclosure that a government agency would go after groups with "tea party" or "patriot" in their names would only add to a growing sense of mistrust Americans have in their government. She was one of a number of Republicans who blasted the IRS on Sunday's talk shows. "This is truly outrageous. And it contributes to the profound distrust that the American people have in government. It is absolutely chilling that the IRS was singling out conservative groups for extra review. And I think that it's very disappointing that the president hasn't personally condemned this and spoken out," Collins told CNN chief political correspondent Candy Crowley on "State of the Union." Obama spokesman Jay Carney said Saturday the president believes the government should be staffed with "the very best public servants with the highest levels of integrity" and that "based on recent media reports, (the president) is concerned that the conduct of a small number of Internal Revenue Service employees may have fallen short of that standard." That doesn't go far enough for Collins, who said "the president needs to make crystal clear that this is totally unacceptable in America." Rep. Mike Rogers, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, called for a full investigation of the IRS' practices, something Republicans and Democrats have said is necessary after learning of the conservative targeting. "I don't care if you're a conservative, a liberal, a Democrat or a Republican, this should send a chill up your spine," Rogers said on "Fox News Sunday." A congressional investigation would probe who knew what and when, Rep. Darrell Issa told CNN Sunday. Issa is the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight. "The fact is if you're doing something and it's wrong, it's illegal, it's the kind of thing that scares the American people to their core, when Americans are being targeted for audits based on their political beliefs, that needs to change," he said. Collins questioned the IRS assertion that only a small group of its employees were responsible for the targeting of conservative groups, and wondered why a similar screening process wasn't established for groups with "progressive" in their names. And she pointed to new reports indicating senior IRS officials were aware of the targeting of conservative groups beginning in 2011, saying those officials should have taken disciplinary action against the employees involved. "You would think that the high level IRS supervisors would have rushed to make this public, fired the employees involved and apologize to the American people and informed Congress. None of that happened in a timely way," she said.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

UBhLssPYbU2vImP0

test

juaTyVcSvgr0N5bC

race_and_racism

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/06/01/riots-may-be-destructive-but-abusive-policing-is-tyranny/

Riots May Be Destructive, but Abusive Policing Is Tyranny

2020-06-01

J.D. Tuccille, Liz Wolfe, Ronald Bailey, Matt Welch, Eugene Volokh, Jacob Sullum, Peter Suderman, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Eric Boehm

Since the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin—assisted by three murderously indifferent cop buddies—protests over abusive and lethal police conduct have spread across the country and turned destructive . Law-and-order types take that as an opening to shift the topic from the long , troubling history of law enforcement in this country to the excesses of the protesters . Conservative-populist pundit Tucker Carlson put the cherry on top of that tactic when he invoked the word `` tyranny '' and applied it not to government employees who deploy violence as a tool of first resort when terrorizing communities , but to those who turn violent in response . `` Rioting is a form of tyranny , '' Carlson said on his Fox News show . `` The strong and the violent oppress the weak and the unarmed . It is oppression . '' Ironically , Carlson illustrated his point with video of people attacking police cruisers of the sort driven by Officers Chauvin , Tou Thao , J Alexander Kueng , and Thomas K. Lane , all of whom had either pinned Floyd or held back concerned passersby attempting to intervene . Subsequently , the Minneapolis Police Department abandoned the besieged Third Precinct building where the four officers worked and it was rapidly set ablaze by an angry crowd . None of that seems like `` tyranny '' so much as it looks like violent pushback from members of the public tired of being tyrannized by abusive government enforcers who have a reputation for specifically targeting African Americans . It more closely resembled the 1854 attempted storming of the federal courthouse in Boston to free escaped slave Anthony Burns—during which a U.S. marshal was killed—than it did an exercise in oppression . That 's not to say all , or even the majority , of the crowd 's ire in Minneapolis and elsewhere has been focused on cop cars and government buildings . Grocery stores have been torched , pawn shops smashed , pharmacies looted , private cars and residential buildings destroyed . These all represent significant investments and , often , needed sources of income for their owners . None of those owners had anything to do with the killing of George Floyd , and many of them are horrified by the incident and support the protests . But protests are n't directed by mass minds , and their participants often have conflicting priorities and agendas . Some of the more violent rioters are opportunists , often traveling from elsewhere with their own missions . `` People from all corners of the country representing a patchwork of ideologies—some extreme—have increasingly turned up as the protests have grown in size and level of violence , '' reports the Minneapolis Star-Tribune . `` Hennepin County jail logs showed arrests of people coming from Michigan , Missouri , Illinois and Florida . One suspect from Alaska had bragged online of coming to the protest with Molotov cocktails . '' In response to the violence , some protesters have stepped in to protect businesses against others who are less discriminating in their anger , or who just want to steal and smash . That has n't been enough , though . Shopkeepers and property owners—many of them part of communities that have been targeted by the police—have had to take matters into their own hands to protect what belongs to them . They have every right to do so , though it has n't been enough to prevent widespread damage and loss . When the local hotheads and riot tourists are done doing their worst , they 'll leave in their wake damaged neighborhoods with fewer jobs , businesses , and opportunities for buying and selling goods and services . Stores economically hobbled by the pandemic lockdowns and by voluntary decisions regarding social distancing and tighter family budgets will be less likely to rebuild than they might be in normal times . As a result , communities protesting abusive police conduct and racist policing will be even more dependent on the government that employs those police . That will deprive them of a measure of the leverage they need to force changes in the way the powers-that-be govern and enforce their will . That 's a shame , because there 's a real problem in Minneapolis and elsewhere with the spiderweb of laws in which we 're ensnared and the selective ways in which they are enforced . `` Black people were 8.7 times more likely than white people to be arrested for a low-level offense—any offense with a fine of $ 3,000 or less and/or a year or less in jail , '' the American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU ) of Minnesota found in 2015 . `` Native Americans were 8.6 times more likely than white people to be arrested for such offenses . '' The ACLU attributed the problem to both racial disparities and overcriminalization . For starters , there are too many bullshit excuses for hassling people ; 70 percent of the low-level charges described by the ACLU involve such offenses as expired boat registration , no proof of car insurance , selling liquor without a license , littering , disorderly conduct , consuming in public , interfering with pedestrian traffic , loitering with intent to commit a narcotics offense , drug paraphernalia , truancy , and curfew violations . With such excuses in hand , some police officers are then prone to disproportionately wield their power against people they do n't like , such as members of minority groups . A multitude of laws enforced selectively is a national problem . `` On the opening day of law school , I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce , '' Yale Law School 's Stephen L. Carter wrote in 2014 after New York City cops killed Eric Garner during a confrontation rooted in suspicion that he was illegally selling loose cigarettes . `` I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state , and if you resist , they might kill you . '' Whether death , or injury , or loss of liberty is the final result , the victims of a plague of laws and their enforcement might be anybody ; the March killing of Duncan Lemp , who was white , by police in Montgomery County , Maryland excited anger and threats to arrest his family for protesting . But African-Americans notice that an awful lot of the victims of abusive policing look like Breonna Taylor , or Charles Kinsey , or Philando Castile , or George Floyd—black like them , or otherwise members of groups that often get the short end of the stick when it comes to law enforcement . `` Police arrested 40 people for social-distancing violations from March 17 through May 4 , '' The New York Times reported last month . `` Of those arrested , 35 people were black , four were Hispanic and one was white . '' Nobody was killed , fortunately , but some were punched or knocked to the ground . And while the arrests did provoke anger , no violence beyond the arrests themselves resulted . When aimed at individuals and private property that have nothing to do with governing institutions or law enforcement , riots are certainly destructive , and counterproductive , and flat-out wrong , but they 're not `` tyranny , '' as Tucker Carlson and company would have it . That word—tyranny—should be reserved for governments that over-govern and over-police their subjects until they elicit rage .

Since the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin—assisted by three murderously indifferent cop buddies—protests over abusive and lethal police conduct have spread across the country and turned destructive. Law-and-order types take that as an opening to shift the topic from the long, troubling history of law enforcement in this country to the excesses of the protesters. Conservative-populist pundit Tucker Carlson put the cherry on top of that tactic when he invoked the word "tyranny" and applied it not to government employees who deploy violence as a tool of first resort when terrorizing communities, but to those who turn violent in response. "Rioting is a form of tyranny," Carlson said on his Fox News show. "The strong and the violent oppress the weak and the unarmed. It is oppression." Ironically, Carlson illustrated his point with video of people attacking police cruisers of the sort driven by Officers Chauvin, Tou Thao, J Alexander Kueng, and Thomas K. Lane, all of whom had either pinned Floyd or held back concerned passersby attempting to intervene. Subsequently, the Minneapolis Police Department abandoned the besieged Third Precinct building where the four officers worked and it was rapidly set ablaze by an angry crowd. None of that seems like "tyranny" so much as it looks like violent pushback from members of the public tired of being tyrannized by abusive government enforcers who have a reputation for specifically targeting African Americans. It more closely resembled the 1854 attempted storming of the federal courthouse in Boston to free escaped slave Anthony Burns—during which a U.S. marshal was killed—than it did an exercise in oppression. That's not to say all, or even the majority, of the crowd's ire in Minneapolis and elsewhere has been focused on cop cars and government buildings. Grocery stores have been torched, pawn shops smashed, pharmacies looted, private cars and residential buildings destroyed. These all represent significant investments and, often, needed sources of income for their owners. None of those owners had anything to do with the killing of George Floyd, and many of them are horrified by the incident and support the protests. But protests aren't directed by mass minds, and their participants often have conflicting priorities and agendas. Some of the more violent rioters are opportunists, often traveling from elsewhere with their own missions. "People from all corners of the country representing a patchwork of ideologies—some extreme—have increasingly turned up as the protests have grown in size and level of violence," reports the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. "Hennepin County jail logs showed arrests of people coming from Michigan, Missouri, Illinois and Florida. One suspect from Alaska had bragged online of coming to the protest with Molotov cocktails." In response to the violence, some protesters have stepped in to protect businesses against others who are less discriminating in their anger, or who just want to steal and smash. That hasn't been enough, though. Shopkeepers and property owners—many of them part of communities that have been targeted by the police—have had to take matters into their own hands to protect what belongs to them. They have every right to do so, though it hasn't been enough to prevent widespread damage and loss. When the local hotheads and riot tourists are done doing their worst, they'll leave in their wake damaged neighborhoods with fewer jobs, businesses, and opportunities for buying and selling goods and services. Stores economically hobbled by the pandemic lockdowns and by voluntary decisions regarding social distancing and tighter family budgets will be less likely to rebuild than they might be in normal times. As a result, communities protesting abusive police conduct and racist policing will be even more dependent on the government that employs those police. That will deprive them of a measure of the leverage they need to force changes in the way the powers-that-be govern and enforce their will. That's a shame, because there's a real problem in Minneapolis and elsewhere with the spiderweb of laws in which we're ensnared and the selective ways in which they are enforced. "Black people were 8.7 times more likely than white people to be arrested for a low-level offense—any offense with a fine of $3,000 or less and/or a year or less in jail," the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Minnesota found in 2015. "Native Americans were 8.6 times more likely than white people to be arrested for such offenses." The ACLU attributed the problem to both racial disparities and overcriminalization. For starters, there are too many bullshit excuses for hassling people; 70 percent of the low-level charges described by the ACLU involve such offenses as expired boat registration, no proof of car insurance, selling liquor without a license, littering, disorderly conduct, consuming in public, interfering with pedestrian traffic, loitering with intent to commit a narcotics offense, drug paraphernalia, truancy, and curfew violations. With such excuses in hand, some police officers are then prone to disproportionately wield their power against people they don't like, such as members of minority groups. A multitude of laws enforced selectively is a national problem. "On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce," Yale Law School's Stephen L. Carter wrote in 2014 after New York City cops killed Eric Garner during a confrontation rooted in suspicion that he was illegally selling loose cigarettes. "I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you." Whether death, or injury, or loss of liberty is the final result, the victims of a plague of laws and their enforcement might be anybody; the March killing of Duncan Lemp, who was white, by police in Montgomery County, Maryland excited anger and threats to arrest his family for protesting. But African-Americans notice that an awful lot of the victims of abusive policing look like Breonna Taylor, or Charles Kinsey, or Philando Castile, or George Floyd—black like them, or otherwise members of groups that often get the short end of the stick when it comes to law enforcement. "Police arrested 40 people for social-distancing violations from March 17 through May 4," The New York Times reported last month. "Of those arrested, 35 people were black, four were Hispanic and one was white." Nobody was killed, fortunately, but some were punched or knocked to the ground. And while the arrests did provoke anger, no violence beyond the arrests themselves resulted. But everybody has a breaking point. When aimed at individuals and private property that have nothing to do with governing institutions or law enforcement, riots are certainly destructive, and counterproductive, and flat-out wrong, but they're not "tyranny," as Tucker Carlson and company would have it. That word—tyranny—should be reserved for governments that over-govern and over-police their subjects until they elicit rage.

www.reason.com

right

juaTyVcSvgr0N5bC

test

CttJ563wmqdbbjAG

media_bias

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2017/september/news-media-gone-wild-these-4-examples-show-trump-trashing-is-their-favorite-hobby

News Media Gone Wild: These 4 Examples Show Trump-Trashing Is Their Favorite Hobby

2017-09-12

You may have thought the mainstream news media 's coverage of President Trump was already negative , but it became even more so during the summer months . The Media Research Center ( MRC ) has released a new study showing coverage of Trump and his administration by the mainstream news media has been 91 percent negative since June 1st . `` Worse than the astounding 89 percent negative spin we calculated during the first three months of the administration , '' stated MRC Research Director Rich Noyes . Four topics took up more than half the time spent on the ABC , CBS and NBC evening news coverage of the president . The Russian `` collusion '' allegations , got some 415 minutes of coverage , 94 percent of it negative . The battle over Obamacare repeal took up 176 minutes and was 97 percent negative . The feud with North Korea landed 136 minutes of coverage with 86 percent of it negative . President Trump 's response to the violence in Charlottesville , Virginia . It received 97 minutes of coverage , 97 percent of it negative . Noyes stated , `` Analyzing the networks ' spin makes it clear that the goal of all this heavy coverage is not to promote the president , but to punish him . '' And MRC points out that on a recent installment of MSNBC 's Morning Joe , political analyst Mark Halperin admitted that Trump can get better coverage from the news media if he starts complying with their liberal agenda . `` This will get good coverage if he works with Democrats for as far as the eye can see . It will produce more liberal policies , which a lot of people in the media like , '' Halperin said . Meanwhile , the mainstream news media also appears much more obsessed with coverage of the present commander-in-chief as opposed to his predecessor . Coverage of the Trump administration has eaten up almost 39 percent of the evening NBC , CBS and ABC newscasts . The entire last two years of the Obama administration took up only 10 percent of those broadcasts ' time . Check out our ███ News interview with President Trump 's daughter-in-law below : Lara Trump on Media Bias , 'Real News , ' and the President Trump She Knows

You may have thought the mainstream news media's coverage of President Trump was already negative, but it became even more so during the summer months. The Media Research Center (MRC) has released a new study showing coverage of Trump and his administration by the mainstream news media has been 91 percent negative since June 1st. "Worse than the astounding 89 percent negative spin we calculated during the first three months of the administration," stated MRC Research Director Rich Noyes. Four topics took up more than half the time spent on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening news coverage of the president. The Russian "collusion" allegations, got some 415 minutes of coverage, 94 percent of it negative. The battle over Obamacare repeal took up 176 minutes and was 97 percent negative. The feud with North Korea landed 136 minutes of coverage with 86 percent of it negative. President Trump's response to the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia. It received 97 minutes of coverage, 97 percent of it negative. Noyes stated, "Analyzing the networks' spin makes it clear that the goal of all this heavy coverage is not to promote the president, but to punish him." And MRC points out that on a recent installment of MSNBC's Morning Joe, political analyst Mark Halperin admitted that Trump can get better coverage from the news media if he starts complying with their liberal agenda. "This will get good coverage if he works with Democrats for as far as the eye can see. It will produce more liberal policies, which a lot of people in the media like," Halperin said. Meanwhile, the mainstream news media also appears much more obsessed with coverage of the present commander-in-chief as opposed to his predecessor. Coverage of the Trump administration has eaten up almost 39 percent of the evening NBC, CBS and ABC newscasts. The entire last two years of the Obama administration took up only 10 percent of those broadcasts' time. Check out our CBN News interview with President Trump's daughter-in-law below: Lara Trump on Media Bias, 'Real News,' and the President Trump She Knows

www1.cbn.com

right

CttJ563wmqdbbjAG

test

7j0cbYkPCBgxGAlT

education

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/12/06/Jeb-Bush-s-Education-Reform-Empire

Jeb Bush's "Education Reform" Empire

2014-12-06

Dr. Susan Berry

This past week , possible GOP 2016 presidential contender Jeb Bush doubled down on his support for the Common Core standards , scolding conservative critics of the controversial education reform by stating that he had “ lost patience ” with them and telling them they were not needed by moderate Republicans to win the White House . With polls showing Republican support for Common Core plummeting , common sense would dictate that Bush call it a day with the nationalized standards , as has been done by other Republicans , such as Maine Gov . Paul LePage and U.S. Sen. David Vitter , who plans to run for governor of Louisiana next year . However , as a review of Bush ’ s history with the education initiative demonstrates , his interest in pushing onto the entire nation the reforms he introduced while governor of Florida – and his methods for doing so – have led his critics to claim he is more about big government crony capitalism than concern for children ’ s education . Bush is the founder of several organizations that all play into a reported strategy that involves not only motivating “ the people ” at large for changes in education , but also using state education officials to administratively make some of those changes happen without the scrutiny or approval of the public . As the founder and chairman of the Foundation for Excellence in Education ( FEE ) , a national group which states its ambitious mission is “ to build an American education system that equips every child to achieve his or her God-given potential , ” Bush tapped for CEO Patricia Levesque , his former deputy chief of staff for education , enterprise solutions for government , minority procurement , and business and professional regulation while he was governor . Chiefs for Change is an affiliate of FEE and describes itself as a “ bipartisan coalition of current and former state education chiefs who believe that American public education can be dramatically improved. ” Current members of Chiefs for Change include Mark Murphy of Delaware , Tom Luna of Idaho , John White of Louisiana , Hanna Skandera of New Mexico , Janet Barresi of Oklahoma – who was defeated in the state ’ s primary election this year , Deborah Gist of Rhode Island , and Kevin Huffman of Tennessee , former education commissioner and ex-husband of controversial Washington , D.C. , schools chancellor Michelle Rhee . Tony Bennett , the former Florida commissioner of education , who obtained that position after Indiana voters rejected his Bush-promoted reforms , is listed as a “ member emeritus ” of Chiefs for Change . As reported by conservative writer Michelle Malkin last year , Bennett stepped down from his Florida post in August of 2013 after the Associated Press reported he had interfered in charter school accountability ratings – better known as “ grade-fixing ” – in Indiana in the fall of the prior year . Malkin noted that mega-GOP donor Christel DeHaan , founder of DeHaan ’ s Christel House Academy charter school , benefited from Bennett ’ s maneuver that magically turned his charter school from a “ C ” to an “ A ” grade rating , despite abysmal math scores . As it happens , some of the Chiefs for Change are also members of the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers ( PARCC ) , one of the two federally funded interstate consortia that are developing tests aligned with the Common Core standards . “ Cronyism and corruption come in all political stripes and colors , ” wrote Malkin at Townhall . “ As a conservative parent of public charter school-educated children , I am especially appalled by these pocket-lining GOP elites who are giving grassroots education reformers a bad name and cashing in on their betrayal of limited-government principles . ” Bush is also the founder and chairman of Foundation for Florida ’ s Future , a statewide group that says its mission is to “ make Florida ’ s education system a model for the nation . ” Those familiar with Common Core will note that FEE ’ s “ reform agenda ” includes college and career readiness ; digital learning ; effective teachers and leaders – a goal that observes the need to eliminate tenure and utilize student assessments to determine teacher performance ratings ; K-3 reading assessments ; outcome-based funding ; school choice ; standards and accountability – which includes “ high academic standards with their progress measured , ” and grading schools on an A-F scale . Not surprisingly , the reform agenda for Foundation for Florida ’ s Future is nearly identical to that of FEE . Additionally , Bush has joined with former president of the pro-Common Core Fordham Institute Chester Finn and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Conservatives for Higher Standards , a group that promotes the Common Core standards but whose supporters still call themselves “ conservatives. ” Among the organization ’ s supporters are Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-TN ) , soon-to-be head of the Senate committee that oversees education ; former Mississippi Gov . Haley Barbour ( R ) ; former U.S. Secretary of Education Bill Bennett ; Iowa Gov . Terry Branstad ( R ) ; Tennessee Gov . Bill Haslam ( R ) ; former Arkansas Gov . Mike Huckabee ( R ) ; and New Mexico Gov . Susana Martinez ( R ) . The Fordham Institute , the U.S. Chamber of Commerce , and Bush ’ s national organization have all been awarded grants by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation , the primary private backer of the Common Core standards . In 2013 , Bush ’ s FEE itself received $ 3,500,000 from the Gates Foundation . Two million dollars of that was awarded to FEE “ to support Common Core implementation , ” and $ 1.5 million was “ for general operating support . ” In 2012 , FEE received $ 151,068 from Gates , essentially for PR funding “ to complete a statewide communications campaign in Florida delivering the message on why there is a drop in school grades , why it is temporary , and how raising the bar on education standards leads to greater student success . ” The year before saw a $ 1 million grant from Gates , once again “ for general operating support , ” and in 2010 , FEE was awarded $ 501,485 “ to launch the Digital Learning Council in an effort to bring digital learning to every school , every classroom , and every child . ” In addition to the Gates Foundation , FEE ’ s donor list includes names not unfamiliar to critics of the Common Core standards : the GE Foundation , the Helmsley Charitable Trust , News Corp , the Walton Family Foundation , Bloomberg Philanthropies , Carnegie Corporation , the Schwab Foundation , Microsoft , Exxon Mobil , Paul Singer Foundation , Houghton Mifflin Harcourt , Intel , K12 , Pearson , Scholastic , and Target . Book publishers such as Pearson , Houghton Mifflin Harcourt , K12 , and Scholastic are all poised to reap billions off the sale of Common Core-aligned textbooks and instructional materials that school districts are forced to purchase if they want their students to succeed on the Common Core-aligned assessments . Similarly , technology companies will benefit from the online assessments and student data collection . As the Tampa Bay Times reported in May , the potential market for textbooks and instructional materials required for Common Core is as much as $ 8 billion , according to the Fordham Institute . FEE ’ s board of directors includes Joel Klein , former New York City schools chancellor , and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice . Klein is now the CEO of Amplify , a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch ’ s News Corp . In January of 2013 , In the Public Interest , a project of labor advocacy group The Partnership for Working Families , published a press release in which it revealed emails between FEE and state education officials . The release stated the emails – all available for viewing and obtained through public records requests – demonstrate FEE was “ writing state education laws and regulations in ways that could benefit its corporate funders . ” In the Public Interest claimed that FEE , sometimes working though its affiliate Chiefs for Change , “ wrote and edited laws , regulations and executive orders , often in ways that improved profit opportunities for the organization ’ s financial backers . ” Correspondence between FEE and state education officials from Rhode Island , Oklahoma , New Mexico , Maine , Louisiana , and Florida revealed several findings , though it ’ s important to remember the source is a labor advocacy group whose goal is to keep teachers in jobs and funding flowing to public schools . In New Mexico , In the Public Interest found FEE to have “ acted as a broker to organize meetings between its corporate donors and individual Chiefs , ” while in Florida , emails showed Bush ’ s organization helped to write legislation that would increase the use of a proprietary test – the FCAT – under contract to mega publisher Pearson . Maine ’ s legislature and governor , through executive order , approved FEE ’ s agenda , removing barriers to online education and , as In the Public Interest notes disapprovingly , “ allowing public dollars to flow to online schools and classes , ” and blocking the “ ability of local school districts to limit access to virtual schools . ” The project group observes also that , in the emails , Levesque called upon state officials , such as state Superintendent Barresi of Oklahoma , to introduce SendHub , a communications technology tool , into the schools in their respective states . However , as Techcrunch reported in October of 2012 , Bush was an investor in SendHub : SendHub , the messaging startup backed by $ 2 million in seed funding from Y Combinator , Kapor Capital , Menlo Ventures , 500 Startups and others , is today announcing a highly in-demand new feature with the launch of Shared Groups , as well as a notable new investor : Jeb Bush , 43rd Governor of Florida . This is the first startup investment for the former Republican governor , and one which saw the politician approaching SendHub , instead of the other way around . The report states that Garrett Johnson , who founded SendHub with Ash Rust in 2011 , “ first got his start in politics working for Bush and still serves on the board of one of Bush ’ s foundations , ” a reference to Foundation for Florida ’ s Future . Johnson reportedly sent Bush an article about SendHub , and Bush responded with whether there was an opportunity to invest . The amount of Bush ’ s investment was undisclosed , but “ in the five-figure range – neither at the low end or the high-end of the spectrum . ” It ’ s somewhat unusual to see politicians playing the role of investor in early stage startups , but in Florida , area leaders have been pushing to see how the state can harness startup momentum to create jobs and boost the economy . There are even a couple of members in Florida ’ s legislature who have launched startups , Johnson points out . Levesque sent an email about SendHub to the Chiefs . Note her “ full disclosure ” is not quite so “ full ” : Dear Chiefs for Change , If you have anyone on your agency staff who is assigned to provide assistance/support/communications for teachers in your state , please share this new service with them so they can share with your teachers . SendHub is a new mobile messaging system that will allow teachers to have easier , more effective communications with their students and parents . The system is free for teachers . Beauty of the system is that teachers will not have to give out their personal cell numbers to students/parents , but instead can get a free SendHub number that can be used for texting and/or voice communication… Patricia p.s . full disclosure , I know the creator of the system . Fine young man , FSU student , Rhodes scholar . He designed the system to help the teachers at his nephew ’ s charter school . Bush ’ s interest in expanding his education empire came under recent scrutiny in September , when the St. Augustine Record reported that the St. John ’ s County School District found numerous “ errors ” in the charter application of New World Academy . “ I think we identified a number of errors in the application because it was a generic application that was applied to seven different districts , ” said Tim Egnor , executive director for curriculum services for the district . “ The numbers for enrollment didn ’ t make sense , the budget aspects didn ’ t make sense , and so now we see that those projections were probably for larger counties . ” Additionally , district officials questioned a possible conflict of interest with corporations that were involved in New World Academy ’ s application process . Ultimately , the officials were unsure of who was backing the charter school ’ s application . According to the Record , Stephanie Velez , manager of operations for InterVisual Technology , had been appointed a board member of New World : InterVisual Technology is the parent company of InterVisual Education , which founded the iGeneration Empowerment Academy in Palm Beach County . The charter opened 11 days after the start of the 2013-2014 academic year and was shut down shortly thereafter . Representatives for New World said Scholastic Ventures Management Services , a Georgia-based company incorporated in July , would be the executive management office of the charter . Dana Williams , a board member for the academy , said Scholastic Ventures had gone through a series of different names and that it was finalized with the completion of the application , submitted to the district on Aug. 4 . GlobeNewswire reported in February of 2013 that RVPlus , Inc. , a holding company of ECCO2 Tech , a global green energy group , would partner with InterVisual Technology to expand the Liberia Institute for Global Studies ( LINGS ) , a green education program , throughout Africa , Micronesia , Asia , West Indies , and Latin America . According to GlobeNewswire , “ The projected sales revenue to be generated from the partnership with Intervisual Technology are in the billions due to eligible grants and debt financing from United Nations financial aid partners , who are encouraging the new addition to the ECCO2 Civil Society Programme . ” “ This deal has been in talks and in works for almost two years , ” RVPlus CEO Cary Lee Peterson said . “ There was much to negotiate and comprehend in the development stages of this engagement but I think now is the perfect opportunity to take our ideas into action to help educating the youth that will be taking care of the planet thirty to forty years from now , and generations to follow . ” Intervisual Technology ( “ IVTI ” ) , is an nationally accredited private school based in Florida with a physical campus , American High School located in Fort Lauderdale , engaging in educational services by physical and virtual classes for grade levels 6 to 12 , which offer cost effective solutions to students and school districts globally . IVTI has a current attendance of over 2,000 students that are located within the continental US and Hawaii , in addition to international programs operating in Africa and China . The company has projected sales revenue of over $ 10 million for 2013 from local , state , and federal contracts and is a women-owned business established in 2007 by founder and CEO , Dana Williams , inclusive to possessing several high profile supporters and board advisors such as John Ellis “ Jeb ” Bush , Jr. , who have enabled the school to establish robust business relationships and networks for investment and real estate opportunities . Jeb Bush , Jr. , the Governor ’ s son , is chief operating officer at Jeb Bush & Associates and president of Bush Reality , LLC . “ Bush is also on the board of Intervisual , a blended charter school in Florida , Texas and Arizona , ” his bio states , “ a regional board member of the Hispanic Business Initiative Fund ( HBIF ) and a board member of the national Immigration Forum in Washington , D.C . ”

This past week, possible GOP 2016 presidential contender Jeb Bush doubled down on his support for the Common Core standards, scolding conservative critics of the controversial education reform by stating that he had “lost patience” with them and telling them they were not needed by moderate Republicans to win the White House. With polls showing Republican support for Common Core plummeting, common sense would dictate that Bush call it a day with the nationalized standards, as has been done by other Republicans, such as Maine Gov. Paul LePage and U.S. Sen. David Vitter, who plans to run for governor of Louisiana next year. However, as a review of Bush’s history with the education initiative demonstrates, his interest in pushing onto the entire nation the reforms he introduced while governor of Florida – and his methods for doing so – have led his critics to claim he is more about big government crony capitalism than concern for children’s education. Bush is the founder of several organizations that all play into a reported strategy that involves not only motivating “the people” at large for changes in education, but also using state education officials to administratively make some of those changes happen without the scrutiny or approval of the public. As the founder and chairman of the Foundation for Excellence in Education (FEE), a national group which states its ambitious mission is “to build an American education system that equips every child to achieve his or her God-given potential,” Bush tapped for CEO Patricia Levesque, his former deputy chief of staff for education, enterprise solutions for government, minority procurement, and business and professional regulation while he was governor. Chiefs for Change is an affiliate of FEE and describes itself as a “bipartisan coalition of current and former state education chiefs who believe that American public education can be dramatically improved.” Current members of Chiefs for Change include Mark Murphy of Delaware, Tom Luna of Idaho, John White of Louisiana, Hanna Skandera of New Mexico, Janet Barresi of Oklahoma – who was defeated in the state’s primary election this year, Deborah Gist of Rhode Island, and Kevin Huffman of Tennessee, former education commissioner and ex-husband of controversial Washington, D.C., schools chancellor Michelle Rhee. Tony Bennett, the former Florida commissioner of education, who obtained that position after Indiana voters rejected his Bush-promoted reforms, is listed as a “member emeritus” of Chiefs for Change. As reported by conservative writer Michelle Malkin last year, Bennett stepped down from his Florida post in August of 2013 after the Associated Press reported he had interfered in charter school accountability ratings – better known as “grade-fixing” – in Indiana in the fall of the prior year. Malkin noted that mega-GOP donor Christel DeHaan, founder of DeHaan’s Christel House Academy charter school, benefited from Bennett’s maneuver that magically turned his charter school from a “C” to an “A” grade rating, despite abysmal math scores. As it happens, some of the Chiefs for Change are also members of the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), one of the two federally funded interstate consortia that are developing tests aligned with the Common Core standards. “Cronyism and corruption come in all political stripes and colors,” wrote Malkin at Townhall. “As a conservative parent of public charter school-educated children, I am especially appalled by these pocket-lining GOP elites who are giving grassroots education reformers a bad name and cashing in on their betrayal of limited-government principles.” Bush is also the founder and chairman of Foundation for Florida’s Future, a statewide group that says its mission is to “make Florida’s education system a model for the nation.” Those familiar with Common Core will note that FEE’s “reform agenda” includes college and career readiness; digital learning; effective teachers and leaders – a goal that observes the need to eliminate tenure and utilize student assessments to determine teacher performance ratings; K-3 reading assessments; outcome-based funding; school choice; standards and accountability – which includes “high academic standards with their progress measured,” and grading schools on an A-F scale. Not surprisingly, the reform agenda for Foundation for Florida’s Future is nearly identical to that of FEE. Additionally, Bush has joined with former president of the pro-Common Core Fordham Institute Chester Finn and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Conservatives for Higher Standards, a group that promotes the Common Core standards but whose supporters still call themselves “conservatives.” Among the organization’s supporters are Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), soon-to-be head of the Senate committee that oversees education; former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R); former U.S. Secretary of Education Bill Bennett; Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R); Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (R); former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R); and New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R). The Fordham Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Bush’s national organization have all been awarded grants by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the primary private backer of the Common Core standards. In 2013, Bush’s FEE itself received $3,500,000 from the Gates Foundation. Two million dollars of that was awarded to FEE “to support Common Core implementation,” and $1.5 million was “for general operating support.” In 2012, FEE received $151,068 from Gates, essentially for PR funding “to complete a statewide communications campaign in Florida delivering the message on why there is a drop in school grades, why it is temporary, and how raising the bar on education standards leads to greater student success.” The year before saw a $1 million grant from Gates, once again “for general operating support,” and in 2010, FEE was awarded $501,485 “to launch the Digital Learning Council in an effort to bring digital learning to every school, every classroom, and every child.” In addition to the Gates Foundation, FEE’s donor list includes names not unfamiliar to critics of the Common Core standards: the GE Foundation, the Helmsley Charitable Trust, News Corp, the Walton Family Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, Carnegie Corporation, the Schwab Foundation, Microsoft, Exxon Mobil, Paul Singer Foundation, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Intel, K12, Pearson, Scholastic, and Target. Book publishers such as Pearson, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, K12, and Scholastic are all poised to reap billions off the sale of Common Core-aligned textbooks and instructional materials that school districts are forced to purchase if they want their students to succeed on the Common Core-aligned assessments. Similarly, technology companies will benefit from the online assessments and student data collection. As the Tampa Bay Times reported in May, the potential market for textbooks and instructional materials required for Common Core is as much as $8 billion, according to the Fordham Institute. FEE’s board of directors includes Joel Klein, former New York City schools chancellor, and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Klein is now the CEO of Amplify, a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. In January of 2013, In the Public Interest, a project of labor advocacy group The Partnership for Working Families, published a press release in which it revealed emails between FEE and state education officials. The release stated the emails – all available for viewing and obtained through public records requests – demonstrate FEE was “writing state education laws and regulations in ways that could benefit its corporate funders.” In the Public Interest claimed that FEE, sometimes working though its affiliate Chiefs for Change, “wrote and edited laws, regulations and executive orders, often in ways that improved profit opportunities for the organization’s financial backers.” Correspondence between FEE and state education officials from Rhode Island, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Maine, Louisiana, and Florida revealed several findings, though it’s important to remember the source is a labor advocacy group whose goal is to keep teachers in jobs and funding flowing to public schools. In New Mexico, In the Public Interest found FEE to have “acted as a broker to organize meetings between its corporate donors and individual Chiefs,” while in Florida, emails showed Bush’s organization helped to write legislation that would increase the use of a proprietary test – the FCAT – under contract to mega publisher Pearson. Maine’s legislature and governor, through executive order, approved FEE’s agenda, removing barriers to online education and, as In the Public Interest notes disapprovingly, “allowing public dollars to flow to online schools and classes,” and blocking the “ability of local school districts to limit access to virtual schools.” The project group observes also that, in the emails, Levesque called upon state officials, such as state Superintendent Barresi of Oklahoma, to introduce SendHub, a communications technology tool, into the schools in their respective states. However, as Techcrunch reported in October of 2012, Bush was an investor in SendHub: SendHub, the messaging startup backed by $2 million in seed funding from Y Combinator, Kapor Capital, Menlo Ventures, 500 Startups and others, is today announcing a highly in-demand new feature with the launch of Shared Groups, as well as a notable new investor: Jeb Bush, 43rd Governor of Florida. This is the first startup investment for the former Republican governor, and one which saw the politician approaching SendHub, instead of the other way around. The report states that Garrett Johnson, who founded SendHub with Ash Rust in 2011, “first got his start in politics working for Bush and still serves on the board of one of Bush’s foundations,” a reference to Foundation for Florida’s Future. Johnson reportedly sent Bush an article about SendHub, and Bush responded with whether there was an opportunity to invest. The amount of Bush’s investment was undisclosed, but “in the five-figure range – neither at the low end or the high-end of the spectrum.” Techcrunch continued: It’s somewhat unusual to see politicians playing the role of investor in early stage startups, but in Florida, area leaders have been pushing to see how the state can harness startup momentum to create jobs and boost the economy. There are even a couple of members in Florida’s legislature who have launched startups, Johnson points out. Levesque sent an email about SendHub to the Chiefs. Note her “full disclosure” is not quite so “full”: Dear Chiefs for Change, If you have anyone on your agency staff who is assigned to provide assistance/support/communications for teachers in your state, please share this new service with them so they can share with your teachers. SendHub is a new mobile messaging system that will allow teachers to have easier, more effective communications with their students and parents. The system is free for teachers. Beauty of the system is that teachers will not have to give out their personal cell numbers to students/parents, but instead can get a free SendHub number that can be used for texting and/or voice communication… Patricia p.s. full disclosure, I know the creator of the system. Fine young man, FSU student, Rhodes scholar. He designed the system to help the teachers at his nephew’s charter school. Bush’s interest in expanding his education empire came under recent scrutiny in September, when the St. Augustine Record reported that the St. John’s County School District found numerous “errors” in the charter application of New World Academy. “I think we identified a number of errors in the application because it was a generic application that was applied to seven different districts,” said Tim Egnor, executive director for curriculum services for the district. “The numbers for enrollment didn’t make sense, the budget aspects didn’t make sense, and so now we see that those projections were probably for larger counties.” Additionally, district officials questioned a possible conflict of interest with corporations that were involved in New World Academy’s application process. Ultimately, the officials were unsure of who was backing the charter school’s application. According to the Record, Stephanie Velez, manager of operations for InterVisual Technology, had been appointed a board member of New World: InterVisual Technology is the parent company of InterVisual Education, which founded the iGeneration Empowerment Academy in Palm Beach County. The charter opened 11 days after the start of the 2013-2014 academic year and was shut down shortly thereafter. Representatives for New World said Scholastic Ventures Management Services, a Georgia-based company incorporated in July, would be the executive management office of the charter. Dana Williams, a board member for the academy, said Scholastic Ventures had gone through a series of different names and that it was finalized with the completion of the application, submitted to the district on Aug. 4. GlobeNewswire reported in February of 2013 that RVPlus, Inc., a holding company of ECCO2 Tech, a global green energy group, would partner with InterVisual Technology to expand the Liberia Institute for Global Studies (LINGS), a green education program, throughout Africa, Micronesia, Asia, West Indies, and Latin America. According to GlobeNewswire, “The projected sales revenue to be generated from the partnership with Intervisual Technology are in the billions due to eligible grants and debt financing from United Nations financial aid partners, who are encouraging the new addition to the ECCO2 Civil Society Programme.” “This deal has been in talks and in works for almost two years,” RVPlus CEO Cary Lee Peterson said. “There was much to negotiate and comprehend in the development stages of this engagement but I think now is the perfect opportunity to take our ideas into action to help educating the youth that will be taking care of the planet thirty to forty years from now, and generations to follow.” But who exactly is behind InterVisual Technology? GlobeNewswire continues: Intervisual Technology (“IVTI”), is an nationally accredited private school based in Florida with a physical campus, American High School located in Fort Lauderdale, engaging in educational services by physical and virtual classes for grade levels 6 to 12, which offer cost effective solutions to students and school districts globally. IVTI has a current attendance of over 2,000 students that are located within the continental US and Hawaii, in addition to international programs operating in Africa and China. The company has projected sales revenue of over $10 million for 2013 from local, state, and federal contracts and is a women-owned business established in 2007 by founder and CEO, Dana Williams, inclusive to possessing several high profile supporters and board advisors such as John Ellis “Jeb” Bush, Jr., who have enabled the school to establish robust business relationships and networks for investment and real estate opportunities. Jeb Bush, Jr., the Governor’s son, is chief operating officer at Jeb Bush & Associates and president of Bush Reality, LLC. “Bush is also on the board of Intervisual, a blended charter school in Florida, Texas and Arizona,” his bio states, “a regional board member of the Hispanic Business Initiative Fund (HBIF) and a board member of the national Immigration Forum in Washington, D.C.”

www.breitbart.com

right

7j0cbYkPCBgxGAlT

test

bwmKer7mB05ew5fU

education

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/01/06/umass-amherst-downfall-video-lowry-accounting/

UMass Amherst Removed a Professor for Showing a Downfall Hitler Parody Video

2020-01-06

Eugene Volokh, Jacob Sullum, Masha Abarinova, Keith E. Whittington, Zuri Davis, Matt Welch, Nick Gillespie

Catherine West Lowry is a senior lecturer at the University of Massachusetts Amherst . For the past 13 years , she has taught introductory accounting—a `` dry and difficult subject matter , '' in her words . To make the class more exciting , Lowry has for years let students make funny videos for extra credit . Some of these have been shown in class . A parody video from 2009 was particularly popular and has resurfaced in subsequent years . Last semester , when Lowry showed this specific video , many students laughed at it . But at least a few were offended and complained to the administration , which subsequently relieved Lowry of her teaching duties . The video in question is in the style of the popular Downfall parodies . Downfall , a 2004 German film that depicts the final days of Adolph Hitler and his inner circle , includes an extended scene of Hitler screaming at his subordinates that is rife for parody . People change the subtitles so that Hitler is ranting about something else : Here 's a meta example about the parodies themselves , and here 's one where Hitler realizes Pokemon are n't real . Lowry 's students made one where Hitler is enrolled in the course and receive a bad grade . Some of the humor may have crossed a line , in the eyes of a few students . At one point , the Hitler subtitle read : `` Do n't you dare finish that sentence or I 'll send you to a chamber . And it wo n't be the chamber of commerce . I can guarantee that . '' And yet `` there were people laughing , '' one student told The Chronicle of Higher Education . `` There were some people who were kind of indifferent . They did n't really care . There were some people that , like , you could tell they were a little bit uneasy about it . '' `` People sort of realized that that was a little over the top , maybe , for the classroom , '' said another . `` But generally , people laughed pretty hard at it [ the video ] . I certainly did . '' A second video—this one a parody of the 2018 song `` Bust Down Thotiana '' —also drew the attention of the administration . Dean Anne Massey removed Lowry from her teaching position and attended the class 's next session to inform students . Many took the news poorly , shouting `` bring back [ Lowry ] . '' They eventually walked out in protest . Massey did not immediately respond to a request for comment . A spokesperson for the university told the Chronicle that the video was objectively offensive , and had no place in the classroom . Lowry sent an email to students apologizing if any of them were offended . At the same time , she was surprised by the administration 's `` snap judgment '' that she could no longer teach her class : `` This was an educational opportunity at a major research university . It 's just unfortunate that the university did not take advantage of this educational opportunity . Instead , they chose to follow a punitive process , which does n't really help anybody , '' Lowry said . `` I could have easily dealt with this , if I had been afforded that opportunity . They made a snap judgment and really trampled the reasonable processes we have in place here . '' UMass Amherst is a public university , and punishing a professor for an attempt at humor raises some troubling First Amendment issues . The administration should correct course and reinstate Lowry . No one should be encouraging accounting professors to make their classes even more boring . ( ███ commenters once made a Downfall parody video at my expense , after I had forgotten to post the P.M . Links . I can no longer find the video , but if anyone manages to dig it up , please share . )

Catherine West Lowry is a senior lecturer at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. For the past 13 years, she has taught introductory accounting—a "dry and difficult subject matter," in her words. To make the class more exciting, Lowry has for years let students make funny videos for extra credit. Some of these have been shown in class. A parody video from 2009 was particularly popular and has resurfaced in subsequent years. Last semester, when Lowry showed this specific video, many students laughed at it. But at least a few were offended and complained to the administration, which subsequently relieved Lowry of her teaching duties. The video in question is in the style of the popular Downfall parodies. Downfall, a 2004 German film that depicts the final days of Adolph Hitler and his inner circle, includes an extended scene of Hitler screaming at his subordinates that is rife for parody. People change the subtitles so that Hitler is ranting about something else: Here's a meta example about the parodies themselves, and here's one where Hitler realizes Pokemon aren't real. Lowry's students made one where Hitler is enrolled in the course and receive a bad grade. Some of the humor may have crossed a line, in the eyes of a few students. At one point, the Hitler subtitle read: "Don't you dare finish that sentence or I'll send you to a chamber. And it won't be the chamber of commerce. I can guarantee that." And yet "there were people laughing," one student told The Chronicle of Higher Education. "There were some people who were kind of indifferent. They didn't really care. There were some people that, like, you could tell they were a little bit uneasy about it." "People sort of realized that that was a little over the top, maybe, for the classroom," said another. "But generally, people laughed pretty hard at it [the video]. I certainly did." A second video—this one a parody of the 2018 song "Bust Down Thotiana"—also drew the attention of the administration. Dean Anne Massey removed Lowry from her teaching position and attended the class's next session to inform students. Many took the news poorly, shouting "bring back [Lowry]." They eventually walked out in protest. Massey did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for the university told the Chronicle that the video was objectively offensive, and had no place in the classroom. Lowry sent an email to students apologizing if any of them were offended. At the same time, she was surprised by the administration's "snap judgment" that she could no longer teach her class: "This was an educational opportunity at a major research university. It's just unfortunate that the university did not take advantage of this educational opportunity. Instead, they chose to follow a punitive process, which doesn't really help anybody," Lowry said. "I could have easily dealt with this, if I had been afforded that opportunity. They made a snap judgment and really trampled the reasonable processes we have in place here." UMass Amherst is a public university, and punishing a professor for an attempt at humor raises some troubling First Amendment issues. The administration should correct course and reinstate Lowry. No one should be encouraging accounting professors to make their classes even more boring. (Reason commenters once made a Downfall parody video at my expense, after I had forgotten to post the P.M. Links. I can no longer find the video, but if anyone manages to dig it up, please share.)

www.reason.com

right

bwmKer7mB05ew5fU

test

MqeZ3UB9lhHbWLn9

cybersecurity

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/sony-hack-cyberattack-korea/2014/12/20/id/614190/

North Korea Denies Hack Involvement, Demands Probe

2014-12-20

North Korea called U.S. accusations that it was involved in a cyberattack on Sony Pictures `` groundless slander '' Saturday , is it demanded a joint investigation with the United States into the incident . An unnamed spokesman of the North 's foreign ministry said there would be serious consequences if Washington refused to agree to the probe and continued to accuse Pyongyang , according to North Korea 's U.N. mission and the official KCNA news agency . On Friday , President Barack Obama blamed North Korea for the devastating cyberattack , which had led to the Hollywood studio cancelling the imminent release of `` The Interview '' , a comedy on the fictional assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un . In its first substantive response to Obama 's statement , the isolated North Korea said it could prove it had nothing to do with the hacking attack . `` We propose to conduct a joint investigation with the U.S. in response to groundless slander being perpetrated by the U.S. by mobilizing public opinion , '' the North Korean spokesman was cited as saying by KCNA . `` If the U.S. refuses to accept our proposal for a joint investigation and continues to talk about some kind of response by dragging us into the case , it must remember there will be grave consequences , '' the spokesman said . The spokesman was quoted as making similar remarks in a statement issued later by North Korea 's U.N. mission . There was no immediate comment on Pyongyang 's response from the White House or the State Department . Earlier , the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation announced it had determined that North Korea was behind the hacking of Sony , saying Pyongyang 's actions fell `` outside the bounds of acceptable state behavior '' . Obama said North Korea appeared to have acted alone . Washington began consultations with Japan , China , South Korea and Russia seeking their assistance in reining in North Korea . { ID : nL1N0U32BR ] Japan and South Korea said they would cooperate . China , North Korea 's only major ally , has yet to respond , but a Beijing-run newspaper said `` The Interview '' was not a movie for Hollywood and U.S. society to be proud of . `` The vicious mocking of Kim is only a result of senseless cultural arrogance , '' the newspaper said . It was the first time the United States had directly accused another country of a cyberattack of such magnitude on American soil and set up a possible new confrontation between longtime foes Washington and Pyongyang . Obama said he wished that Sony had spoken to him first before yanking the movie , suggesting it could set a bad precedent . `` I think they made a mistake , '' he said . Sony Pictures Entertainment Chief Executive Michael Lynton insisted the company did not capitulate to hackers and said it was still looking for alternative platforms to release `` The Interview . '' This week , a spokeswoman for Sony had said the company did not have further release plans for the $ 44 million film starring Seth Rogen and James Franco . Despite Obama 's stern warning to North Korea , his options for responding to the computer attack by the impoverished state appeared limited . The president declined to be specific about any actions under consideration . North Korea has been subject to U.S. sanctions for more than 50 years , but they have had little effect on its human rights policies or its development of nuclear weapons . It has become expert in hiding its often criminal money-raising activities , largely avoiding traditional banks . In a separate statement on Saturday in response to criticism of its rights record , North Korea vowed to boost its `` nuclear power '' to counter Washington 's hostile policy , saying it had become apparent the United States aimed to invade the North under the guise of human rights abuses . The FBI said technical analysis of malicious software used in the Sony attack found links to malware that `` North Korean actors '' had developed and found a `` significant overlap '' with `` other malicious cyber activity '' previously tied to Pyongyang . But it otherwise gave scant details on how it concluded that North Korea was behind the attack . U.S. experts say Obama 's options could include cyber retaliation , financial sanctions , criminal indictments against individuals implicated in the attack or even a boost in U.S. military support to South Korea , still technically at war with the North . But the effect of any response would be limited given North Korea 's isolation and the fact that it is already heavily sanctioned for its nuclear program . There is also the risk that an overly harsh U.S. response could provoke Pyongyang to escalate any cyber warfare . Non-conventional capabilities such as cyber warfare and nuclear technology are the weapons of choice for the impoverished North , defectors said in Seoul . They said the Sony attack may have been a practice run for North Korea 's `` cyberarmy '' as part of its long-term goal of being able to cripple its rivals ' telecommunications and energy grids .

North Korea called U.S. accusations that it was involved in a cyberattack on Sony Pictures "groundless slander" Saturday, is it demanded a joint investigation with the United States into the incident. An unnamed spokesman of the North's foreign ministry said there would be serious consequences if Washington refused to agree to the probe and continued to accuse Pyongyang, according to North Korea's U.N. mission and the official KCNA news agency. On Friday, President Barack Obama blamed North Korea for the devastating cyberattack, which had led to the Hollywood studio cancelling the imminent release of "The Interview", a comedy on the fictional assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. In its first substantive response to Obama's statement, the isolated North Korea said it could prove it had nothing to do with the hacking attack. "We propose to conduct a joint investigation with the U.S. in response to groundless slander being perpetrated by the U.S. by mobilizing public opinion," the North Korean spokesman was cited as saying by KCNA. "If the U.S. refuses to accept our proposal for a joint investigation and continues to talk about some kind of response by dragging us into the case, it must remember there will be grave consequences," the spokesman said. The spokesman was quoted as making similar remarks in a statement issued later by North Korea's U.N. mission. There was no immediate comment on Pyongyang's response from the White House or the State Department. Earlier, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation announced it had determined that North Korea was behind the hacking of Sony, saying Pyongyang's actions fell "outside the bounds of acceptable state behavior". Obama said North Korea appeared to have acted alone. Washington began consultations with Japan, China, South Korea and Russia seeking their assistance in reining in North Korea. {ID:nL1N0U32BR] Japan and South Korea said they would cooperate. China, North Korea's only major ally, has yet to respond, but a Beijing-run newspaper said "The Interview" was not a movie for Hollywood and U.S. society to be proud of. "The vicious mocking of Kim is only a result of senseless cultural arrogance," the newspaper said. It was the first time the United States had directly accused another country of a cyberattack of such magnitude on American soil and set up a possible new confrontation between longtime foes Washington and Pyongyang. Obama said he wished that Sony had spoken to him first before yanking the movie, suggesting it could set a bad precedent. "I think they made a mistake," he said. "NOT CAVED IN" Sony Pictures Entertainment Chief Executive Michael Lynton insisted the company did not capitulate to hackers and said it was still looking for alternative platforms to release "The Interview." This week, a spokeswoman for Sony had said the company did not have further release plans for the $44 million film starring Seth Rogen and James Franco. Despite Obama's stern warning to North Korea, his options for responding to the computer attack by the impoverished state appeared limited. The president declined to be specific about any actions under consideration. North Korea has been subject to U.S. sanctions for more than 50 years, but they have had little effect on its human rights policies or its development of nuclear weapons. It has become expert in hiding its often criminal money-raising activities, largely avoiding traditional banks. In a separate statement on Saturday in response to criticism of its rights record, North Korea vowed to boost its "nuclear power" to counter Washington's hostile policy, saying it had become apparent the United States aimed to invade the North under the guise of human rights abuses. The FBI said technical analysis of malicious software used in the Sony attack found links to malware that "North Korean actors" had developed and found a "significant overlap" with "other malicious cyber activity" previously tied to Pyongyang. But it otherwise gave scant details on how it concluded that North Korea was behind the attack. U.S. experts say Obama's options could include cyber retaliation, financial sanctions, criminal indictments against individuals implicated in the attack or even a boost in U.S. military support to South Korea, still technically at war with the North. But the effect of any response would be limited given North Korea's isolation and the fact that it is already heavily sanctioned for its nuclear program. There is also the risk that an overly harsh U.S. response could provoke Pyongyang to escalate any cyber warfare. Non-conventional capabilities such as cyber warfare and nuclear technology are the weapons of choice for the impoverished North, defectors said in Seoul. They said the Sony attack may have been a practice run for North Korea's "cyberarmy" as part of its long-term goal of being able to cripple its rivals' telecommunications and energy grids.

www.newsmax.com

right

MqeZ3UB9lhHbWLn9

test

ROIWwJEEOi2MdlKx

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/october/nikki-haley-resigns-as-president-trumps-un-ambassador

Nikki Haley Resigns as President Trump's UN Ambassador

2018-10-09

ABOVE : ███ News Channel Coverage of the Nikki Haley Announcement President Trump has accepted the resignation of Nikki Haley , his ambassador to the United Nations . “ She ’ s done a fantastic job and we ’ ve done a fantastic job together , ” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office Tuesday . “ We ’ re all happy for you in one way , but we hate to lose you . ” Giving no reason for her departure , she joked , “ No , I ’ m not running in 2020 . ” Haley reportedly discussed her resignation with the president last week while visiting with him at the White House , and Trump says she 'll be leaving the administration `` at the end of the year . '' The president called Haley a `` very special '' person after meeting with her at the White House at 10:30 am Tuesday , saying they had `` solved a lot of problems '' together . Haley has been a favorite of conservatives for taking a tough stance against the United Nations ' abuses of Israel , calling the UN a `` global epicenter of anti-Semitism . '' She pushed for the US to withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council because it was constantly targeting Israel over fabricated claims . The Trump administration withdrew from the council in June because of the council 's clear anti-Israel bias and its willingness to allow notorious human rights abusers as members . Haley called the council a `` protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias . '' `` The United Nations is an interesting place . There are times when it can be a force for good , '' she once said . `` The UN can also be an enormously frustrating and bizarre place . Nowhere is that more pronounced than in the truly awful way that the UN has treated Israel for decades . '' `` I would like to thank Ambassador @ nikkihaley , who led the uncompromising struggle against hypocrisy at the UN , and on behalf of the truth and justice of our country . Best of luck ! '' pic.twitter.com/Lr6IvkM5U9 — PM of Israel ( @ IsraeliPM ) October 9 , 2018 Haley is the former governor of South Carolina . She was the first woman governor in that state . She became the UN ambassador following an easy confirmation , just days after the president 's inauguration in 2017 . Haley also pushed for other reforms at the UN , saying America would be `` taking names '' of countries that opposed the US , and targeting human rights abuses around the world . That earned her a lot of credit among human rights activists : Bravo to Ambassador Nikki Haley and her team for using U.S. presidency of the Security Council in September to pass resolution requiring accountability from UN peacekeepers , fight corruption , spotlight abuses and apply pressure on Iran , North Korea , Syria , Venezuela & Nicaragua . pic.twitter.com/8gJcgkYwV6 — Hillel Neuer ( @ HillelNeuer ) October 4 , 2018 Haley has also been public about her faith in Christ . Speaking at the Christians United for Israel ( CUFI ) summit in Washington , DC in July , she said , `` Twenty years ago , my faith journey brought me to Christianity , where I have found strength in my faith and trust in my heart . '' Haley did n't give an exact reason why she 's resigning from the UN ambassador post . She simply said she felt it was time to give someone else a chance in that position .

ABOVE: CBN News Channel Coverage of the Nikki Haley Announcement President Trump has accepted the resignation of Nikki Haley, his ambassador to the United Nations. “She’s done a fantastic job and we’ve done a fantastic job together,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office Tuesday. “We’re all happy for you in one way, but we hate to lose you.” Giving no reason for her departure, she joked, “No, I’m not running in 2020.” Haley reportedly discussed her resignation with the president last week while visiting with him at the White House, and Trump says she'll be leaving the administration "at the end of the year." The president called Haley a "very special" person after meeting with her at the White House at 10:30 am Tuesday, saying they had "solved a lot of problems" together. Haley has been a favorite of conservatives for taking a tough stance against the United Nations' abuses of Israel, calling the UN a "global epicenter of anti-Semitism." She pushed for the US to withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council because it was constantly targeting Israel over fabricated claims. The Trump administration withdrew from the council in June because of the council's clear anti-Israel bias and its willingness to allow notorious human rights abusers as members. Haley called the council a "protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias." "The United Nations is an interesting place. There are times when it can be a force for good," she once said. "The UN can also be an enormously frustrating and bizarre place. Nowhere is that more pronounced than in the truly awful way that the UN has treated Israel for decades." Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "I would like to thank Ambassador @nikkihaley, who led the uncompromising struggle against hypocrisy at the UN, and on behalf of the truth and justice of our country. Best of luck!" pic.twitter.com/Lr6IvkM5U9 — PM of Israel (@IsraeliPM) October 9, 2018 Haley is the former governor of South Carolina. She was the first woman governor in that state. She became the UN ambassador following an easy confirmation, just days after the president's inauguration in 2017. Haley also pushed for other reforms at the UN, saying America would be "taking names" of countries that opposed the US, and targeting human rights abuses around the world. That earned her a lot of credit among human rights activists: Bravo to Ambassador Nikki Haley and her team for using U.S. presidency of the Security Council in September to pass resolution requiring accountability from UN peacekeepers, fight corruption, spotlight abuses and apply pressure on Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela & Nicaragua. pic.twitter.com/8gJcgkYwV6 — Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) October 4, 2018 Haley has also been public about her faith in Christ. Speaking at the Christians United for Israel (CUFI) summit in Washington, DC in July, she said, "Twenty years ago, my faith journey brought me to Christianity, where I have found strength in my faith and trust in my heart." Haley didn't give an exact reason why she's resigning from the UN ambassador post. She simply said she felt it was time to give someone else a chance in that position.

www1.cbn.com

right

ROIWwJEEOi2MdlKx

test

7e2eWKxK0hOqJ7BL

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/31/patriotism-trump-liberals-sotu/

Patriotism Offends Liberals During Trump’s State Of The Union

2018-01-31

President Trump ’ s first State of the Union address was by all accounts a smashing success . Instant polls of Americans who watched the speech found that at least 70 percent of Americans — including a large majority of independents — agreed with what Trump was saying . ( RELATED : CNN Poll : Majority Had Positive Opinion Of Trump SOTU ) The president also broke applause records during his State of the Union , with a speech mostly centered around calling for bipartisanship and highlighting the successes of the American economy . ( RELATED : Trump Breaks Nearly All Applause Records On State of the Union Addresses ) But Democrats and liberal pundits were quick to imagine that there was some dark force hidden in Trump ’ s remarks , and they were compelled to call it out . MSNBC host Joy Ann Reid found Trump ’ s appeals to patriotism quite terrifying . “ Church … family … police … military … the national anthem … Trump trying to call on all the tropes of 1950s-era nationalism . The goal of this speech appears to be to force the normalization of Trump on the terms of the bygone era his supporters are nostalgic for , ” Reid tweeted during the speech . The American Civil Liberties Union bemoaned Trump said “ America ” too many times and that it was done in an “ exclusionary ” way . Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez , Congress ’ number one immigration booster , walked out of the speech after Republicans began chanting “ U.S.A. ” Gutierrez later issued a statement claiming the president ’ s speech was translated from Russian and that his remarks were “ explicitly racist . ” Smart move for the guy triggered by U.S.A. chants to claim his enemies are the real anti-Americans . As he was drooling during his car crash of a State of the Union rebuttal , Massachusetts Rep. Joe Kennedy told illegal immigrants , in Spanish , that they are part of the country . Even a few liberals thought the language choice totally undermined Kennedy ’ s message that the “ Dreamers ” are real Americans . Several commentators were also troubled by Trump ’ s embrace of the national anthem and the flag , feeling that it was “ divisive ” and “ racist ” to do such a thing . Trump has always been blessed with the best enemies , and these kinds of responses to his acclaimed speech are a gift to him . Rather than challenging the president ’ s form of patriotism , many Democrats and liberals appear to be implying patriotism is veiled racism and they want no part in it . The vast majority of Americans aren ’ t offended by saying the word “ America , ” U.S.A. chants or celebrations of the military . That ’ s just showing love for your country , and it doesn ’ t matter if Trump is the one engaging in it . Democrats were further hampered in their response to patriotism by bringing illegal immigrants to the address and loudly groaning when Trump brought up the victims of these so-called Dreamers . Democrats also remained sitting while Trump highlighted the heroic first responders and soldiers he invited to the State of the Union , a bad look for a party trying to present itself as the real America . ( RELATED : LIST : Things Democrats Refused To Applaud During SOTU ) It was less than two weeks ago when Republicans were able to effectively portray Democrats as caring more about non-citizens than first responders and the troops during the government shutdown fight . Now Republicans have visual proof of this preference on their part of their adversaries thanks to last night ’ s address . One of the more important political fights of our time is how we define America . Is it a nation of immigrants with no inherent culture , or is it a nation defined by its citizens ? Is the best of America represented by the illegal immigrant Dreamer , or is it embodied by the police officer who adopted the daughter of a heroin addict ? Do we embrace all languages , or do we insist that English is our national language ? Are our symbols and anthem problematic and needing a change , or do we continue to revere them ? These are conflicts that dominated the responses to Trump ’ s State of the Union . With the Democrats ’ help , the president is declaring himself on the side of those who honor the flag and the anthem . As the NFL can attest , it ’ s never a good thing in America to be seen as against the flag , but it appears Democrats haven ’ t learned that yet . Follow Scott on Twitter and buy his new book , “ No Campus for White Men . ”

President Trump’s first State of the Union address was by all accounts a smashing success. Instant polls of Americans who watched the speech found that at least 70 percent of Americans — including a large majority of independents — agreed with what Trump was saying. (RELATED: CNN Poll: Majority Had Positive Opinion Of Trump SOTU) The president also broke applause records during his State of the Union, with a speech mostly centered around calling for bipartisanship and highlighting the successes of the American economy. (RELATED: Trump Breaks Nearly All Applause Records On State of the Union Addresses) But Democrats and liberal pundits were quick to imagine that there was some dark force hidden in Trump’s remarks, and they were compelled to call it out. MSNBC host Joy Ann Reid found Trump’s appeals to patriotism quite terrifying. “Church … family … police … military … the national anthem … Trump trying to call on all the tropes of 1950s-era nationalism. The goal of this speech appears to be to force the normalization of Trump on the terms of the bygone era his supporters are nostalgic for,” Reid tweeted during the speech. The American Civil Liberties Union bemoaned Trump said “America” too many times and that it was done in an “exclusionary” way. Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Congress’ number one immigration booster, walked out of the speech after Republicans began chanting “U.S.A.” Gutierrez later issued a statement claiming the president’s speech was translated from Russian and that his remarks were “explicitly racist.” Smart move for the guy triggered by U.S.A. chants to claim his enemies are the real anti-Americans. As he was drooling during his car crash of a State of the Union rebuttal, Massachusetts Rep. Joe Kennedy told illegal immigrants, in Spanish, that they are part of the country. Even a few liberals thought the language choice totally undermined Kennedy’s message that the “Dreamers” are real Americans. Several commentators were also troubled by Trump’s embrace of the national anthem and the flag, feeling that it was “divisive” and “racist” to do such a thing. Trump has always been blessed with the best enemies, and these kinds of responses to his acclaimed speech are a gift to him. Rather than challenging the president’s form of patriotism, many Democrats and liberals appear to be implying patriotism is veiled racism and they want no part in it. This leaves patriotism solely to Trump and Republicans. The vast majority of Americans aren’t offended by saying the word “America,” U.S.A. chants or celebrations of the military. That’s just showing love for your country, and it doesn’t matter if Trump is the one engaging in it. Democrats were further hampered in their response to patriotism by bringing illegal immigrants to the address and loudly groaning when Trump brought up the victims of these so-called Dreamers. Democrats also remained sitting while Trump highlighted the heroic first responders and soldiers he invited to the State of the Union, a bad look for a party trying to present itself as the real America. (RELATED: LIST: Things Democrats Refused To Applaud During SOTU) It was less than two weeks ago when Republicans were able to effectively portray Democrats as caring more about non-citizens than first responders and the troops during the government shutdown fight. Now Republicans have visual proof of this preference on their part of their adversaries thanks to last night’s address. One of the more important political fights of our time is how we define America. Is it a nation of immigrants with no inherent culture, or is it a nation defined by its citizens? Is the best of America represented by the illegal immigrant Dreamer, or is it embodied by the police officer who adopted the daughter of a heroin addict? Do we embrace all languages, or do we insist that English is our national language? Are our symbols and anthem problematic and needing a change, or do we continue to revere them? These are conflicts that dominated the responses to Trump’s State of the Union. With the Democrats’ help, the president is declaring himself on the side of those who honor the flag and the anthem. As the NFL can attest, it’s never a good thing in America to be seen as against the flag, but it appears Democrats haven’t learned that yet. Follow Scott on Twitter and buy his new book, “No Campus for White Men.”

www.dailycaller.com

right

7e2eWKxK0hOqJ7BL

test

rBvpjJPHLiirbIT7

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/01/trump-sessions-mueller/

Trump Calls on Sessions To End Mueller Investigation

2018-08-01

President Donald Trump called on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to end special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation , in a Wednesday tweet . “ This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now , before it continues to stain our country any further , ” Trump tweeted . “ Bob Mueller is totally conflicted , and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA ! ” .. This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now , before it continues to stain our country any further . Bob Mueller is totally conflicted , and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) August 1 , 2018 Trump ’ s tweet is the furthest he has gone both in rebuking his attorney general for recusing himself from any matter involving Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and calling for a direct end to the probe . The president ’ s tweet comes as Muller ’ s team is putting Trump ’ s former campaign manager Paul Manafort on trial for business ties with Ukraine . Paul Manafort worked for Ronald Reagan , Bob Dole and many other highly prominent and respected political leaders . He worked for me for a very short time . Why didn ’ t government tell me that he was under investigation . These old charges have nothing to do with Collusion – a Hoax ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) August 1 , 2018 The tweet follows the president ’ s previous citation of lawyer Alan Dershowitz ’ s analysis that Mueller ’ s investigation has been biased from the start by staffing itself with lawyers tied to the Democratic Party and Peter Strzok . “ FBI Agent Peter Strzok ( on the Mueller team ) should have recused himself on day one . He was out to STOP THE ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP . He needed an insurance policy . Those are illegal , improper goals , trying to influence the Election . He should never , ever been allowed to…… .. — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) August 1 , 2018

President Donald Trump called on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to end special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, in a Wednesday tweet. “This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further,” Trump tweeted. “Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA!” ..This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 1, 2018 Trump’s tweet is the furthest he has gone both in rebuking his attorney general for recusing himself from any matter involving Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and calling for a direct end to the probe. The president’s tweet comes as Muller’s team is putting Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort on trial for business ties with Ukraine. Paul Manafort worked for Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole and many other highly prominent and respected political leaders. He worked for me for a very short time. Why didn’t government tell me that he was under investigation. These old charges have nothing to do with Collusion – a Hoax! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 1, 2018 The tweet follows the president’s previous citation of lawyer Alan Dershowitz’s analysis that Mueller’s investigation has been biased from the start by staffing itself with lawyers tied to the Democratic Party and Peter Strzok. “FBI Agent Peter Strzok (on the Mueller team) should have recused himself on day one. He was out to STOP THE ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP. He needed an insurance policy. Those are illegal, improper goals, trying to influence the Election. He should never, ever been allowed to…….. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 1, 2018

www.dailycaller.com

right

rBvpjJPHLiirbIT7

test

Wxjx4tSR2aomvdaC

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45070210

Melania Trump backs NBA star LeBron James after Trump insults

US First Lady Melania Trump has backed basketball player LeBron James , hours after her husband made insulting remarks about him on Twitter . James had said in an interview that Mr Trump was divisive and had emboldened racists . In response , Mr Trump questioned James ' intelligence , saying it was not easy to make the NBA player `` look smart '' . However , Mrs Trump 's spokeswoman said James was `` working to do good things '' with a school in his Ohio hometown . She said Mrs Trump wanted `` to have an open dialogue about issues facing children '' . Earlier this week , James told CNN during an interview with Don Lemon that sport had offered him the opportunity to meet people of different backgrounds and race . `` Sports has never been something that divides people . It 's always been something that brings someone together , '' he said . `` He [ Mr Trump ] is dividing us and what I noticed over the last few months is that he 's kinda used sport to divide us and that 's something I ca n't relate to , because I know that sport was the first time I was ever around someone white . '' He also argued that Mr Trump 's actions had encouraged racists , saying : `` I think [ racism 's ] always been there . But I think the president in charge now has given people - they do n't care now , they throw it to your face . '' On Saturday , the president responded on Twitter by saying : `` Lebron James was just interviewed by the dumbest man on television , Don Lemon . `` He made Lebron look smart , which is n't easy to do . '' Mr Trump also suggested that he prefers NBA legend Michael Jordan over the LA Lakers star . The president 's endorsement of basketball star Michael Jordan was perhaps a reference to the long-standing debate over whether Jordan or James is the better all-time player . However , Jordan also expressed support for James . He told media outlets through his spokesperson : `` I support L.J . [ LeBron James ] . He 's doing an amazing job for his community . '' BBC North America reporter Anthony Zurcher suggests the first lady 's statement contains veiled criticism of her husband 's tweet . Mr Trump has taken a harsh stance on the ongoing debate over players in the National Football League ( NFL ) who refuse to stand for the national anthem in protest against racial injustice and police brutality . He has repeatedly said that anyone who kneels during the anthem should be fired . During the interview , James also discussed a new school he has opened for underprivileged children in his home town of Akron , Ohio , which offers free meals and bikes to students , as well as job placement assistance for parents and an on-site food bank . Interviewer Don Lemon criticised Mr Trump 's tweet , and responded by referring to the separation of child migrants from their parents : `` Who 's the real dummy ? A man who puts kids in classrooms or one who puts kids in cages ? ''

Image copyright AFP/Getty US First Lady Melania Trump has backed basketball player LeBron James, hours after her husband made insulting remarks about him on Twitter. James had said in an interview that Mr Trump was divisive and had emboldened racists. In response, Mr Trump questioned James' intelligence, saying it was not easy to make the NBA player "look smart". However, Mrs Trump's spokeswoman said James was "working to do good things" with a school in his Ohio hometown. She said Mrs Trump wanted "to have an open dialogue about issues facing children". Earlier this week, James told CNN during an interview with Don Lemon that sport had offered him the opportunity to meet people of different backgrounds and race. "Sports has never been something that divides people. It's always been something that brings someone together," he said. "He [Mr Trump] is dividing us and what I noticed over the last few months is that he's kinda used sport to divide us and that's something I can't relate to, because I know that sport was the first time I was ever around someone white." He also argued that Mr Trump's actions had encouraged racists, saying: "I think [racism's] always been there. But I think the president in charge now has given people - they don't care now, they throw it to your face." On Saturday, the president responded on Twitter by saying: "Lebron James was just interviewed by the dumbest man on television, Don Lemon. "He made Lebron look smart, which isn't easy to do." Mr Trump also suggested that he prefers NBA legend Michael Jordan over the LA Lakers star. The president's endorsement of basketball star Michael Jordan was perhaps a reference to the long-standing debate over whether Jordan or James is the better all-time player. However, Jordan also expressed support for James. He told media outlets through his spokesperson: "I support L.J. [LeBron James]. He's doing an amazing job for his community." BBC North America reporter Anthony Zurcher suggests the first lady's statement contains veiled criticism of her husband's tweet. Mr Trump has taken a harsh stance on the ongoing debate over players in the National Football League (NFL) who refuse to stand for the national anthem in protest against racial injustice and police brutality. He has repeatedly said that anyone who kneels during the anthem should be fired. During the interview, James also discussed a new school he has opened for underprivileged children in his home town of Akron, Ohio, which offers free meals and bikes to students, as well as job placement assistance for parents and an on-site food bank. Interviewer Don Lemon criticised Mr Trump's tweet, and responded by referring to the separation of child migrants from their parents: "Who's the real dummy? A man who puts kids in classrooms or one who puts kids in cages?"

www.bbc.com

center

Wxjx4tSR2aomvdaC

test

9Z03RfMUXXHh5u60

republican_party

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/12/gop-rep-weve-actually-found-some-common-ground-this-week/

GOP Rep.: ‘We’ve actually found some common ground this week’

2013-10-12

Washington ( CNN ) - The Republican Party ’ s weekly address didn ’ t say a single negative thing Saturday about President Barack Obama or the Democratic Party . Not one . Rather , Rep. Buck McKeon , R-California , struck a positive tone that focused on all the work that remains to be done , by everyone . “ For all the focus on disagreements in Washington , we ’ ve actually found some common ground this week , ” McKeon said in the address , speaking of Obama ’ s signing of legislation guaranteeing death benefits for the families of fallen American service members , as well as a bill guaranteeing pay for the military . “ We shouldn ’ t stop there , ” the Armed Services Committee chairman said . He went on to speak of the piecemeal funding bills passed by the Republican-majority House of Representatives but rejected by the Democrat-controlled Senate . “ President Obama and Senate Democrats should back these bills immediately . ” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has rejected the measures , saying the entire government should be funded rather than only parts . “ Then the President should work with us on plans to reopen the entire government and make sure we do not default on our debts , ” he said . The mild , nonconfrontational language is miles away from the explosive language leveled at the President by the likes of House Speaker John Boehner , who has hammered Obama again and again for refusing to negotiate over the government shutdown or the debt ceiling . “ Sitting down and resolving our differences is exactly what Americans expect their leaders to do , especially at times like this , ” McKeon said . Democrats have argued that they will happily negotiate , but only after the entire government is funded and the threat of the government defaulting on its debt obligation is no longer hanging in the air . Even on the favorite target of Republicans , Obamacare , McKeon called not for defunding or dismantling but simply “ fairness. ” One of the GOP ’ s latest moves on the Affordable Care Act has been to argue that the individual mandate requiring most Americans to have health insurance be delayed for one year . Democrats say a delay makes the law economically unfeasible . The negotiations are “ about making sure there ’ s fairness for everyone under the president ’ s health care law – so that hardworking people like you get the same relief big businesses have received , ” McKeon said . McKeon also called for dealing with the nation ’ s debt and spending . “ The longer we go on settling for maybe-next-time , for this notion that putting things off until after the next election is OK , the harder this will get . ”

6 years ago Washington (CNN) - The Republican Party’s weekly address didn’t say a single negative thing Saturday about President Barack Obama or the Democratic Party. Not one. Rather, Rep. Buck McKeon, R-California, struck a positive tone that focused on all the work that remains to be done, by everyone. “For all the focus on disagreements in Washington, we’ve actually found some common ground this week,” McKeon said in the address, speaking of Obama’s signing of legislation guaranteeing death benefits for the families of fallen American service members, as well as a bill guaranteeing pay for the military. “We shouldn’t stop there,” the Armed Services Committee chairman said. He went on to speak of the piecemeal funding bills passed by the Republican-majority House of Representatives but rejected by the Democrat-controlled Senate. “President Obama and Senate Democrats should back these bills immediately.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has rejected the measures, saying the entire government should be funded rather than only parts. Still, McKeon declined to go on the attack. “Then the President should work with us on plans to reopen the entire government and make sure we do not default on our debts,” he said. The mild, nonconfrontational language is miles away from the explosive language leveled at the President by the likes of House Speaker John Boehner, who has hammered Obama again and again for refusing to negotiate over the government shutdown or the debt ceiling. “Sitting down and resolving our differences is exactly what Americans expect their leaders to do, especially at times like this,” McKeon said. Democrats have argued that they will happily negotiate, but only after the entire government is funded and the threat of the government defaulting on its debt obligation is no longer hanging in the air. Even on the favorite target of Republicans, Obamacare, McKeon called not for defunding or dismantling but simply “fairness.” One of the GOP’s latest moves on the Affordable Care Act has been to argue that the individual mandate requiring most Americans to have health insurance be delayed for one year. Democrats say a delay makes the law economically unfeasible. The negotiations are “about making sure there’s fairness for everyone under the president’s health care law – so that hardworking people like you get the same relief big businesses have received,” McKeon said. McKeon also called for dealing with the nation’s debt and spending. “The longer we go on settling for maybe-next-time, for this notion that putting things off until after the next election is OK, the harder this will get.”

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

9Z03RfMUXXHh5u60

test

iOAF7LaMMVZifQfl

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2016/11/16/the-humanist-visionaires-of-libertariani

The Humanist Visionaries of Libertarianism

2016-11-16

James Poulos, Jacob Sullum, Eugene Volokh, Noah Shepardson, Christian Britschgi, Cosmo Wenman, Billy Binion, Joe Setyon

Here in California , one big safe space from swing state politics , I woke up before the presidential election determined not to slip into despair and cast my vote for Gary Johnson . I did so for one big ███—almost for one ███ alone . Freed by single-party rule in the Golden State to vote artistically , it struck me that libertarians carry a special importance today , one that ought to be stressed and encouraged wherever helpful to do so . Because without it , our prospects for political life in America seem poised to sour even more . The key is this : more than anyone else , libertarians most admire humanist visionaries outside politics . And as a matter of habit , they often take that admiration , and the patterns of thinking it fosters , into the practice of politics . What they attain is important , of course , but not as important , I think , as what they avoid : namely , the kinds of distorted visions that now wield too great an influence over Republican and Democratic politics alike . Let 's look at those distortions first so the value of the libertarian alternative can sail beautifully into view later on . Democrats are much too captive today to the idea that justice is the highest vision—not just because they think justice is good ( it is ) , but because they increasingly see every other vision of the highest as inexcusably riddled with injustice . Surely there is much to be gained from critically interrogating power structures and systemic problems ; surely there is even more to be lost from embracing the delusion that only politics will save us because only justice holds up a lamp of perfection to guide us . Republicans , meanwhile , often do look past justice for their vision of the highest—to a religious view of divine justice , for instance , or to cultural traditions that , while radically imperfect , provide us devious bungling beings with our best context for durable flourishing . To Republicans ' misfortune , however , these visions have failed thunderously to connect with Americans on a truly humanistic level . Why ? Religion in America has largely splintered into a robust but parochial conservative camp on the one hand and , on the other , an ecumenical liberal camp where either a very thick vision of justice or a very thin vision of comfort subs in for what the conservatives would want . Civic-minded traditions have not fared much better . The simple fact is that many Americans today just lack the cultural lineage and the education necessary to fully participate in the tradition inhabited by , say , Robert F. Kennedy , when he broke the news of Martin Luther King , Jr. 's assassination by quoting Aeschylus from memory . I think these deep disappointments have helped foster the view that only a great business leader can return visionary thinking to politics . We are all now about to find out whether the art of the deal can make America great again . But even if it somehow does , the greatness of business is a much different serum to inject into politics than the grandeur of humankind . And it is on the all-important issue of human grandeur—our beauty , our promise , our imagination , and our capacity for good judgment in the testing of some limits but not others—that libertarians currently have both major parties beat . Consider a quick list of humanist visionaries likely to attract admiration from one kind of libertarian or another . Yes , there 's a healthy variety of libertarians , folks . You yourself would probably tick off names like Peter Thiel , a dedicated Trump supporter , Elon Musk , a cagey Clinton supporter , and John McAfee , who ran his own damn campaign for president . ( McAfee 's running mate , Judd Weiss , helped brilliantly brand the campaign with one of the millennium 's most thoughtful bumper sticker slogans : Let life live . ) It 's little surprise these sorts of individuals not only come at politics from a place firmly outside its ambit , but that they do so from different precincts in the same basic place : technology . Libertarians tend to recognize , in an instinctive way that points toward a crucial piece of wisdom , that tech is a natural site to rediscover our human grandeur in today 's otherwise shadowy and uncertain times . At a moment when Christians have real work to do recover a deep and broad humanism , and the arts have slipped into a frustrating pattern of narrow-casting , niche identity , and low horizons , it 's technology where independent visionaries are making the most of a concrete difference in capturing human imaginations with powerful—and powerfully specific—visions of our shared destiny . You do n't have to share all of those visions , or any of them , in order to notice their significance : lifting our gaze to something higher and more enduring than politics allows , and offering a more concrete—yet more capacious and forgiving—take on the future than the one we get by lusting after some shimmering abstract idea of perfect justice . ( Plus , of course , they all interface freely with the healthy variety of humanistic visions that will in time emerge with the same energy from culture 's other wellsprings in religion and art . ) For all their general optimism , libertarians are today 's best keepers of our most important warning . If we ca n't come to politics animated and limited by a best-future vision that reaches beyond politics , our destiny is very likely to recede ever further from view , leaving us to stagger endlessly between fruitless battle and equally fruitless boredom . Trust California 's libertarian visionaries before it 's too late : there 's a better way .

Here in California, one big safe space from swing state politics, I woke up before the presidential election determined not to slip into despair and cast my vote for Gary Johnson. I did so for one big reason—almost for one reason alone. Freed by single-party rule in the Golden State to vote artistically, it struck me that libertarians carry a special importance today, one that ought to be stressed and encouraged wherever helpful to do so. Because without it, our prospects for political life in America seem poised to sour even more. The key is this: more than anyone else, libertarians most admire humanist visionaries outside politics. And as a matter of habit, they often take that admiration, and the patterns of thinking it fosters, into the practice of politics. What they attain is important, of course, but not as important, I think, as what they avoid: namely, the kinds of distorted visions that now wield too great an influence over Republican and Democratic politics alike. Let's look at those distortions first so the value of the libertarian alternative can sail beautifully into view later on. Democrats are much too captive today to the idea that justice is the highest vision—not just because they think justice is good (it is), but because they increasingly see every other vision of the highest as inexcusably riddled with injustice. Surely there is much to be gained from critically interrogating power structures and systemic problems; surely there is even more to be lost from embracing the delusion that only politics will save us because only justice holds up a lamp of perfection to guide us. Republicans, meanwhile, often do look past justice for their vision of the highest—to a religious view of divine justice, for instance, or to cultural traditions that, while radically imperfect, provide us devious bungling beings with our best context for durable flourishing. To Republicans' misfortune, however, these visions have failed thunderously to connect with Americans on a truly humanistic level. Why? Religion in America has largely splintered into a robust but parochial conservative camp on the one hand and, on the other, an ecumenical liberal camp where either a very thick vision of justice or a very thin vision of comfort subs in for what the conservatives would want. Civic-minded traditions have not fared much better. The simple fact is that many Americans today just lack the cultural lineage and the education necessary to fully participate in the tradition inhabited by, say, Robert F. Kennedy, when he broke the news of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination by quoting Aeschylus from memory. I think these deep disappointments have helped foster the view that only a great business leader can return visionary thinking to politics. We are all now about to find out whether the art of the deal can make America great again. But even if it somehow does, the greatness of business is a much different serum to inject into politics than the grandeur of humankind. And it is on the all-important issue of human grandeur—our beauty, our promise, our imagination, and our capacity for good judgment in the testing of some limits but not others—that libertarians currently have both major parties beat. Consider a quick list of humanist visionaries likely to attract admiration from one kind of libertarian or another. Yes, there's a healthy variety of libertarians, folks. You yourself would probably tick off names like Peter Thiel, a dedicated Trump supporter, Elon Musk, a cagey Clinton supporter, and John McAfee, who ran his own damn campaign for president. (McAfee's running mate, Judd Weiss, helped brilliantly brand the campaign with one of the millennium's most thoughtful bumper sticker slogans: Let life live.) It's little surprise these sorts of individuals not only come at politics from a place firmly outside its ambit, but that they do so from different precincts in the same basic place: technology. Libertarians tend to recognize, in an instinctive way that points toward a crucial piece of wisdom, that tech is a natural site to rediscover our human grandeur in today's otherwise shadowy and uncertain times. At a moment when Christians have real work to do recover a deep and broad humanism, and the arts have slipped into a frustrating pattern of narrow-casting, niche identity, and low horizons, it's technology where independent visionaries are making the most of a concrete difference in capturing human imaginations with powerful—and powerfully specific—visions of our shared destiny. You don't have to share all of those visions, or any of them, in order to notice their significance: lifting our gaze to something higher and more enduring than politics allows, and offering a more concrete—yet more capacious and forgiving—take on the future than the one we get by lusting after some shimmering abstract idea of perfect justice. (Plus, of course, they all interface freely with the healthy variety of humanistic visions that will in time emerge with the same energy from culture's other wellsprings in religion and art.) For all their general optimism, libertarians are today's best keepers of our most important warning. If we can't come to politics animated and limited by a best-future vision that reaches beyond politics, our destiny is very likely to recede ever further from view, leaving us to stagger endlessly between fruitless battle and equally fruitless boredom. Trust California's libertarian visionaries before it's too late: there's a better way.

www.reason.com

right

iOAF7LaMMVZifQfl

test

o4AAwHL3wifM0wX3

national_defense

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/23/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-arms-race

'Let it be an arms race': Donald Trump reportedly doubles down on nuclear weapons expansion

2016-12-23

Ed Pilkington, Martin Pengelly

It was unclear who Trump was directing arms race threats against , but he said he received a letter from Putin calling for ‘ collaboration on the international scene ’ The president-elect Donald Trump has stunned nuclear weapons experts by appearing to call for a renewed arms race on his Twitter feed and in a TV interview . Trump calls on US to 'greatly strengthen and expand ' nuclear weapons capability Read more “ Let it be an arms race , ” the president in waiting was reported to have told Mika Brzezinski , co-host of MSNBC ’ s Morning Joe programme , in an early phone call on Friday . According to Brzezinski he went on to say : “ We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all . ” The incendiary comment followed a tweet on Thursday in which Trump threatened to preside over a major ramping up of the US nuclear arsenal . “ The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes , ” he wrote . The volley of remarks had Trump aides scrambling into damage limitation mode , but their efforts were powerless to neutralise the shock waves of alarm and bewilderment provoked by the president-elect ’ s remarks . They appeared to fly in the face of 35 years of bipartisan US policy geared towards reducing the number of nuclear weapons around the world . Nuclear arms specialists were quick to cry foul . “ It is irresponsible and reckless for the president elect to be articulating future US nuclear policy in a tweet and on a morning news show , ” said Daryl Kimball , executive director of the independent Arms Control Association . He added : “ Just the words have damaging effects . It invokes confusion and can stir hostility among our adversaries . ” In tune with many of his Twitter-based pronouncements , Trump ’ s intervention prompted confusion about exactly what he was saying . One issue that remained particularly opaque was whom his threats of a renewed arms race were directed against . The only world power that can match the 1,800 deployed strategic nuclear weapons the US commands is Russia , whose president Vladimir Putin has been showered with praise by Trump . On Friday , Trump put out a statement in which he said he had received a “ very nice letter from Vladimir Putin ” and added : “ His thoughts are so correct . ” More ominously , the president-elect said : “ I hope both sides are able to live up to these thoughts , and we do not have to travel an alternate path . ” A copy of a letter dated 15 December accompanied the statement , in the name of Putin and bearing the postal address “ Moscow , Kremlin ” . It was billed as an “ unofficial translation ” – the identity of the translator was unclear . Putin supposedly wrote : “ I hope that after you assume the position of the President of the United States of America we will be able – by acting in a constructive and pragmatic manner - to take real steps to restore the framework of bilateral cooperation in different areas as well as bring our level of collaboration on the international scene to a qualitatively new level . ” It was unclear whether the release of Putin ’ s supposed letter was prompted by an exchange of remarks with Moscow on nuclear weapons . Earlier on Friday , Putin said at a press conference that “ if someone is stimulating a nuclear arms race it ’ s not us ” . “ We don ’ t violate anything , ” he said . “ We are in line with our obligations as to the number of our warheads . ” On Thursday , Putin had gone further and said Russia needed to “ strengthen the military potential of strategic nuclear forces , especially with missile complexes that can reliably penetrate any existing and prospective missile defence systems ” . Trump ’ s unrestrained language stands in sharp contrast with the stance adopted by President Obama over the past eight years . Though Obama has struggled to deliver on his early promise to oversee a sharp reduction in the US nuclear arsenal , agreeing to a $ 1tn modernisation program over 30 years for the triad of air , land and sea delivery systems , he has consistently adopted the vocabulary of disarmament . In 2013 , the White House worked with Pentagon chiefs to carry out a detailed review of the US nuclear capability . It concluded that the country already had a third more strategic weapons than were necessary to ensure nuclear deterrence . Kimball said the findings of the 2013 review proved that “ from a military strategy and security standpoint , there ’ s absolutely no need to get into any arms race ” . Trump ’ s comments to MSNBC were revealed by the host Joe Scarborough , who like Brzezinski was presenting the Christmas-themed show while dressed in pyjamas and slippers , sitting in front of a roaring fire . He said : “ Mica asked the president-elect while we had the opportunity … to clarify the tweet yesterday regarding the nuclear arsenal . And the president-elect told you what ? ” “ ‘ Let it be an arms race ’ , ” Brzezinski said . “ ‘ We will outmatch them at every pass . ’ ” Trump intervenes to sideline Obama over Israeli settlements Read more “ You can put that down as breaking news , ” Scarborough said . Trump ’ s pick to be the incoming White House press secretary , Sean Spicer , led the damage limitation push . He told NBC Trump would not allow an arms race , because he would stop other countries from increasing their stockpiles of nuclear weapons . “ He ’ s going to ensure that other countries get the message that he ’ s not going to sit back and allow that , ” Spicer said . “ And what ’ s going to happen is they will come to their senses , and we will all be just fine . ” Trump , who also tweeted on Friday morning a complaint about his son Eric being forced to give up charity work over perceptions of selling access to the president-elect and his family , is spending Christmas at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida . His main engagement for the day was a round of golf with Tiger Woods .

It was unclear who Trump was directing arms race threats against, but he said he received a letter from Putin calling for ‘collaboration on the international scene’ This article is more than 2 years old This article is more than 2 years old The president-elect Donald Trump has stunned nuclear weapons experts by appearing to call for a renewed arms race on his Twitter feed and in a TV interview. Trump calls on US to 'greatly strengthen and expand' nuclear weapons capability Read more “Let it be an arms race,” the president in waiting was reported to have told Mika Brzezinski, co-host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe programme, in an early phone call on Friday. According to Brzezinski he went on to say: “We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.” The incendiary comment followed a tweet on Thursday in which Trump threatened to preside over a major ramping up of the US nuclear arsenal. “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes,” he wrote. The volley of remarks had Trump aides scrambling into damage limitation mode, but their efforts were powerless to neutralise the shock waves of alarm and bewilderment provoked by the president-elect’s remarks. They appeared to fly in the face of 35 years of bipartisan US policy geared towards reducing the number of nuclear weapons around the world. Nuclear arms specialists were quick to cry foul. “It is irresponsible and reckless for the president elect to be articulating future US nuclear policy in a tweet and on a morning news show,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the independent Arms Control Association. He added: “Just the words have damaging effects. It invokes confusion and can stir hostility among our adversaries.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest A letter, purportedly from Vladimir Putin, released by the Trump campaign. Photograph: Trump Transition In tune with many of his Twitter-based pronouncements, Trump’s intervention prompted confusion about exactly what he was saying. One issue that remained particularly opaque was whom his threats of a renewed arms race were directed against. The only world power that can match the 1,800 deployed strategic nuclear weapons the US commands is Russia, whose president Vladimir Putin has been showered with praise by Trump. On Friday, Trump put out a statement in which he said he had received a “very nice letter from Vladimir Putin” and added: “His thoughts are so correct.” More ominously, the president-elect said: “I hope both sides are able to live up to these thoughts, and we do not have to travel an alternate path.” A copy of a letter dated 15 December accompanied the statement, in the name of Putin and bearing the postal address “Moscow, Kremlin”. It was billed as an “unofficial translation” – the identity of the translator was unclear. Putin supposedly wrote: “I hope that after you assume the position of the President of the United States of America we will be able – by acting in a constructive and pragmatic manner - to take real steps to restore the framework of bilateral cooperation in different areas as well as bring our level of collaboration on the international scene to a qualitatively new level.” It was unclear whether the release of Putin’s supposed letter was prompted by an exchange of remarks with Moscow on nuclear weapons. Earlier on Friday, Putin said at a press conference that “if someone is stimulating a nuclear arms race it’s not us”. “We don’t violate anything,” he said. “We are in line with our obligations as to the number of our warheads.” On Thursday, Putin had gone further and said Russia needed to “strengthen the military potential of strategic nuclear forces, especially with missile complexes that can reliably penetrate any existing and prospective missile defence systems”. Trump’s unrestrained language stands in sharp contrast with the stance adopted by President Obama over the past eight years. Though Obama has struggled to deliver on his early promise to oversee a sharp reduction in the US nuclear arsenal, agreeing to a $1tn modernisation program over 30 years for the triad of air, land and sea delivery systems, he has consistently adopted the vocabulary of disarmament. In 2013, the White House worked with Pentagon chiefs to carry out a detailed review of the US nuclear capability. It concluded that the country already had a third more strategic weapons than were necessary to ensure nuclear deterrence. Kimball said the findings of the 2013 review proved that “from a military strategy and security standpoint, there’s absolutely no need to get into any arms race”. Trump’s comments to MSNBC were revealed by the host Joe Scarborough, who like Brzezinski was presenting the Christmas-themed show while dressed in pyjamas and slippers, sitting in front of a roaring fire. He said: “Mica asked the president-elect while we had the opportunity … to clarify the tweet yesterday regarding the nuclear arsenal. And the president-elect told you what?” Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe Friday. Photograph: MSNBC “‘Let it be an arms race’,” Brzezinski said. “‘We will outmatch them at every pass.’” “‘And outlast them all’,” Scarborough added. Trump intervenes to sideline Obama over Israeli settlements Read more “And outlast them all,” Brzezinski repeated. “You can put that down as breaking news,” Scarborough said. Trump’s pick to be the incoming White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, led the damage limitation push. He told NBC Trump would not allow an arms race, because he would stop other countries from increasing their stockpiles of nuclear weapons. “He’s going to ensure that other countries get the message that he’s not going to sit back and allow that,” Spicer said. “And what’s going to happen is they will come to their senses, and we will all be just fine.” Trump, who also tweeted on Friday morning a complaint about his son Eric being forced to give up charity work over perceptions of selling access to the president-elect and his family, is spending Christmas at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. His main engagement for the day was a round of golf with Tiger Woods.

www.theguardian.com

left

o4AAwHL3wifM0wX3

test

3wKdxfMA8wu5vAtb

federal_budget

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/left-right-unveil-us-budget-utopias/

Left, Right Unveil US Budget Utopias

Chris Good

Rep. Paul Ryan , R-Wis. , speaks about the 2014 Budget Resolution during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington , March 12 , 2013 . Carolyn Kaster/AP Photo When conservative House Republicans and liberal Democrats in the House Progressive Caucus each released their broad budget plans this week , what we really saw was a window into two drastically different visions of the future . Republicans , led by Budget Chairman Paul Ryan , issued a 91-page doctrine of fiscal conservatism that claims to balance the budget in 10 years . The House Progressive Caucus , led by Reps. Raul Grijalva , D-Ariz. , and Keith Ellison , D-Minn. , released their own 19-page blueprint that lowers the deficit ( but does n't eliminate it ) by raising taxes while pumping investments into all the infrastructure , education , and public welfare programs liberals love . It 's a tale of two budgets , and America 's alternate futures could n't be more different . In the future according to Paul Ryan , most people take some kind of a hit , and the government survives to serve future generations because it 's restrained in the near term . Tax reform lowers rates on people and corporations ( including high incomes ) while stripping out deductions and credits . National defense remains fully funded , but Medicare is essentially voucherized for people turning 55 now ; Medicare survives and health-care costs are restrained , as patients turn down unnecessary procedures , saving the system from fiscal ruin . Medicare is block-granted , giving states more flexibility to do with the funds as they please . `` Obamacare '' is repealed , meaning no one has to buy health insurance , but also that the government spends a lot less helping people buy it . Tort reform means doctors do n't get sued as often , the government only gives welfare to people meeting the full set of work requirements ; job-training programs and `` career scholarships '' help people get to work , and the federal government accounts more accurately for the money it loans out . If Ryan has his way , the federal government works in a streamlined and sustainable fashion , balancing its books in 10 years and saving basic services from bankruptcy so that future generations can enjoy them . In the future according to the House Progressive Caucus , the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone making over $ 250,000 , and millionaires and billionaires see their tax rates jump from 45 percent . The federal government invests more in infrastructure , creating jobs , and unemployment claims can be made for almost two years ( 99 weeks ) . A public-option health system is adopted , while no benefits are cut in Medicare , Medicaid , or Social Security . Generic drugs become more available , as name-brand drug companies are barred from paying generic makers to delay sales in patent settlements . States receive more money through block grants to hire police , firefighters , and teachers , and states also get more money for Medicaid . A new cap-and-trade system limits greenhouse-gas emissions on a large scale . Corporate tax credits that can benefit oil and gas production are rolled back . America swiftly withdraws from Afghanistan , eliminating emergency war funding and saving billions from the federal budget , while the military cuts contractors , spends less on bases , and slowly shrinks its force through attrition . The progressive budget promises $ 4.4 trillion in deficit reduction largely by raising taxes and ending the war in Afghanistan . Government services are not only maintained , they 're widely expanded , and the federal government continues to run an aggregate $ 4.2 trillion deficit over the next 10 years , vs. Paul Ryan 's $ 1.2 trillion . All of those things really are included in both these budget blueprints . Neither one of them will come true . In fact , almost none of the most drastic parts are likely to happen . Given the makeup of Congress , the prospects for cap-and-trade , voucherizing Medicare , the public option , and repealing `` Obamacare '' are all about the same . Which is to say , neither House progressives nor House Republicans will get their way . These two documents represent the poles of what is possible . The House is America 's epicenter of drastic partisan divide . Republicans in the House are very fiscally conservative ; the House Progressive Caucus , the Democratic Party 's most liberal wing , is very liberal when it comes to spending on infrastructure and services . Over the next 10 years , Republicans and Democrats will agree on something in the middle . These two visions also show us just how vastly different liberals and conservatives see the future , and how hard it will be for them to agree on anything that makes both sides happy .

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., speaks about the 2014 Budget Resolution during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, March 12, 2013. Carolyn Kaster/AP Photo Budgets are like dreams. When conservative House Republicans and liberal Democrats in the House Progressive Caucus each released their broad budget plans this week, what we really saw was a window into two drastically different visions of the future. Republicans, led by Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, issued a 91-page doctrine of fiscal conservatism that claims to balance the budget in 10 years. The House Progressive Caucus, led by Reps. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., and Keith Ellison, D-Minn., released their own 19-page blueprint that lowers the deficit (but doesn't eliminate it) by raising taxes while pumping investments into all the infrastructure, education, and public welfare programs liberals love. It's a tale of two budgets, and America's alternate futures couldn't be more different. In the future according to Paul Ryan, most people take some kind of a hit, and the government survives to serve future generations because it's restrained in the near term. Tax reform lowers rates on people and corporations (including high incomes) while stripping out deductions and credits. National defense remains fully funded, but Medicare is essentially voucherized for people turning 55 now; Medicare survives and health-care costs are restrained, as patients turn down unnecessary procedures, saving the system from fiscal ruin. Medicare is block-granted, giving states more flexibility to do with the funds as they please. "Obamacare" is repealed, meaning no one has to buy health insurance, but also that the government spends a lot less helping people buy it. Tort reform means doctors don't get sued as often, the government only gives welfare to people meeting the full set of work requirements; job-training programs and "career scholarships" help people get to work, and the federal government accounts more accurately for the money it loans out. If Ryan has his way, the federal government works in a streamlined and sustainable fashion, balancing its books in 10 years and saving basic services from bankruptcy so that future generations can enjoy them. The liberal vision looks quite different. In the future according to the House Progressive Caucus, the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone making over $250,000, and millionaires and billionaires see their tax rates jump from 45 percent. The federal government invests more in infrastructure, creating jobs, and unemployment claims can be made for almost two years (99 weeks). A public-option health system is adopted, while no benefits are cut in Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. Generic drugs become more available, as name-brand drug companies are barred from paying generic makers to delay sales in patent settlements. States receive more money through block grants to hire police, firefighters, and teachers, and states also get more money for Medicaid. A new cap-and-trade system limits greenhouse-gas emissions on a large scale. Corporate tax credits that can benefit oil and gas production are rolled back. America swiftly withdraws from Afghanistan, eliminating emergency war funding and saving billions from the federal budget, while the military cuts contractors, spends less on bases, and slowly shrinks its force through attrition. The progressive budget promises $4.4 trillion in deficit reduction largely by raising taxes and ending the war in Afghanistan. Government services are not only maintained, they're widely expanded, and the federal government continues to run an aggregate $4.2 trillion deficit over the next 10 years, vs. Paul Ryan's $1.2 trillion. All of those things really are included in both these budget blueprints. Neither one of them will come true. In fact, almost none of the most drastic parts are likely to happen. Given the makeup of Congress, the prospects for cap-and-trade, voucherizing Medicare, the public option, and repealing "Obamacare" are all about the same. Which is to say, neither House progressives nor House Republicans will get their way. These two documents represent the poles of what is possible. The House is America's epicenter of drastic partisan divide. Republicans in the House are very fiscally conservative; the House Progressive Caucus, the Democratic Party's most liberal wing, is very liberal when it comes to spending on infrastructure and services. Over the next 10 years, Republicans and Democrats will agree on something in the middle. These two visions also show us just how vastly different liberals and conservatives see the future, and how hard it will be for them to agree on anything that makes both sides happy.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

3wKdxfMA8wu5vAtb

test

HzGudFmL18X9LDz6

education

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/01/27/yale-university-art-department-western-white-male-problematic/

Yale Will Eliminate a Beloved Introductory Art Class for Being Too White, Male, and Western

2020-01-27

Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Jacob Sullum, Josh Blackman, Charles Oliver, John Stossel, Emily Yoffe, Nick Gillespie, Scott Shackford

Enrollment has swelled for Yale University 's introductory art history course , which covers `` the Renaissance to the present . '' That 's because the school plans to eliminate the popular class after the spring . According to The Yale Daily News , the art department has decided that the class might make some students uncomfortable due to the `` overwhelming '' whiteness , maleness , and straightness of the artists who comprise the Western canon ( though that last label may be dubious ) . Indeed , the focus on Western art is `` problematic , '' course instructor Tim Barringer told the student newspaper . `` I want all Yale students ( and all residents of New Haven who can enter our museums freely ) to have access to and to feel confident analyzing and enjoying the core works of the western tradition , '' said Barringer . `` But I do n't mistake a history of European painting for the history of all art in all places . '' In its final iteration , the course will `` consider art in relation to questions of gender , class and race and discuss its involvement with Western capitalism , '' according to the latest syllabus . Art 's relationship to climate change will also be a `` key theme . '' `` I 'm really looking forward to seeing what works the students come up with to counteract or undermine my own narratives , '' said Barringer . Art students who wish to master the Western canon will still find plenty of other courses that satisfy their interests . But the removal of the introductory course makes it difficult for non-majors with a casual interest in the subject to study it . `` My biggest critique of the decision is that it 's a disservice to undergrads , '' one student , Mahlon Sorensen , told The Yale Daily News . `` If you get rid of that one , all-encompassing course , then to understand the Western canon of art , students are going to have to take multiple art history courses . Which is all well and good for the art history major , but it sucks for the rest of us . '' It has become more common in recent years for small cabals of students to rebel against liberal arts curricula that they feel are too focused on Western artists , authors , and thinkers . Students at Reed College , for instance , successfully pressured educators to disband an introductory humanities course . In that case , the activists demanded that all European texts be removed and replaced by non-European books as a form of reparations `` for Humanities 110 's history of erasing the histories of people of color , especially black people . '' Yale 's art department seems to be changing with the times . It 's good to include more perspectives and to ensure that a liberal arts education is not excessively focused on Europe . But diversity by addition is vastly preferable to diversity by subtraction . When a university eliminates an introductory art class because a tiny number of ideologues object to the whiteness and maleness of it all , it feels like they are declining to teach history because some people do n't like what happened . The West 's outsized influence on the events of the last several centuries may very well be problematic , but that does n't mean it is n't real .

Enrollment has swelled for Yale University's introductory art history course, which covers "the Renaissance to the present." That's because the school plans to eliminate the popular class after the spring. According to The Yale Daily News, the art department has decided that the class might make some students uncomfortable due to the "overwhelming" whiteness, maleness, and straightness of the artists who comprise the Western canon (though that last label may be dubious). Indeed, the focus on Western art is "problematic," course instructor Tim Barringer told the student newspaper. "I want all Yale students (and all residents of New Haven who can enter our museums freely) to have access to and to feel confident analyzing and enjoying the core works of the western tradition," said Barringer. "But I don't mistake a history of European painting for the history of all art in all places." In its final iteration, the course will "consider art in relation to questions of gender, class and race and discuss its involvement with Western capitalism," according to the latest syllabus. Art's relationship to climate change will also be a "key theme." "I'm really looking forward to seeing what works the students come up with to counteract or undermine my own narratives," said Barringer. Art students who wish to master the Western canon will still find plenty of other courses that satisfy their interests. But the removal of the introductory course makes it difficult for non-majors with a casual interest in the subject to study it. "My biggest critique of the decision is that it's a disservice to undergrads," one student, Mahlon Sorensen, told The Yale Daily News. "If you get rid of that one, all-encompassing course, then to understand the Western canon of art, students are going to have to take multiple art history courses. Which is all well and good for the art history major, but it sucks for the rest of us." It has become more common in recent years for small cabals of students to rebel against liberal arts curricula that they feel are too focused on Western artists, authors, and thinkers. Students at Reed College, for instance, successfully pressured educators to disband an introductory humanities course. In that case, the activists demanded that all European texts be removed and replaced by non-European books as a form of reparations "for Humanities 110's history of erasing the histories of people of color, especially black people." Yale's art department seems to be changing with the times. It's good to include more perspectives and to ensure that a liberal arts education is not excessively focused on Europe. But diversity by addition is vastly preferable to diversity by subtraction. When a university eliminates an introductory art class because a tiny number of ideologues object to the whiteness and maleness of it all, it feels like they are declining to teach history because some people don't like what happened. The West's outsized influence on the events of the last several centuries may very well be problematic, but that doesn't mean it isn't real.

www.reason.com

right

HzGudFmL18X9LDz6

test

x9ArO2n0SDVfOxUj

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2017/june/a-made-up-story-jay-sekulow-sets-record-straight-on-trump-investigation

A Made-Up Story? Jay Sekulow Sets Record Straight on Trump Investigation

2017-06-19

A simple tweet from President Donald Trump is keeping the Russia investigation in the headlines . I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director ! Witch Hunt — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) June 16 , 2017 Trump 's legal team says the tweet was simply about a report that the president was under investigation for obstruction of justice -- not a confirmation . `` The president has not been notified by anyone that he 's under investigation , '' Jay Sekulow , legal counsel for the president , told CBS 's `` Face The Nation '' over the weekend . Sekulow also points to testimony from former FBI Director James Comey , who told the Senate Intelligence Committee investigating Russian interference into the 2016 presidential elections that he , himself , had told Trump he was not under investigation . Other supporters of the president took to the Sunday shows to defend the intentions behind his tweet . `` Trump has a compulsion to counterattack . And is very pugnacious . I do n't think it serves him well . I do n't think that tweet helped him . But its almost like its who he 's been his whole life . He 's been a fighter his whole life , '' former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said on ABC 's `` This Week . '' Meanwhile , despite growing concerns that the president may fire Robert Mueller , the special counsel running the Russia probe , Sen. Marco Rubio , R-Fla. , says the best thing for everyone will be for the investigation to run its course . `` This is going to move forward . We 're going to get the full truth out there , and I repeat , I believe that is the best thing that can happen for the president and for this administration , '' Rubio told NBC 's `` Meet the Press . '' As the investigation does move forward , there 's been a tip from the deputy attorney general . In a statement last week , he warned Americans against believing stories attributed to `` anonymous officials . '' “ Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories attributed to anonymous ‘ officials , ’ particularly when they do not identify the country – let alone the branch or agency of government – with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated . Americans should be skeptical about anonymous allegations , ” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said .

A simple tweet from President Donald Trump is keeping the Russia investigation in the headlines. I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 16, 2017 Trump's legal team says the tweet was simply about a report that the president was under investigation for obstruction of justice -- not a confirmation. "The president has not been notified by anyone that he's under investigation," Jay Sekulow, legal counsel for the president, told CBS's "Face The Nation" over the weekend. Sekulow also points to testimony from former FBI Director James Comey, who told the Senate Intelligence Committee investigating Russian interference into the 2016 presidential elections that he, himself, had told Trump he was not under investigation. Other supporters of the president took to the Sunday shows to defend the intentions behind his tweet. "Trump has a compulsion to counterattack. And is very pugnacious. I don't think it serves him well. I don't think that tweet helped him. But its almost like its who he's been his whole life. He's been a fighter his whole life," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said on ABC's "This Week." Meanwhile, despite growing concerns that the president may fire Robert Mueller, the special counsel running the Russia probe, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., says the best thing for everyone will be for the investigation to run its course. "This is going to move forward. We're going to get the full truth out there, and I repeat, I believe that is the best thing that can happen for the president and for this administration," Rubio told NBC's "Meet the Press." As the investigation does move forward, there's been a tip from the deputy attorney general. In a statement last week, he warned Americans against believing stories attributed to "anonymous officials." “Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories attributed to anonymous ‘officials,’ particularly when they do not identify the country – let alone the branch or agency of government – with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated. Americans should be skeptical about anonymous allegations,” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said.

www1.cbn.com

right

x9ArO2n0SDVfOxUj

test

gaeEUkRDpH8JJElR

politics

Brent Bozell

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/27/exclusive-brent-bozell-the-slow-death-of-the-republican-party/

OPINION: The Slow Death of the Republican Party

2017-08-27

All this talk about Trump this , and Trump that , masks a far bigger political controversy . The Republican Party leadership in Washington , D.C. , has fundamentally betrayed its constituents and they are about to learn that they ’ ve been double-crossed — for years . Every Republican candidate ’ s stock speech sounds the same , the thunderous roar about a government out of control , federal spending out of control ( insert charts and graphs and why , if you stack hundred dollar bills , they will reach the edge of the universe ) , federal taxes out of control ( insert comparisons to socialist countries ) , the federal bureaucracy out of control ( insert metaphors about chains , yokes , and the like ) , the family shattered with federal funding of abortion a crime against humanity ( watch for it — there ! The heart-wrenching sob ) , and our military is emasculated . Two more items were added to the menu , courtesy of Obama . Obamacare Will Be Repealed ! and Illegal Immigration Will Not Stand ! In 2009 , the Democrats controlled everything , partly due to the Republicans ’ cowardice on Capitol Hill , and in part because of some of the most inept candidates and campaigns America has seen in years . The Obama folks could have played it safe but went for socialist gold , using the power of the legislative and the executive branches ( and later the judiciary , thank you Justice Roberts ) to advance their agenda . That included federal spending on a level unmatched in human history resulting ultimately in a $ 19 trillion in debt we simply can not pay , and with so many tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities that “ infinity ” is not far behind . One seventh of the economy was confiscated by the federal government with the passage of Obamacare . Our national borders were declared open and discussions over our national sovereignty closed . And to top it off , the Democrats all but declared themselves above the law . The GOP harrumphed that this would not stand , by God ! If only… if only America would vote them into the majority . In 2009 , the Tea Party was born . The Grand Old Party was rejuvenated . Happy days were here again . Just one year later , the Republicans captured the House , and with that , the power of the purse . They now had the authority to stop the insane spending on so many obnoxious and wholly unnecessary ventures . They could end Obamacare simply by not funding it . Instead , under the “ leadership ” of John Boehner , it did absolutely nothing . Why , if only we had the Senate ! Then we could take on the President ! So in 2014 , after spending hundreds of millions of campaign dollars running hundreds of thousands of television and radio ads pledging to end illegal immigration while repealing Obamacare “ root and branch ” ( author : Mitch McConnell ) , they were given control of the Senate . And within a month McConnell re-authorized both , along with every single other thing Harry Reid and Obama wanted for yet another year . But that ’ s because we can ’ t do what we promised until we have the Presidency ! The excuse was as predictable as summer heat in the Sahara . In January of this year , they formally controlled both houses of Congress and the executive branch . Every single thing they ’ d ever promised was now possible . They now had the power to enact every single spending cut they ’ d ever solemnly pledged . All those wasteful programs designed to fill the liberal sandbox — PBS , NPR , Planned Parenthood , NEH and the rest of the alphabet soup ; all the hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare to multi-billion-dollar corporations ; all of the hundreds of billions of dollars directed toward leftist social engineering — poof ! All of it could come to an end with a stroke of a pen . They now had the power to restore fiscal tax sanity too . Remember the flat tax ? The fair tax ? Slashing the highest corporate taxes in the world ? Giving you a tax break ? All of it could be done with a snap of the fingers . Repeal Obamacare ? Check . End illegal immigration ? Check . Build the wall ? Check . There was not a damn thing the Democrats could do to stop them from draining the swamp . Except the Republican leadership didn ’ t mean it . With the exception of the Freedom Caucus in the House , and literally a handful in the Senate , the rank-and-file didn ’ t either . Not one word of it . The opportunity arose for the vote to repeal Obamacare , and after huffing and puffing , and huffing and puffing some more , the dust settled and socialized health care remains the law of the land , perhaps permanently . The opportunity arose for tax reform , to enact the cuts America desperately needs . It was never a matter of if , it was a matter of how much . It is now mid-August and nothing , absolutely nothing has been accomplished — even attempted ! And now we face the final test : the debt ceiling . Will we or won ’ t we stop the spending madness ? Will the Republicans enact the cuts they ’ ve promised , or will they now be the ones to kick the can , piling evermore trillions of dollars of debt on their own grandchildren ? By every indication that ’ s precisely what they plan to do . The signal has come from President Trump , from Speaker Ryan , and from Majority Leader McConnell . The debt ceiling will be raised and no fiscal sanity will be restored . There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats . Put them together . They are the swamp . Just as Republicans have the power to enact the agenda they ’ ve pledged in toto , so too do they now own the federal government , in toto . It ’ s no longer Obamacare . It ’ s GOPcare . It ’ s no longer crazy liberal Democratic spending . It ’ s crazy liberal Republican spending . It ’ s no longer socialist Democratic Party taxation , it ’ s socialist Republican Party taxation . All the legislation authorizing all these programs , all the graft , all the waste , all the obscenity , all the immorality , and where Planned Parenthood is concerned , all the killing — all of it is now formally authored by the Republican Party . Come the Congressional elections next year , and the presidential election in 2020 , the Grand Old Party will once again bellow its hallowed promises . But this time it won ’ t work . This time there will be no straw men to blame . This time their voters will know those hallowed promises are not even hollow promises . They are lies . These voters are tasting betrayal . They will not vote to swallow more vomit . ███ is the Chairman of ForAmerica , a national grassroots organization whose mission is to use social media to reinvigorate the public with the principles of American exceptionalism : freedom , prosperity , and virtue . ForAmerica has over 9 million members and is a non-profit 501 ( c ) 4. www.ForAmerica.org

The Grand Old Party is about to commit suicide. All this talk about Trump this, and Trump that, masks a far bigger political controversy. The Republican Party leadership in Washington, D.C., has fundamentally betrayed its constituents and they are about to learn that they’ve been double-crossed — for years. Every Republican candidate’s stock speech sounds the same, the thunderous roar about a government out of control, federal spending out of control (insert charts and graphs and why, if you stack hundred dollar bills, they will reach the edge of the universe), federal taxes out of control (insert comparisons to socialist countries), the federal bureaucracy out of control (insert metaphors about chains, yokes, and the like), the family shattered with federal funding of abortion a crime against humanity (watch for it — there! The heart-wrenching sob), and our military is emasculated. Two more items were added to the menu, courtesy of Obama. Obamacare Will Be Repealed! and Illegal Immigration Will Not Stand! In 2009, the Democrats controlled everything, partly due to the Republicans’ cowardice on Capitol Hill, and in part because of some of the most inept candidates and campaigns America has seen in years. The Obama folks could have played it safe but went for socialist gold, using the power of the legislative and the executive branches (and later the judiciary, thank you Justice Roberts) to advance their agenda. That included federal spending on a level unmatched in human history resulting ultimately in a $19 trillion in debt we simply cannot pay, and with so many tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities that “infinity” is not far behind. One seventh of the economy was confiscated by the federal government with the passage of Obamacare. Our national borders were declared open and discussions over our national sovereignty closed. And to top it off, the Democrats all but declared themselves above the law. The GOP harrumphed that this would not stand, by God! If only… if only America would vote them into the majority. In 2009, the Tea Party was born. The Grand Old Party was rejuvenated. Happy days were here again. Just one year later, the Republicans captured the House, and with that, the power of the purse. They now had the authority to stop the insane spending on so many obnoxious and wholly unnecessary ventures. They could end Obamacare simply by not funding it. Instead, under the “leadership” of John Boehner, it did absolutely nothing. Why, if only we had the Senate! Then we could take on the President! So in 2014, after spending hundreds of millions of campaign dollars running hundreds of thousands of television and radio ads pledging to end illegal immigration while repealing Obamacare “root and branch” (author: Mitch McConnell), they were given control of the Senate. And within a month McConnell re-authorized both, along with every single other thing Harry Reid and Obama wanted for yet another year. But that’s because we can’t do what we promised until we have the Presidency! The excuse was as predictable as summer heat in the Sahara. In 2016, they were given that too. They were given everything. In January of this year, they formally controlled both houses of Congress and the executive branch. Every single thing they’d ever promised was now possible. They now had the power to enact every single spending cut they’d ever solemnly pledged. All those wasteful programs designed to fill the liberal sandbox — PBS, NPR, Planned Parenthood, NEH and the rest of the alphabet soup; all the hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare to multi-billion-dollar corporations; all of the hundreds of billions of dollars directed toward leftist social engineering — poof! All of it could come to an end with a stroke of a pen. They now had the power to restore fiscal tax sanity too. Remember the flat tax? The fair tax? Slashing the highest corporate taxes in the world? Giving you a tax break? All of it could be done with a snap of the fingers. Repeal Obamacare? Check. End illegal immigration? Check. Build the wall? Check. Crush the Deep State? Done, by God, done! There was not a damn thing the Democrats could do to stop them from draining the swamp. Except the Republican leadership didn’t mean it. With the exception of the Freedom Caucus in the House, and literally a handful in the Senate, the rank-and-file didn’t either. Not one word of it. The opportunity arose for the vote to repeal Obamacare, and after huffing and puffing, and huffing and puffing some more, the dust settled and socialized health care remains the law of the land, perhaps permanently. The opportunity arose for tax reform, to enact the cuts America desperately needs. It was never a matter of if, it was a matter of how much. It is now mid-August and nothing, absolutely nothing has been accomplished — even attempted! And now we face the final test: the debt ceiling. Will we or won’t we stop the spending madness? Will the Republicans enact the cuts they’ve promised, or will they now be the ones to kick the can, piling evermore trillions of dollars of debt on their own grandchildren? By every indication that’s precisely what they plan to do. The signal has come from President Trump, from Speaker Ryan, and from Majority Leader McConnell. The debt ceiling will be raised and no fiscal sanity will be restored. There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. Put them together. They are the swamp. Just as Republicans have the power to enact the agenda they’ve pledged in toto, so too do they now own the federal government, in toto. It’s no longer Obamacare. It’s GOPcare. It’s no longer crazy liberal Democratic spending. It’s crazy liberal Republican spending. It’s no longer socialist Democratic Party taxation, it’s socialist Republican Party taxation. All the legislation authorizing all these programs, all the graft, all the waste, all the obscenity, all the immorality, and where Planned Parenthood is concerned, all the killing — all of it is now formally authored by the Republican Party. Come the Congressional elections next year, and the presidential election in 2020, the Grand Old Party will once again bellow its hallowed promises. But this time it won’t work. This time there will be no straw men to blame. This time their voters will know those hallowed promises are not even hollow promises. They are lies. These voters are tasting betrayal. They will not vote to swallow more vomit. We are watching the GOP systematically committing suicide. Brent Bozell is the Chairman of ForAmerica, a national grassroots organization whose mission is to use social media to reinvigorate the public with the principles of American exceptionalism: freedom, prosperity, and virtue. ForAmerica has over 9 million members and is a non-profit 501(c)4. www.ForAmerica.org

www.breitbart.com

right

gaeEUkRDpH8JJElR

test

ta3tntH6HbG2LY1P

media_bias

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/d86bb556a04144239b54f66018722db2

ABC says interview with Epstein accuser wasn’t ready to air

2019-11-05

David Bauder

FILE - This March 14 , 2019 file photo shows ABC News ' Amy Robach at the 2019 ADAPT Leadership Awards in New York . ABC News is defending itself against charges that it was afraid to air an interview with a Jeffrey Epstein accuser after video emerged Tuesday showing Robach venting about her story . ABC says that Robach ’ s 2015 interview with accuser Virginia Roberts didn ’ t have enough corroborating evidence . ( Photo by Andy Kropa/Invision/AP , File ) FILE - This March 14 , 2019 file photo shows ABC News ' Amy Robach at the 2019 ADAPT Leadership Awards in New York . ABC News is defending itself against charges that it was afraid to air an interview with a Jeffrey Epstein accuser after video emerged Tuesday showing Robach venting about her story . ABC says that Robach ’ s 2015 interview with accuser Virginia Roberts didn ’ t have enough corroborating evidence . ( Photo by Andy Kropa/Invision/AP , File ) NEW YORK ( AP ) — ABC News faced questions Tuesday about its reluctance to air a sensitive story of alleged sexual misconduct after a leaked video emerged of reporter Amy Robach complaining about how her bosses handled an interview with a Jeffrey Epstein accuser . The conservative web site Project Veritas released video of Robach venting that “ every day I get more and more pissed ” that her 2015 interview with Virginia Giuffre never made the air . Robach made her remarks late in August while sitting in a Times Square studio with a microphone but not on the air . ABC said Tuesday that the interview didn ’ t meet its standards because it lacked sufficient corroborating evidence . Robach , co-anchor of ABC ’ s “ 20/20 ” newsmagazine , said the leaked video caught her “ in a private moment of frustration . ” The episode was remindful of Ronan Farrow ’ s accusations that NBC News discouraged his reporting on Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein ’ s misconduct . Farrow then took his Pulitzer Prize-winning story to the New Yorker magazine . ABC sought to minimize the comparison , saying it has pursued and aired other stories about Epstein , the New York financier who died Aug. 10 while in police custody on sex trafficking charges . Project Veritas is known for its efforts embarrass mainstream media outlets , often sending undercover reporters to catch employees making statements that display an anti-conservative bent . But it needed no such help with the Robach video , which Project Veritas said came from an “ ABC insider ” it would not identify . The correspondent was visibly exasperated as she complained that “ I tried for three years to get ( the interview ) on to no avail and now it ’ s coming out and it ’ s like these ‘ new revelations ’ and I freaking had all of it . ” Giuffre , whose maiden name is Roberts , alleged that as a teen , she was forced by Epstein to have sex with prominent men , including Prince Andrew . The prince and Epstein both denied the charges . In the video , Robach said she was told “ who ’ s Jeffrey Epstein ? No one knows who that is . This is a stupid story . ” Robach also complained in the video that lawyer Alan Dershowitz and the British Royal Palace applied pressure to ABC not to air the interview with Giuffre . She suggested that the network feared that airing the interview would hurt its ability to get interviews with Prince William and Kate Middleton . ABC denied that outside pressure had anything to do with its decision . “ At the time , not all of our reporting met our standards to air , but we have never stopped investigating the story , ” ABC News said in a statement Tuesday . Giuffre first outlined her allegations against Epstein anonymously in a lawsuit filed in 2009 , and she did her first on-the-record interviews about them with the Daily Mail in 2011 . At the time of ABC ’ s interview , Giuffre ’ s lawyers were battling with Dershowitz , who was fighting back against her claim that he was among the men who had sex with her when she was a minor . While her allegations received widespread attention , some news organizations have treated elements of her story with caution because the list of prominent men she accused was long and her allegations difficult to independently confirm . The ███ doesn ’ t generally identify people who say they ’ re victims of sex assault , unless they come forward publicly as Giuffre has done . Robach said in her statement Tuesday that she had been referring in the video to what Giuffre had said in the interview , not what ABC News had verified through its own reporting . Corroborating evidence of the type the network sought could include interviews with people familiar with Giuffre ’ s allegations or records that would verify she was at the places the alleged sex acts took place . “ The interview itself , while I was disappointed it didn ’ t air , didn ’ t meet our standards , ” Robach said Tuesday . “ In the years since no one has ever told me or the team to stop reporting on Jeffrey Epstein , and we have continued to aggressively pursue this important story . ” ABC says it plans to air a two-hour documentary and six-part podcast on the Epstein case next year . It ’ s still unclear whether Robach ’ s Giuffre interview will be part of it . Now that it is four years old , it would likely need to be updated .

FILE - This March 14, 2019 file photo shows ABC News' Amy Robach at the 2019 ADAPT Leadership Awards in New York. ABC News is defending itself against charges that it was afraid to air an interview with a Jeffrey Epstein accuser after video emerged Tuesday showing Robach venting about her story. ABC says that Robach’s 2015 interview with accuser Virginia Roberts didn’t have enough corroborating evidence. (Photo by Andy Kropa/Invision/AP, File) FILE - This March 14, 2019 file photo shows ABC News' Amy Robach at the 2019 ADAPT Leadership Awards in New York. ABC News is defending itself against charges that it was afraid to air an interview with a Jeffrey Epstein accuser after video emerged Tuesday showing Robach venting about her story. ABC says that Robach’s 2015 interview with accuser Virginia Roberts didn’t have enough corroborating evidence. (Photo by Andy Kropa/Invision/AP, File) NEW YORK (AP) — ABC News faced questions Tuesday about its reluctance to air a sensitive story of alleged sexual misconduct after a leaked video emerged of reporter Amy Robach complaining about how her bosses handled an interview with a Jeffrey Epstein accuser. The conservative web site Project Veritas released video of Robach venting that “every day I get more and more pissed” that her 2015 interview with Virginia Giuffre never made the air. Robach made her remarks late in August while sitting in a Times Square studio with a microphone but not on the air. ABC said Tuesday that the interview didn’t meet its standards because it lacked sufficient corroborating evidence. Robach, co-anchor of ABC’s “20/20” newsmagazine, said the leaked video caught her “in a private moment of frustration.” The episode was remindful of Ronan Farrow’s accusations that NBC News discouraged his reporting on Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein’s misconduct. Farrow then took his Pulitzer Prize-winning story to the New Yorker magazine. ABC sought to minimize the comparison, saying it has pursued and aired other stories about Epstein, the New York financier who died Aug. 10 while in police custody on sex trafficking charges. Project Veritas is known for its efforts embarrass mainstream media outlets, often sending undercover reporters to catch employees making statements that display an anti-conservative bent. But it needed no such help with the Robach video, which Project Veritas said came from an “ABC insider” it would not identify. The correspondent was visibly exasperated as she complained that “I tried for three years to get (the interview) on to no avail and now it’s coming out and it’s like these ‘new revelations’ and I freaking had all of it.” Giuffre, whose maiden name is Roberts, alleged that as a teen, she was forced by Epstein to have sex with prominent men, including Prince Andrew. The prince and Epstein both denied the charges. In the video, Robach said she was told “who’s Jeffrey Epstein? No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story.” Robach also complained in the video that lawyer Alan Dershowitz and the British Royal Palace applied pressure to ABC not to air the interview with Giuffre. She suggested that the network feared that airing the interview would hurt its ability to get interviews with Prince William and Kate Middleton. ABC denied that outside pressure had anything to do with its decision. “At the time, not all of our reporting met our standards to air, but we have never stopped investigating the story,” ABC News said in a statement Tuesday. Giuffre first outlined her allegations against Epstein anonymously in a lawsuit filed in 2009, and she did her first on-the-record interviews about them with the Daily Mail in 2011. At the time of ABC’s interview, Giuffre’s lawyers were battling with Dershowitz, who was fighting back against her claim that he was among the men who had sex with her when she was a minor. While her allegations received widespread attention, some news organizations have treated elements of her story with caution because the list of prominent men she accused was long and her allegations difficult to independently confirm. The Associated Press doesn’t generally identify people who say they’re victims of sex assault, unless they come forward publicly as Giuffre has done. Robach said in her statement Tuesday that she had been referring in the video to what Giuffre had said in the interview, not what ABC News had verified through its own reporting. Corroborating evidence of the type the network sought could include interviews with people familiar with Giuffre’s allegations or records that would verify she was at the places the alleged sex acts took place. “The interview itself, while I was disappointed it didn’t air, didn’t meet our standards,” Robach said Tuesday. “In the years since no one has ever told me or the team to stop reporting on Jeffrey Epstein, and we have continued to aggressively pursue this important story.” ABC says it plans to air a two-hour documentary and six-part podcast on the Epstein case next year. It’s still unclear whether Robach’s Giuffre interview will be part of it. Now that it is four years old, it would likely need to be updated.

www.apnews.com

center

ta3tntH6HbG2LY1P

test

rk6zdGicrbXMVmn4

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/12/media-matters-using-roy-moore-allegations-to-go-after-hannitys-advertisers/

Media Matters Using Roy Moore Allegations To Go After Hannity’s Advertisers

2017-11-12

Left-wing activist group Media Matters is using scandalous allegations surrounding Alabama GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore as a new weapon in their months-long campaign to oust Fox News host Sean Hannity by pressuring sponsors into pulling their advertisements . Moore is accused of making sexual contact with a 14-year-old girl while he was a 32-year-old attorney , in addition to pursuing romantic ( although not sexual ) relationships with other teenage girls around the same time . Media Matters operatives are smearing Hannity to his sponsors , accusing him of defending child sex abuse . ( Hannity has explicitly said that anyone guilty of what Moore is accused of doing has no place in politics . ) Media Matters helped pressure several advertisers into pulling their ads from “ Hannity ” over the weekend . In one instance , Angelo Carusone , Media Matters ’ president , tagged a sponsor of Hannity ’ s show while claiming that Hannity defends “ sexually preying on children . ” Good afternoon @ snhu ( Southern New Hampshire University ) . You are currently one of Hannity ’ s biggest sponsors . Many companies have dropped his show due to his extremism , attacks on women that speak out and his defense of sexually preying on children . Please reconsider . — Angelo Carusone ( @ GoAngelo ) November 12 , 2017 In a direct response to one such tweet from Carusone , coffee company Keurig announced that it would be pulling ads from Hannity ’ s show . Angelo , thank you for your concern and for bringing this to our attention . We worked with our media partner and FOX news to stop our ad from airing during the Sean Hannity Show . — Keurig ( @ Keurig ) November 11 , 2017 Keurig ’ s decision sparked a backlash from Hannity supporters , some of whom called for a boycott against the coffee company . Hannity thanked his supporters for mobilizing in his defense , writing on Twitter : “ I am humbled and speechless and frankly laughing my ass off . I love all my deplorable friends . Thank you and Game on ! ! ” I am humbled and speechless and frankly laughing my ass off . I love all my deplorable friends . Thank you and Game on ! ! — Sean Hannity ( @ seanhannity ) November 13 , 2017 Another sponsor targeted by Media Matters , Realtor.com , announced that it would not be running ads on Hannity in the future . While we continually strategize on where we advertise on and offline , we are not currently , and will not be running TV ads on Hannity . @ mmfa — realtor.com ( @ realtordotcom ) November 11 , 2017 “ While we continually strategize on where we advertise on and offline , we are not currently , and will not be running TV ads on Hannity , ” the company wrote in a tweet , tagging Media Matters ’ Twitter handle to make sure the activists saw it . We ’ ve received inquiries RE : advertising on Hannity . We are not running TV advertising on Hannity . We continue to closely evaluate where we advertise . — 23andMe ( @ 23andMe ) November 10 , 2017 Media Matters has been coming for Hannity ’ s advertisers for months . In August , the activist group launched a “ Stop Sean Hannity ” campaign . The group published a list of Hannity ’ s sponsors and urged left-wingers to let advertisers know that they “ will get burned if they continue to associate with Hannity . ” Media Matters previously targeted Hannity ’ s advertisers in May after the Fox News host pushed a conspiracy theory surrounding murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich . That campaign caused several advertisers — including military insurance group USAA — to pull their ads from Hannity ’ s show . Conservative activists responded by targeting the advertisers for MSNBC ’ s Rachel Maddow and other liberal hosts . USAA caved and pulled its ads from Maddow ’ s show , before eventually reinstating its advertisements on both MSNBC and Fox News . Media Matters ’ effort to defund Hannity comes after they and other left-wing activists successfully pressured Fox News into firing Bill O ’ Reilly following sexual harassment allegations against the host .

Left-wing activist group Media Matters is using scandalous allegations surrounding Alabama GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore as a new weapon in their months-long campaign to oust Fox News host Sean Hannity by pressuring sponsors into pulling their advertisements. Moore is accused of making sexual contact with a 14-year-old girl while he was a 32-year-old attorney, in addition to pursuing romantic (although not sexual) relationships with other teenage girls around the same time. ‘MEDIA MATTERS’ PRESSURES HANNITY SHOW SPONSORS TO DROP OUT Media Matters operatives are smearing Hannity to his sponsors, accusing him of defending child sex abuse. (Hannity has explicitly said that anyone guilty of what Moore is accused of doing has no place in politics.) Media Matters helped pressure several advertisers into pulling their ads from “Hannity” over the weekend. In one instance, Angelo Carusone, Media Matters’ president, tagged a sponsor of Hannity’s show while claiming that Hannity defends “sexually preying on children.” Good afternoon @snhu (Southern New Hampshire University). You are currently one of Hannity’s biggest sponsors. Many companies have dropped his show due to his extremism, attacks on women that speak out and his defense of sexually preying on children. Please reconsider. — Angelo Carusone (@GoAngelo) November 12, 2017 In a direct response to one such tweet from Carusone, coffee company Keurig announced that it would be pulling ads from Hannity’s show. Angelo, thank you for your concern and for bringing this to our attention. We worked with our media partner and FOX news to stop our ad from airing during the Sean Hannity Show. — Keurig (@Keurig) November 11, 2017 Keurig’s decision sparked a backlash from Hannity supporters, some of whom called for a boycott against the coffee company. Hannity thanked his supporters for mobilizing in his defense, writing on Twitter: “I am humbled and speechless and frankly laughing my ass off. I love all my deplorable friends. Thank you and Game on!!” I am humbled and speechless and frankly laughing my ass off. I love all my deplorable friends. Thank you and Game on!! — Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) November 13, 2017 Another sponsor targeted by Media Matters, Realtor.com, announced that it would not be running ads on Hannity in the future. While we continually strategize on where we advertise on and offline, we are not currently, and will not be running TV ads on Hannity. @mmfa — realtor.com (@realtordotcom) November 11, 2017 “While we continually strategize on where we advertise on and offline, we are not currently, and will not be running TV ads on Hannity,” the company wrote in a tweet, tagging Media Matters’ Twitter handle to make sure the activists saw it. Other companies posted similar statements to Twitter. We’ve received inquiries RE: advertising on Hannity. We are not running TV advertising on Hannity. We continue to closely evaluate where we advertise. — 23andMe (@23andMe) November 10, 2017 Hi there! Hannity is blocked from our advertising list. If we can help with anything else, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us at [email protected]. — ELOQUII (@ELOQUII) November 10, 2017 Media Matters has been coming for Hannity’s advertisers for months. In August, the activist group launched a “Stop Sean Hannity” campaign. The group published a list of Hannity’s sponsors and urged left-wingers to let advertisers know that they “will get burned if they continue to associate with Hannity.” Media Matters previously targeted Hannity’s advertisers in May after the Fox News host pushed a conspiracy theory surrounding murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich. That campaign caused several advertisers — including military insurance group USAA — to pull their ads from Hannity’s show. Conservative activists responded by targeting the advertisers for MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and other liberal hosts. USAA caved and pulled its ads from Maddow’s show, before eventually reinstating its advertisements on both MSNBC and Fox News. Media Matters’ effort to defund Hannity comes after they and other left-wing activists successfully pressured Fox News into firing Bill O’Reilly following sexual harassment allegations against the host.

www.dailycaller.com

right

rk6zdGicrbXMVmn4

test

rw0igfeDfwvJTGoV

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/20/facebook-falsely-claims-colin-powell-cleared-hillary-in-email-case/

Facebook Falsely Claims Colin Powell Cleared Hillary In Email Case

2016-08-20

Facebook ’ s “ Trending Topics ” section is at it again . Saturday morning the site ran a headline in the section declaring , “ Colin Powell : Former Secretary of State Confirms He Recommended Using Personal Email to Hillary Clinton. ” The only problem is Powell made no such declaration and he denied Clinton ’ s claim . Colin Powell denied Clinton ’ s claim he recommended she use private email . Statement from Colin Powell ’ s office to NBC News—after NYT @ amychozick rpt on Clinton emails https : //t.co/tLMYzhobKo pic.twitter.com/Z5S8JI6BYm — Bradd Jaffy ( @ BraddJaffy ) August 19 , 2016 The “ story ” Facebook labeled as trending wasn ’ t a story at all . It contained no link to a news outlet backing up its claim with substantiation or sourcing . It mentioned the New York Times , but only in reference to Clinton ’ s original claim , which Powell denied . Clinton not only exclusively used private email for all her communications as secretary of state , she took the unprecedented step of setting up her own private email system and server which kept all of her communications with anyone not using an official government email address off the government grid , shielding them from Freedom of Information Act requests . The Facebook story makes no mention of this or that Clinton ’ s shadow email system contained classified material , something Powell ’ s statement explicitly said he used a secure State Department computer to handle . When the story broke that Facebook was manipulating the news its users saw , the company denied it , although they did convene a meeting with conservative news organizations and promised to change practices .

Facebook’s “Trending Topics” section is at it again. Saturday morning the site ran a headline in the section declaring, “Colin Powell: Former Secretary of State Confirms He Recommended Using Personal Email to Hillary Clinton.” The only problem is Powell made no such declaration and he denied Clinton’s claim. Once clicked, the “Trending Topics” story takes you to a picture of the two former secretaries of state with a caption reading, “Colin Powell: Former Secretary of State Confirms He Recommended Using Personal Email to Hillary Clinton. Powell told Clinton using personal email ‘vastly improved’ communication with his department, he said in a release Thursday. She revealed this to the FBI in July, the New York Times reported.” The only problem is it didn’t happen. Colin Powell denied Clinton’s claim he recommended she use private email. Statement from Colin Powell’s office to NBC News—after NYT @amychozick rpt on Clinton emails https://t.co/tLMYzhobKo pic.twitter.com/Z5S8JI6BYm — Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) August 19, 2016 The “story” Facebook labeled as trending wasn’t a story at all. It contained no link to a news outlet backing up its claim with substantiation or sourcing. It mentioned the New York Times, but only in reference to Clinton’s original claim, which Powell denied. Clinton not only exclusively used private email for all her communications as secretary of state, she took the unprecedented step of setting up her own private email system and server which kept all of her communications with anyone not using an official government email address off the government grid, shielding them from Freedom of Information Act requests. The Facebook story makes no mention of this or that Clinton’s shadow email system contained classified material, something Powell’s statement explicitly said he used a secure State Department computer to handle. When the story broke that Facebook was manipulating the news its users saw, the company denied it, although they did convene a meeting with conservative news organizations and promised to change practices.

www.dailycaller.com

right

rw0igfeDfwvJTGoV

test

74c5agAizm7TUm3h

lgbt_rights

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/02/09/Hollande-Backs-Down-On-Pro-Same-Sex-Marriage-Law-After-Tens-of-Thousands-March-In-Europe-For-Traditional-Families

Francois Hollande Halts Same-Sex Parenting Law After Huge Pro-Traditional Family March

2014-02-09

Dr. Susan Berry

In the wake of tens of thousands of people participating in pro-traditional family protests in France and throughout Europe , French President François Hollande backed down from submitting a new family-law bill to parliament that would make legal “ assisted procreation for lesbian couples ” and “ surrogate motherhood for gay men ” who want children . According to France24 , a source in Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault ’ s office said Monday that France ’ s socialist government would no longer present a bill to modernize family law to reflect “ diversity ” of families . Over 100,000 protesters in Paris and Lyon , many Catholic and some Muslim , and thousands more in Brussels , Bucharest , Madrid , Warsaw , and Rome , demonstrated in favor of marriage and the traditional family last Sunday . The demonstrations were led by La Manif Pour Tous ( Protest for Everyone ) , a fast-growing coalition of groups that has organized massive rallies against same-sex marriage legislation throughout Europe . Though France ’ s Interior Minister Manuel Valls warned the marchers that “ no excesses ” would be tolerated during the protests , and subsequently ordered a heavy security presence , the demonstrations , composed mostly of families with young children in strollers , were peaceful . Ludovine de la Rochère , head of La Manif Pour Tous , said the government ’ s decision was a victory for the conservative movement . “ What was outlined in this bill was not conducive to the interests of children or of the family , ” de la Rochère said . As Edward Pentin reports at Newsmax , Jean-Pierre Delaume-Myard , a spokesman for La Manif Pour Tous – who is himself gay – told Vatican Radio Friday that children are the “ first victims ” of same-sex marriage . “ It deprives them of a father and a mother , ” he said . “ The desire to have a child by a homosexual can not justify any kind of solution to fill this gap . Every child has the right to have a father and a mother . ” Delaume-Myard added that France ’ s same-sex marriage legislation – known as “ Taubira law ” – was imposed on the French people , even by repressing opposition through violence , a charge that is currently under investigation . Claiming that “ the majority of homosexuals had never asked for such a thing , ” Delaume-Myard said the fact that “ civil unions ” have been in existence in France for years and have only been chosen by four percent of gay people in the country is evidence that same-sex marriage is not a popular cause for this group . Moreover , medically assisted procreation and surrogate pregnancies , he said , turn women and children into mere commodities . Protesters in other parts of Europe were demonstrating as well against the Lunacek report on equality regarding sexual orientation and gender identity . The report calls for a new “ road map ” within the European Union to attack “ homophobia ” and demand that gay and lesbian rights be considered human rights . The Lunacek report also demands the promotion of “ equality and non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity throughout its youth and education programmes . ” In Italy , La Manif Pour Tous demonstrated against the Lunacek report . Director Jacopo Coghe said the rally was “ to affirm that we will not be instruments of violence and destruction ” and will “ defend the family , paying in person if necessary . ” Coghe added that “ only the union between a man and a woman can form a stable construct that is the family , the place par excellence of solidarity and acceptance . ” In the United States , as ███ reported , Attorney General Eric Holder set into motion new measures that will expand same-sex marriage privileges in all federal courtrooms to eliminate distinctions between traditional marriages and same-sex unions . Equating protests against same-sex “ marriage ” with racial discrimination , Holder said , “ As all-important as the fight against racial discrimination was then , and remains today , know this : My commitment to confronting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity runs just as deep . ” The Coalition of African-American Pastors ( CAAP ) , however , sharply disagrees with Holder . Last August , Rev . William Owens , chairman of CAAP , told ███ that the black community “ knows that our civil rights were won through a strong faith in God , and most still believe that the truths of our faith say that marriage should be between a man and a woman . ” Owens said the Obama administration ’ s announcement of support for same-sex marriage was a turning point for him . “ Obama is the most powerful man in the country , and he sent a signal that same-sex marriage is okay . Well , we don ’ t think it ’ s right , and that day was the day the dynamics changed , ” he asserted . Holder states his new policies will extend “ rights ” to same-sex couples even in states that do not legally recognize their marriages .

In the wake of tens of thousands of people participating in pro-traditional family protests in France and throughout Europe, French President François Hollande backed down from submitting a new family-law bill to parliament that would make legal “assisted procreation for lesbian couples” and “surrogate motherhood for gay men” who want children. According to France24, a source in Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault’s office said Monday that France’s socialist government would no longer present a bill to modernize family law to reflect “diversity” of families. Over 100,000 protesters in Paris and Lyon, many Catholic and some Muslim, and thousands more in Brussels, Bucharest, Madrid, Warsaw, and Rome, demonstrated in favor of marriage and the traditional family last Sunday. The demonstrations were led by La Manif Pour Tous (Protest for Everyone), a fast-growing coalition of groups that has organized massive rallies against same-sex marriage legislation throughout Europe. Though France’s Interior Minister Manuel Valls warned the marchers that “no excesses” would be tolerated during the protests, and subsequently ordered a heavy security presence, the demonstrations, composed mostly of families with young children in strollers, were peaceful. Ludovine de la Rochère, head of La Manif Pour Tous, said the government’s decision was a victory for the conservative movement. “What was outlined in this bill was not conducive to the interests of children or of the family,” de la Rochère said. As Edward Pentin reports at Newsmax, Jean-Pierre Delaume-Myard, a spokesman for La Manif Pour Tous – who is himself gay – told Vatican Radio Friday that children are the “first victims” of same-sex marriage. “It deprives them of a father and a mother,” he said. “The desire to have a child by a homosexual cannot justify any kind of solution to fill this gap. Every child has the right to have a father and a mother.” Delaume-Myard added that France’s same-sex marriage legislation – known as “Taubira law” – was imposed on the French people, even by repressing opposition through violence, a charge that is currently under investigation. Claiming that “the majority of homosexuals had never asked for such a thing,” Delaume-Myard said the fact that “civil unions” have been in existence in France for years and have only been chosen by four percent of gay people in the country is evidence that same-sex marriage is not a popular cause for this group. Moreover, medically assisted procreation and surrogate pregnancies, he said, turn women and children into mere commodities. Protesters in other parts of Europe were demonstrating as well against the Lunacek report on equality regarding sexual orientation and gender identity. The report calls for a new “road map” within the European Union to attack “homophobia” and demand that gay and lesbian rights be considered human rights. The Lunacek report also demands the promotion of “equality and non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity throughout its youth and education programmes.” In Italy, La Manif Pour Tous demonstrated against the Lunacek report. Director Jacopo Coghe said the rally was “to affirm that we will not be instruments of violence and destruction” and will “defend the family, paying in person if necessary.” Coghe added that “only the union between a man and a woman can form a stable construct that is the family, the place par excellence of solidarity and acceptance.” In the United States, as Breitbart News reported, Attorney General Eric Holder set into motion new measures that will expand same-sex marriage privileges in all federal courtrooms to eliminate distinctions between traditional marriages and same-sex unions. Equating protests against same-sex “marriage” with racial discrimination, Holder said, “As all-important as the fight against racial discrimination was then, and remains today, know this: My commitment to confronting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity runs just as deep.” The Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP), however, sharply disagrees with Holder. Last August, Rev. William Owens, chairman of CAAP, told Breitbart News that the black community “knows that our civil rights were won through a strong faith in God, and most still believe that the truths of our faith say that marriage should be between a man and a woman.” Owens said the Obama administration’s announcement of support for same-sex marriage was a turning point for him. “Obama is the most powerful man in the country, and he sent a signal that same-sex marriage is okay. Well, we don’t think it’s right, and that day was the day the dynamics changed,” he asserted. Holder states his new policies will extend “rights” to same-sex couples even in states that do not legally recognize their marriages.

www.breitbart.com

right

74c5agAizm7TUm3h

test

Z6M0gbnMRMrk9nj4

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/the-megalomania-of-james-comey/

The Megalomania of James Comey

Esther Goldberg, Jed Babbin, George Parry, David Catron

They used to be called “ megalomaniacs ” , people who had outsized , larger than life images of themselves . Today they ’ re described as having narcissistic personality disorder , characterized by a sense of their own grandiose uniqueness . Not having a true sense of their own self , narcissists create themselves in the roles they play . They are the heroes of their own lives . Everyone else is a bit player . James Comey was such a man . He was Hamlet . Everyone else was Rosencrantz and Guildenstern . Comey identified with theologian Reinhold Niebuhr , who believed that political life should serve moral ends . And being a prosecutor , Comey believed , meant doing the right thing “ by definition. ” Think of it as a syllogism . If A is a prosecutor , then A is doing the right thing . A is a prosecutor . Therefore A is doing the right thing . Quod erat demonstrandum Then , when his downfall came , when he was fired by President Trump , Comey saw himself as Saint Thomas Becket , Archbishop of Canterbury , Henry II ’ s “ meddlesome priest. ” That ’ s what he told the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8 . Two days after he was inaugurated , President Trump hosted a ceremony to honor law enforcement officers and officials . They ’ d had a lot to deal with , considering the Antifa riots , the shattering of storefront windows , and other conspiracies to harm Trump voters , like sending a nasty gas that could cause burns and blindness through the ventilation system at one of the inauguration balls . Throughout these events , the officers had handled themselves with magnificence and restraint . As the head of America ’ s top law enforcement agency , no rational person would think to question why John Comey would attend that ceremony . Yet Comey was uneasy . He wanted to go , but he worried that his very presence would send heads a spinning and tongues a wagging . He ’ d be seen as having too close a relationship with the White House . Whereas Hamlet , as he told his mom , knew not “ seems , ” Comey did . So he devised a plan , which he confided to the Brookings Institution ’ s Benjamin Wittes , who in turn related it to The New York Times . Comey would choose a costume to match the décor of the Blue Room , where the ceremony was to be held . He would wear a dark blue suit that would blend in with the room ’ s dark blue draperies . Like a chameleon , he ’ d disappear into the background , all 6 foot 8 inches of him . This sort of thing works in a French farce , and one can ’ t but wonder how Comey would have handled the situation had the drapes been orange paisley . But there was no hiding from the sharp-eyed President . He spotted Comey amongst the folds of the drapes and beckoned him come . Comey put on a happy face as he boldly strode across the room to where the President was waiting , his right hand outstretched . That ’ s when Comey was treated to the famous Trump handshake . We ’ re all now familiar with that handshake . When you take his hand he grips it and jerks you towards him . If he ’ s in a position to do so , he ’ ll then put his left hand on your left arm , like you ’ ve always been best buds . We ’ ve seen him do it with Justin Trudeau , Shinzo Abe and Emmanuel Macron , among others . Some grin , some look surprised , some enter into the spirit of it all and turn it into a kind of hand wrestling contest . However they react to the Trump handshake , everyone treats it as good fun . Honi soit qui mal y pense . But if you ’ re Jim Comey , you discern the hidden meaning behind every gesture , and he perceived that his virtue had been compromised . So much so , that he had to defend it . Rather , his friend Mr. Wittes had to . Thus arose the Wittes clarification of the handshake to the Times . “ Trump pulled him into an embrace and Comey didn ’ t reciprocate . ” An embrace ? Yes , Comey “ regarded the episode as a physical attempt to show closeness and warmth in a fashion calculated to compromise him before Democrats who already mistrusted him . ” Of course ! Now that it ’ s been explained , we wonder how we could have missed it . History will remember the incident as “ The Matter of the Handshake. ” It will be analyzed and discussed in spy training seminars for generations . Already , we can use “ The Matter of the Handshake ” to illuminate the following exchange between Comey and Senator Jim Risch on June 8 . ” RISCH : … Boy , you nailed this down on page 5 , paragraph 3 . You put this in quotes . Words matter . You wrote down the words so we can all have the words in front of us now . There ’ s 28 words now in quotes . It says , quote , I hope — this is the president speaking — I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go , to letting Flynn go . He is good guy . I hope you can let this go . Now , those are his exact words , is that correct . COMEY : Correct . RISCH : You wrote them here and put them in quotes . COMEY : Correct . RISCH : Thank you for that . He did not direct you to let it [ the Flynn matter ] go ? COMEY : Not in his words , no . RISCH : He did not order you to let it go ? COMEY : Again , those words are not an order . RISCH : He said , I hope.… COMEY : … The reason I keep saying his words is I took it as a direction . RISCH : Right . COMEY : I mean , this is a president of the United States with me alone saying I hope this . I took it as , this is what he wants me to do . I didn ’ t obey that , but that ’ s the way I took it . RISCH : You may have taken it as a direction but that ’ s not what he said . COMEY : Correct . RISCH : He said , I hope . COMEY : Those are his exact words , correct . RISCH : You don ’ t know of anyone ever being charged for hoping something , is that a fair statement ? COMEY : I don ’ t as I sit here . RISCH : Thank you , Mr. Chairman . “ Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men ? ” asked Frank Readick Jr. at the beginning of every episode of The Shadow radio show . In the background , sinister laughter . The Shadow was a vigilante crime fighter with supernatural powers , and the answer was “ The Shadow knows . ” So , apparently , does James Comey . For Comey , there ’ s more to everything than meets the eye . And that includes a handshake , and also a hope .

They used to be called “megalomaniacs”, people who had outsized, larger than life images of themselves. Today they’re described as having narcissistic personality disorder, characterized by a sense of their own grandiose uniqueness. Not having a true sense of their own self, narcissists create themselves in the roles they play. They are the heroes of their own lives. Everyone else is a bit player. James Comey was such a man. He was Hamlet. Everyone else was Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Comey identified with theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, who believed that political life should serve moral ends. And being a prosecutor, Comey believed, meant doing the right thing “by definition.” Think of it as a syllogism. If A is a prosecutor, then A is doing the right thing. A is a prosecutor. Therefore A is doing the right thing. Quod erat demonstrandum Then, when his downfall came, when he was fired by President Trump, Comey saw himself as Saint Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, Henry II’s “meddlesome priest.” That’s what he told the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8. Two days after he was inaugurated, President Trump hosted a ceremony to honor law enforcement officers and officials. They’d had a lot to deal with, considering the Antifa riots, the shattering of storefront windows, and other conspiracies to harm Trump voters, like sending a nasty gas that could cause burns and blindness through the ventilation system at one of the inauguration balls. Throughout these events, the officers had handled themselves with magnificence and restraint. As the head of America’s top law enforcement agency, no rational person would think to question why John Comey would attend that ceremony. Yet Comey was uneasy. He wanted to go, but he worried that his very presence would send heads a spinning and tongues a wagging. He’d be seen as having too close a relationship with the White House. Whereas Hamlet, as he told his mom, knew not “seems,” Comey did. So he devised a plan, which he confided to the Brookings Institution’s Benjamin Wittes, who in turn related it to The New York Times. Comey would choose a costume to match the décor of the Blue Room, where the ceremony was to be held. He would wear a dark blue suit that would blend in with the room’s dark blue draperies. Like a chameleon, he’d disappear into the background, all 6 foot 8 inches of him. This sort of thing works in a French farce, and one can’t but wonder how Comey would have handled the situation had the drapes been orange paisley. But there was no hiding from the sharp-eyed President. He spotted Comey amongst the folds of the drapes and beckoned him come. Comey put on a happy face as he boldly strode across the room to where the President was waiting, his right hand outstretched. That’s when Comey was treated to the famous Trump handshake. We’re all now familiar with that handshake. When you take his hand he grips it and jerks you towards him. If he’s in a position to do so, he’ll then put his left hand on your left arm, like you’ve always been best buds. We’ve seen him do it with Justin Trudeau, Shinzo Abe and Emmanuel Macron, among others. Some grin, some look surprised, some enter into the spirit of it all and turn it into a kind of hand wrestling contest. However they react to the Trump handshake, everyone treats it as good fun. Honi soit qui mal y pense. But if you’re Jim Comey, you discern the hidden meaning behind every gesture, and he perceived that his virtue had been compromised. So much so, that he had to defend it. Rather, his friend Mr. Wittes had to. Thus arose the Wittes clarification of the handshake to the Times. “Trump pulled him into an embrace and Comey didn’t reciprocate.” An embrace? Yes, Comey “regarded the episode as a physical attempt to show closeness and warmth in a fashion calculated to compromise him before Democrats who already mistrusted him.” Of course! Now that it’s been explained, we wonder how we could have missed it. History will remember the incident as “The Matter of the Handshake.” It will be analyzed and discussed in spy training seminars for generations. Already, we can use “The Matter of the Handshake” to illuminate the following exchange between Comey and Senator Jim Risch on June 8.” RISCH: … Boy, you nailed this down on page 5, paragraph 3. You put this in quotes. Words matter. You wrote down the words so we can all have the words in front of us now. There’s 28 words now in quotes. It says, quote, I hope — this is the president speaking — I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is good guy. I hope you can let this go. Now, those are his exact words, is that correct. COMEY: Correct. RISCH: You wrote them here and put them in quotes. COMEY: Correct. RISCH: Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it [the Flynn matter] go? COMEY: Not in his words, no. RISCH: He did not order you to let it go? COMEY: Again, those words are not an order. RISCH: He said, I hope.… COMEY: … The reason I keep saying his words is I took it as a direction. RISCH: Right. COMEY: I mean, this is a president of the United States with me alone saying I hope this. I took it as, this is what he wants me to do. I didn’t obey that, but that’s the way I took it. RISCH: You may have taken it as a direction but that’s not what he said. COMEY: Correct. RISCH: He said, I hope. COMEY: Those are his exact words, correct. RISCH: You don’t know of anyone ever being charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement? COMEY: I don’t as I sit here. RISCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. “Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?” asked Frank Readick Jr. at the beginning of every episode of The Shadow radio show. In the background, sinister laughter. The Shadow was a vigilante crime fighter with supernatural powers, and the answer was “The Shadow knows.” So, apparently, does James Comey. For Comey, there’s more to everything than meets the eye. And that includes a handshake, and also a hope.

www.spectator.org

right

Z6M0gbnMRMrk9nj4

test

yTiQNhfckhAzD9o8

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/John-Kerry-internet/2014/12/22/id/614433/

John Kerry to Cuba: 'Tear Down The Digital Wall'

2014-12-22

Melanie Batley

Secretary of State John Kerry issued a challenge to Cuba to `` tear down the digital wall , '' evoking former President Ronald Reagan 's challenge to the Soviet Union at the Berlin Wall in 1987.In an opinion piece in the Miami Herald , Kerry , along with Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew , said in the wake of normalization of relations with Cuba that the Cuban people were being harmed by low access to the internet . `` The president 's decision will support new efforts to tear down the digital wall that isolates Cubans . The country has an internet penetration rate of 5 percent , among the lowest in the world . Prices are high , and services are limited . Under the new policy , we will permit the sale of technology that will begin to unleash the transformative effects of the internet on the island , '' they wrote.They said that the president 's decision to normalize relations will benefit the Cuban people who have been held back from advancing toward democracy and building closer ties with the rest of the world.They added that during bilateral discussions with the country , the United States intends to advance cooperation on areas such counter-narcotics , migration , combating trafficking-in-persons , the Ebola crisis , and environmental challenges . And , they said , the administration will be pressing for improved human-rights conditions and democratic reforms.The Cabinet members also insisted the policy of isolation served a purpose but no longer suits today 's state of affairs . `` As Albert Einstein said long ago , it 's just not rational to continue doing the same thing in the expectation of obtaining a different result . Since U.S.-Cuban relations were frozen , the world has been transformed ; the Cold War ended a quarter century ago . Over time the U.S. effort to isolate Cuba began to have the reverse effect of isolating the United States especially in the Western Hemisphere . `` Meanwhile , Cuban leaders used our stance as a source of propaganda , to justify policies that have no place in the 21st century . It has been an open secret that the relationship has been in a rut that benefits no one on either side . The time has come to cease looking backward and to begin to move forward in the interests of both freedom-loving Cubans and the United States , '' they said.They concluded with a summary of benefits they believed would result from the decision to normalize relations , saying there will be significant advantages for both the United States and Cuba . `` President Obama 's announcement last week is forward-looking and emphasizes the value of people-to-people relations , increased commerce , more communications and respectful dialogue . `` It will enhance our ability to have a positive impact on events inside Cuba and to help improve the lives of the Cuban people . It will put American businesses on a more equal footing . And it will enhance the standing of our own country in the hemisphere and around the world . ''

Secretary of State John Kerry issued a challenge to Cuba to "tear down the digital wall," evoking former President Ronald Reagan's challenge to the Soviet Union at the Berlin Wall in 1987.In an opinion piece in the Miami Herald, Kerry, along with Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, said in the wake of normalization of relations with Cuba that the Cuban people were being harmed by low access to the internet."The president's decision will support new efforts to tear down the digital wall that isolates Cubans. The country has an internet penetration rate of 5 percent, among the lowest in the world. Prices are high, and services are limited. Under the new policy, we will permit the sale of technology that will begin to unleash the transformative effects of the internet on the island," they wrote.They said that the president's decision to normalize relations will benefit the Cuban people who have been held back from advancing toward democracy and building closer ties with the rest of the world.They added that during bilateral discussions with the country, the United States intends to advance cooperation on areas such counter-narcotics, migration, combating trafficking-in-persons, the Ebola crisis, and environmental challenges. And, they said, the administration will be pressing for improved human-rights conditions and democratic reforms.The Cabinet members also insisted the policy of isolation served a purpose but no longer suits today's state of affairs."As Albert Einstein said long ago, it's just not rational to continue doing the same thing in the expectation of obtaining a different result. Since U.S.-Cuban relations were frozen, the world has been transformed; the Cold War ended a quarter century ago. Over time the U.S. effort to isolate Cuba began to have the reverse effect of isolating the United States especially in the Western Hemisphere."Meanwhile, Cuban leaders used our stance as a source of propaganda, to justify policies that have no place in the 21st century. It has been an open secret that the relationship has been in a rut that benefits no one on either side. The time has come to cease looking backward and to begin to move forward in the interests of both freedom-loving Cubans and the United States," they said.They concluded with a summary of benefits they believed would result from the decision to normalize relations, saying there will be significant advantages for both the United States and Cuba."President Obama's announcement last week is forward-looking and emphasizes the value of people-to-people relations, increased commerce, more communications and respectful dialogue."It will enhance our ability to have a positive impact on events inside Cuba and to help improve the lives of the Cuban people. It will put American businesses on a more equal footing. And it will enhance the standing of our own country in the hemisphere and around the world."

www.newsmax.com

right

yTiQNhfckhAzD9o8

test

gvxDUveHa5Lpwv0P

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/an-inaugural-address-or-a-rally/

An Inaugural Address or a Rally?

Debra J. Saunders, Dov Fischer, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jeffrey Lord, William Murchison

At nearly 3 a.m. on Nov. 9 , Donald J. Trump spoke to the world after TV networks declared him the victor in the presidential election . His remarks were short . Trump praised his Democratic opponent , Hillary Clinton . He even reached out to those who had not supported him and asked for their guidance and “ help so that we can work together and unify our great country . ” Brief , gracious and unifying — Trump ’ s acceptance speech might be a perfect template for the inaugural address the Republican will deliver next Friday . Trump spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters Friday to expect the victory remarks ’ theme of “ uniting and bringing all Americans together , ” with a focus on restoring pride in America , American jobs and “ the role he sees every American playing in making the country better . ” The Inauguration , however , lacks the element of surprise that often charges Trump productions . When the GOP nominee swept the electoral college , but lost the popular vote with 46 percent of the tally compared to Clinton ’ s 48 percent , most political observers found themselves on terra incognita as Trump emerged praising his opponent and detractors , in a way that showed a different — read : more presidential — presidential hopeful . Since that high moment , said Democratic strategist and CNN commentator Maria Cardona , Trump has returned to his Twitter wars and occasional Clinton bashing . “ I think he was magnanimous the night he won , ” Cardona said , “ but that is when the feeling ended . ” Bill Whalen , a fellow at Stanford University ’ s Hoover Institution , sees a president-elect who takes office with many voters “ not liking him and not planning to like him. ” The latest Gallup poll reported that only 44 percent of voters approve of Trump ’ s transition , while 51 percent disapprove . The inauguration provides Trump with a chance to win over skeptics — or drive them further away . Ken Khachigian , who wrote President Ronald Reagan ’ s first inaugural address , has some advice for the Trump team . Avoid the mistake most speechwriters make when they are working on a president ’ s first inaugural address — don ’ t , as Khachigian started to do , “ read Lincoln ’ s inaugural ” and then think you “ need to write for the ages . ” Leave soaring eloquence for past presidents , Khachigian advised . Trump should not “ try to be someone he ’ s not . ” “ I do not expect it to be particularly historically significant , ” Whalen said , as few inaugural addresses are . The best course would be for Trump to “ very directly declare where he sees America ’ s standing in the world ” and standing on its own . Let Trump save the policy pronouncements for his State of the Union speech on Feb. 21 . “ I think it would help him to try to bring a message of unification and calm , ” Khachigian said , “ not in a groveling , pandering way , but in a straightforward way that shows he ’ s prepared to work with his counterparts in government and be responsive to the public as well. ” Also , Trump has to keep in mind , “ it ’ s not a rally . ” This is where Cardona expects Trump to stumble . “ He continues on this very misguided belief that he won and that the people who don ’ t support him need to get over it , ” she said . Cardona cited Trump ’ s Cabinet picks — they ’ re mostly white and male — as indicators that Trump does not recognize the ill will that he has brewed as one of the hurdles he must surmount if he truly wants to unite the country . And : “ He think it ’ s somebody else ’ s fault that we ’ re not united . ” The inaugural stage presents unique optics , Whalen observed . Rather than being surrounded by his die-hard boosters as he was election night , Trump will take the Oath of Office below the Capitol , where he will be surrounded by the very people he so brutally vanquished . Former presidents will attend . That means Bill and Hillary Clinton , aka “ Crooked Hillary , ” will stand nearby , as will George W. Bush , whose brother , former Florida Gov . Jeb Trump , Trump destroyed when he labeled him “ low energy . ” Also expected are his defeated GOP rivals in the Senate — Sens . Marco Rubio of Florida , aka “ Little Marco , ” “ Lyin ’ Ted ” Cruz of Texas , Rand Paul of Kentucky , whose looks Trump mocked , and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina . Long after the campaign ended , Trump continued to trash talk his rivals . At Wednesday ’ s press conference , Trump quipped that he ’ d been competing with Graham for years and one day Graham “ is going to crack that 1 percent barrier. ” On Friday , Trump tweeted that Hillary Clinton was “ guilty as hell . ” There ’ s a potential , as Cardona put it , that Trump will come across as a “ sore winner . ” Add another element — the inauguration also will draw countless protesters and hecklers . Whalen expects Trump to keep his cool this time . “ We tend to lose sight of this with Trump , ” he noted , “ when people overdo it with Trump , Trump gets the better of the exchange . ” Perhaps the same dynamic will work with Democratic House members like Reps. Barbara Lee of California and John Lewis of Georgia who have announced they will boycott the ceremony . The tables have turned . Just last year the Clinton campaign took on Trump for saying the election was “ rigged. ” “ You must accept the outcome , ” Clinton ’ s campaign scolded . For her part , Lee pledged to spend Friday “ preparing for the resistance. ” Lewis declared that Trump is not “ a legitimate president . ” On Friday on the Capitol steps , Donald J. Trump will take the Oath of Office . He will assume office with the sure support of an enthusiastic plurality . But what of the majority of voters who did not support him but want to root for him to succeed ? America will learn the answer at noon .

At nearly 3 a.m. on Nov. 9, Donald J. Trump spoke to the world after TV networks declared him the victor in the presidential election. His remarks were short. Trump praised his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. He even reached out to those who had not supported him and asked for their guidance and “help so that we can work together and unify our great country.” Brief, gracious and unifying — Trump’s acceptance speech might be a perfect template for the inaugural address the Republican will deliver next Friday. Trump spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters Friday to expect the victory remarks’ theme of “uniting and bringing all Americans together,” with a focus on restoring pride in America, American jobs and “the role he sees every American playing in making the country better.” The Inauguration, however, lacks the element of surprise that often charges Trump productions. When the GOP nominee swept the electoral college, but lost the popular vote with 46 percent of the tally compared to Clinton’s 48 percent, most political observers found themselves on terra incognita as Trump emerged praising his opponent and detractors, in a way that showed a different — read: more presidential — presidential hopeful. Since that high moment, said Democratic strategist and CNN commentator Maria Cardona, Trump has returned to his Twitter wars and occasional Clinton bashing. “I think he was magnanimous the night he won,” Cardona said, “but that is when the feeling ended.” Bill Whalen, a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, sees a president-elect who takes office with many voters “not liking him and not planning to like him.” The latest Gallup poll reported that only 44 percent of voters approve of Trump’s transition, while 51 percent disapprove. The inauguration provides Trump with a chance to win over skeptics — or drive them further away. Ken Khachigian, who wrote President Ronald Reagan’s first inaugural address, has some advice for the Trump team. Avoid the mistake most speechwriters make when they are working on a president’s first inaugural address — don’t, as Khachigian started to do, “read Lincoln’s inaugural” and then think you “need to write for the ages.” Leave soaring eloquence for past presidents, Khachigian advised. Trump should not “try to be someone he’s not.” “I do not expect it to be particularly historically significant,” Whalen said, as few inaugural addresses are. The best course would be for Trump to “very directly declare where he sees America’s standing in the world” and standing on its own. Let Trump save the policy pronouncements for his State of the Union speech on Feb. 21. “I think it would help him to try to bring a message of unification and calm,” Khachigian said, “not in a groveling, pandering way, but in a straightforward way that shows he’s prepared to work with his counterparts in government and be responsive to the public as well.” Also, Trump has to keep in mind, “it’s not a rally.” This is where Cardona expects Trump to stumble. “He continues on this very misguided belief that he won and that the people who don’t support him need to get over it,” she said. Cardona cited Trump’s Cabinet picks — they’re mostly white and male — as indicators that Trump does not recognize the ill will that he has brewed as one of the hurdles he must surmount if he truly wants to unite the country. And: “He think it’s somebody else’s fault that we’re not united.” The inaugural stage presents unique optics, Whalen observed. Rather than being surrounded by his die-hard boosters as he was election night, Trump will take the Oath of Office below the Capitol, where he will be surrounded by the very people he so brutally vanquished. Former presidents will attend. That means Bill and Hillary Clinton, aka “Crooked Hillary,” will stand nearby, as will George W. Bush, whose brother, former Florida Gov. Jeb Trump, Trump destroyed when he labeled him “low energy.” Also expected are his defeated GOP rivals in the Senate — Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, aka “Little Marco,” “Lyin’ Ted” Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, whose looks Trump mocked, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Long after the campaign ended, Trump continued to trash talk his rivals. At Wednesday’s press conference, Trump quipped that he’d been competing with Graham for years and one day Graham “ is going to crack that 1 percent barrier.” On Friday, Trump tweeted that Hillary Clinton was “guilty as hell.” There’s a potential, as Cardona put it, that Trump will come across as a “sore winner.” Add another element — the inauguration also will draw countless protesters and hecklers. Whalen expects Trump to keep his cool this time. “We tend to lose sight of this with Trump,” he noted, “when people overdo it with Trump, Trump gets the better of the exchange.” Perhaps the same dynamic will work with Democratic House members like Reps. Barbara Lee of California and John Lewis of Georgia who have announced they will boycott the ceremony. The tables have turned. Just last year the Clinton campaign took on Trump for saying the election was “rigged.” “You must accept the outcome,” Clinton’s campaign scolded. For her part, Lee pledged to spend Friday “preparing for the resistance.” Lewis declared that Trump is not “a legitimate president.” On Friday on the Capitol steps, Donald J. Trump will take the Oath of Office. He will assume office with the sure support of an enthusiastic plurality. But what of the majority of voters who did not support him but want to root for him to succeed? America will learn the answer at noon. COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

www.spectator.org

right

gvxDUveHa5Lpwv0P

test

9zqwEal8eS2Ubnq2

politics

Guest Writer - Right

http://reason.com/archives/2017/07/07/russias-global-anti-libertaria

Russia's Global Anti-Libertarian Crusade

2017-07-07

Cathy Young, Eugene Volokh, Zuri Davis, Christian Britschgi, Cosmo Wenman, Billy Binion

One of the surreal twists of the past year in American politics has been the rapid realignment in attitudes toward Russia . Democrats , many of whom believe that Russian interference was key to Donald Trump 's unexpected victory last November , are now the ones sounding the alarm about the Russian threat . Meanwhile , quite a few Republicans—previously the keepers of the anti-Kremlin Cold War flame—have taken to praising President Vladimir Putin as a strong leader and Moscow as an ally against radical Islam . A CNN/ORC poll in late April found that 56 percent of Republicans see Russia as either `` friendly '' or `` an ally , '' up from 14 percent in 2014 . Over the same period , Putin 's favorable rating from Republicans in the Economist/YouGov poll went from 10 percent to a startling 37 percent . The dominant narrative in the U.S. foreign policy establishment and mainstream media casts Putin as the implacable enemy of the Western liberal order—an autocratic leader at home who wants to weaken democracy abroad , using information warfare and covert activities to subvert liberal values and to promote Russia-friendly politicians and movements around the world . In this narrative , President Donald Trump is like the French nationalist Marine Le Pen , whose failed presidential campaign this year relied heavily on loans from Russian banks with Kremlin ties : a witting or unwitting instrument of subversion , useful to Putin either as an ideological ally or as an incompetent who will strengthen Russia 's hand by destabilizing American democracy . At its extremes , the Russian subversion narrative relies on a great deal of conspiratorial thinking . It also far too easily absolves the Western political establishment of responsibility for its failures , from the defeat of European Union supporters in England 's Brexit vote to Hillary Clinton 's loss in last November 's election . Putin makes a convenient boogeyman . Nonetheless , there is a real Russian effort to counter American—plus NATO and E.U.—influence by supporting authoritarian nationalist movements and groups , such as Le Pen 's National Front , Hungary 's quasi-fascist Jobbik Party , and Greece 's neo-Nazi Golden Dawn . Today 's Russia is no longer just a moderately authoritarian corrupt regime trying to maintain its regional influence . Cloaked in the mantle of religious and nationalist values , the Kremlin positions itself as a defender of tradition and sovereignty against the godless progressivism and the migrant hordes overtaking the West . It has a global propaganda machine and a network of political operatives dedicated to cultivating far-right and sometimes far-left groups in Europe and elsewhere . Tom Palmer , vice president for international programs at the Atlas Network , has been actively involved in projects promoting liberty in ex-Communist countries since the late 1980s ; he has taken to warning against a new `` global anti-libertarianism . '' Writing for the Cato Policy Report last December , Palmer noted that `` Putin , the pioneer in the trend toward authoritarianism , has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into promoting anti-libertarian populism across Europe and through a sophisticated global media empire , including RT and Sputnik News , as well as a network of internet troll factories and numerous made-to-order websites . '' Slawomir Sierakowski of Warsaw 's Institute for Advanced Study and Emma Ashford of the Cato Institute have also warned about the rise of an `` Illiberal International '' in which Russia plays a key role . Of course , for many libertarians , the post–Cold War international order that Putin seeks to undo is itself of dubious value . For one thing , that order is based on America 's role as GloboCop , which is n't very compatible with small government . For another , it enforces its own `` progressive '' brand of soft authoritarianism , from over-regulation of markets to restrictions on `` hate speech '' and other undesirable expression . Yet for all the valid criticisms of the Western liberal establishment and its foreign and domestic policies , there is little doubt that the ascendancy of hardcore far-right or far-left authoritarianism would lead to a less freedom-friendly world . And there is little doubt that right now , Russia is a driving force in this ascendancy . The President 's Rasputins One common view is that we 've re-entered a Cold War–style ideological confrontation—but that this time , in a head-turning reversal from the Communist era , Russia sees itself as leading a global traditionalist resistance . The argument is superficially persuasive but tends to confuse rhetoric with motive . Former National Security Agency analyst John R. Schindler , that rare pundit who is vehemently critical of Clinton but also strongly believes Russian interference was instrumental to Trump 's win , goes so far as to call Putin a champion of `` Orthodox Jihadism . '' In a post-election New York Observer column titled `` Why Vladimir Putin Hates Us , '' Schindler asserts that the Russian leader 's holy-war ideology sees the West as `` an implacable foe '' of Russia and her Orthodox faith , and Russia as a country with a special spiritual mission to fight evil . Schindler anticipates the objection that Putin , a career KGB officer under the atheist Soviet state , is an unlikely Christian zealot . But in his view , it does n't matter what Putin or other nominally Orthodox Russians may believe in their hearts . The important thing is that Putin acts like a champion of religious nationalism on a `` spiritual-cum-ideological '' crusade against the decadent West . As evidence , Schindler cites a 2013 speech in which Putin deplored the rejection of `` Christian values '' by `` many Euro-Atlantic countries , '' defended Russia 's right to protect traditional morality , and criticized attempts to export `` extreme Western-style liberalism '' worldwide . ( The main example of Western decadence and liberal extremism was , of course , same-sex marriage . ) Schindler , like the Yale historian Timothy Snyder , believes that Putin takes his inspiration from the Russian philosopher Ivan Ilyin , an émigré who died in Switzerland in 1954 . Putin has quoted Ilyin on several occasions , including in an address to the Duma , and he assigned one of Ilyin 's books to regional governors as winter holiday reading in 2014 . Onetime Kremlin propaganda chief Vladislav Surkov is also a fan . Ilyin was an authoritarian nationalist , though late in life this was tempered by a belief in the rule of law and limits on state power . ( In the 1930s , by contrast , he was openly pro-fascist . ) His vision for a post-Communist Russia featured a strong government rooted in patriotic values , Orthodoxy , and national unity , run by the `` single will '' of a near-dictatorial ruler periodically reconfirmed by an electoral assembly . In his later years , he also saw the West as innately hostile to Russia and likely to seek its destruction . While the Ilyin passages Putin has publicly quoted have been blandly patriotic or even liberal-sounding , the elevation of this particular figure as the Kremlin 's favorite political philosopher is telling . A much weirder contender for that role is the maverick ex-academic Alexander Dugin—sometimes dubbed `` Putin 's Rasputin , '' possibly because he has the shaggy beard and crazy eyes for the part . Dugin , now 55 , spent the 1990s calling for a `` red-and-brown '' fascism and being active in a group called the National Bolshevik Party , which is every bit as bad as it sounds . In the Putin years he has rebranded himself as a `` traditionalist , '' started an `` International Eurasian Movement , '' and found patrons in high political and military circles ; in the late 2000s , he served as an advisor to Duma chairman Sergei Naryshkin and had top officials of the ruling party , United Russia , on his movement 's advisory board . At the core of Dugin 's theory—much of it cribbed from 20th century reactionaries and proto-fascists , with an added dose of mystical apocalyptics—is the conviction that `` Eurasian '' Russia must lead the resistance to `` Atlanticism , '' viewed as literally demonic in its promotion of sin and secularism . Dugin argues that human rights-based liberalism is totalitarian , since it wants to impose itself everywhere and allows no alternatives , while his traditionalism is genuinely pluralistic , since it respects all cultures , political systems , and beliefs—as long as they make no claim to universalism . If Putin did help elect Trump , it seems so far to have been a spectacularly bad investment . Dugin 's foreign policy views do dovetail with actual Kremlin policies of the last decade , from his intense hostility to Ukrainian independence to his call for an international anti-liberal alliance . Dugin envisions a common struggle of diverse forces—nationalist , conservative Christian , Islamist , leftist—against Western norms , globalism , and liberal capitalism . That 's not so far off from Russia 's support for European far-right and far-left parties ( in addition to the likes of Le Pen , Russia has backed Germany 's Die Linke and the socialist-communist-Green Syriza coalition in Greece ) , diehard communist dictatorships in Cuba and North Korea ( the latter of which has been hailed by `` Christian traditionalist '' Dugin as a brave island of independence from Western hegemony ) , Venezuela 's socialist government , Iran 's Islamic Republic , the Assad regime in Syria , and the militantly jihadist Hezbollah . Nonetheless , Dugin 's actual political influence is debatable . In 2014 , he was fired from his job running the international section of the sociology department at Moscow State University , apparently because of backlash against a Facebook post in which he urged the murder of Russians sympathetic to Ukraine 's cause . The Kremlin also seemed to sideline him as it scaled back its active support for the pro-Russian insurgency in Eastern Ukraine , with which Dugin was in at least occasional contact . Dugin may be making a comeback , though . He has carried out some unofficial diplomacy between Russia and Turkey , where his Eurasian movement has a following . He is also the editor in chief and co-founder of the Russian Orthodox cable channel Tsargrad-TV , a project of God-loving tycoon Konstantin Malofeev—a Kremlin insider and an active supporter of the Illiberal International . Does Putin believe in Dugin 's bizarre metaphysical geopolitics ? That 's doubtful . But Dugin 's ideology `` is a very useful virus to let loose , '' says Palmer . `` It 's useful to the idea of a Russian state led , as they say in Russia , with a strong hand—that hand being Mr . Putin 's . '' The same calculus almost certainly explains the Putin circle 's interest in Ilyin , whose bowdlerized ideas provide a convenient , authentically Russian foundation for the Putin regime 's style of government . Likewise , Russia 's current blend of nationalism and Orthodox Christianity has been a useful quasi-official ideology to fill the post-Communist void . Still , it 's quite a leap from that to the conclusion that Putin—a man with a KGB past , a crony-capitalist present , and friends like the notoriously corrupt Italian ex–Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi—is a holy warrior at heart . Even his 2013 speech lamenting Western moral decline was delivered at the Valdai Club , Russia 's Davos-style annual hangout for domestic and foreign intellectual and political elites . That 's an odd venue for an `` Orthodox Jihadist '' diatribe . And even those remarks also praised secular patriotism and religious diversity , and called for openness to `` the best ideas and practices of the East and the West . '' The Orange Threat For all the anti-Western and anti-globalist animus , for all the rhetoric about Russia 's unique virtues , Moscow 's elites crave the West 's acceptance and respect . Putin was always an authoritarian , but he started his rule in 2000 as a pro-American authoritarian . His shift to anti-Western rhetoric did n't become evident until early 2007 , with his Munich speech inveighing against the U.S.-dominated global order . Some Russia watchers , including Evan Osnos , David Remnick , and Joshua Yaffa in a March 2017 article for The New Yorker , trace this change in attitude to the war in Iraq . But while Putin opposed the U.S.-led invasion , his criticism was restrained and sometimes balanced by statements favorable to the U.S. position ( such as his claim in early 2004 that Russian intelligence had received and shared information about Saddam Hussein 's regime plotting terror attacks against Americans ) . Putin 's turn against the West is far more likely to have been precipitated by perceived infringements on Russia 's sphere of influence—especially Ukraine 's Orange Revolution , which began in November 2004 . After massive demonstrations challenged the fraud-riddled election victory of President Leonid Kuchma and forced a recount , the pro-NATO Victor Yushchenko was declared the winner in January 2005 . Putin , who had visited Kiev twice to show support for Kuchma , blamed these events on Western meddling . The `` Orange threat '' —foreign subversion disguised as grassroots demands for change—became a staple of Russian official rhetoric . In a recent column for the independent Russian website Grani , the Ukrainian journalist and Radio Liberty commentator Vitaly Portnikov argued that Putin was pushed toward even more hardline anti-Western views by the Arab Spring , which he also attributed to Western subversion . ( Putin , writes Portnikov , is `` very typical of lower-rung chekists '' —KGB agents—in his conviction that `` all mass protests are always engineered and financed by someone . '' ) The Russian president certainly seems to have been rattled by the brutal death of the deposed Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi in October 2011 , which Putin publicly blamed on NATO . ( Gaddafi was killed by insurgents , but their victory followed NATO 's intervention in the country 's civil war . ) And in late March of this year , when protests broke out across Russia in response to a video accusing Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev of corruption , Putin warned in his remarks at an international forum in Arkhangelsk that the `` instrument '' of anti-corruption protests `` was used at the beginning of the so-called 'Arab Spring ' [ with ] bloody consequences . '' In Putin 's perfect world , Russia would have an authoritarian regime that secures his own hold on power and ill-gotten wealth and treats smaller nearby countries as vassal states—while also being recognized as a major player on the world stage and a member of the club of free nations . These somewhat incompatible goals are reflected in Russia 's schizophrenic official rhetoric , where broadsides against Western perfidy mix with declarations of partnership with the West . For all the talk of Russia 's unique spiritual virtues , the Kremlin 's fallback defense of questionable practices , such as arresting protesters , is that Western countries do it too . In Palmer 's words , `` They do n't claim that what Putin has created is the best . What they claim is that nothing is better than anything else . '' The goal of protecting Putin 's power at home while securing a respected position on the international scene would also explain much of Russia 's activity targeting the West : The aim is to win friends by moving other countries in a more pro-Russian direction . A case in point is Kremlin support for Le Pen , a Putin admirer who not only endorses the annexation of Crimea but envisions Russia as an essential part of the alliance of sovereign European nations that she would like to see take the place of NATO and the E.U . Russian interference in the West has become the subject of fevered speculation that borders on a post-Soviet version of reds-under-the-bed panic . But there are real reasons to worry about Putin 's global outreach . Kremlin-sponsored activity abroad includes not just information warfare intended to undermine the very notion of facts—weaponized postmodernism , as it were—but more literal subversion . Earlier this year , prosecutors in Montenegro charged that a thwarted violent coup in the fall of 2016 had been engineered by two Russian military intelligence officers with the help of paramilitary Russian and Serbian nationalists . The plot , they said , included a plan to assassinate the prime minister and was intended to keep the country from joining NATO . While the charges remain unproven so far , there is little doubt that Russia is extensively involved in the Balkans with the goal of undermining pro-Western forces . In Macedonia , that involvement is on the side of the conservative populist supporters of former Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski , who have refused to accept a liberal and multi-ethnic parliamentary coalition following the results of last December 's elections . Russian media outlets , such as Sputnik News , have been stoking the Slav majority 's fears of empowering the country 's Albanian minority by flogging conspiracy theories about NATO plans for `` Greater Albania '' and for Macedonia 's dismemberment . The conflict turned bloody after the election of an Albanian speaker in late April , when about 200 right-wing protesters stormed the parliament ; about 100 people , including nine lawmakers , were injured in the melee . Less dramatic but baneful effects of Russian influence can be seen in Hungary , where the Kremlin has cultivated both the far-right Jobbik and the more moderately right-wing ruling party , Fidesz . Prime Minister Viktor Orbán , who has an amicable relationship with Putin and is openly skeptical of the post-Crimea sanctions , says he favors an `` illiberal democracy '' in which the collective good takes precedence over individual rights . In practice , this has meant reforms that weaken the separation of powers and strengthen state controls over the media . In April , Hungary passed a law requiring non-E.U . universities that issue diplomas in Hungary to have an active campus in their home country , a measure likely to force the closure of the country 's top private school , Central European University , which is headquartered in New York but has no campus in the United States . Since it 's funded by George Soros , the financier and controversial philanthropist at the center of many post-communist regimes ' conspiracy theories , the government 's critics charge that it is being targeted on purpose—perhaps taking a page from Russia , where the Soros-backed European University in St. Petersburg closed after having its license revoked in March . Aside from the separatist fighting in Ukraine , neither ethnic nor political conflicts in Europe are created primarily by Russia . But the Putin regime has been adept at exploiting and stoking conflicts and tensions that already exist . Those conflicts range from ethnic and political divisions to anxieties about social disruption and violence by migrants—an area where Russian media can vie with Breitbart in fearmongering . Between April 2016 and May of this year , Sputnik News ran 127 articles tagged `` Refugee and Migrant Crisis in Europe . '' What Is To Be Done ? What should American policy be toward Putin 's Russia ? The answer to that question depends , above all , on your view of America 's role in the world and of how broadly America 's national interest should be defined . In the wake of the Iraq War , few would defend the vision of nearly untrammeled American hegemony that some neoconservatives espoused in the early 2000s . On the other hand , you need not embrace wide-ranging American adventurism abroad to believe that we 're better off in a world with more freedom-friendly countries in it . Russian interference has become the subject of fevered speculation that borders on a post-Soviet version of reds-under-the-bed panic . But there are real reasons to worry . While `` democracy promotion '' in countries with no homegrown liberal tradition is a project likely to remain discredited for the foreseeable future , support for genuine grassroots pro-freedom aspirations in countries that look to America for leadership is a far more complicated matter . Ukraine , Georgia , and even the Baltic states may not be paragons of liberal capitalism today . Yet if they were bullied into a return to Russian vassalage , it would be a net loss for liberty and , arguably , for America as well . Nonetheless , pro-Russian ( or at least anti-anti-Russian ) arguments have become fairly common not just among conservatives but among a contingent of libertarians , such as former Rep. Ron Paul and Antiwar.com Editorial Director Justin Raimondo . The new Republican affection for Russia is largely a matter of political polarization : Since Putin is the Democrats ' boogeyman du jour , he ca n't be all bad . But quite a few conservatives also genuinely see Putin 's Russia as a Christian ally against Islam , a perspective recently endorsed by Ann Coulter in a March column trollishly titled `` Let 's Make Russia Our Sister Country . '' That view manages to ignore not only Russia 's coziness with Iran but the fact that one of Putin 's staunchest domestic allies , Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov , runs a de facto sharia state within the Russian Federation . This spring , Kadyrov was in the news for throwing gay men in prison camps and threatening a fatwa on Russian journalists who exposed the persecution . Meanwhile , Ron Paul–style libertarians are inclined to see Russia as a check on U.S. foreign adventurism and Russia hawks as hardcore proponents of the American imperial leviathan . `` Unfortunately , there is a small contingent who fall victim to the fallacy that 'the enemy of the enemy is my friend , ' and if the Kremlin is the enemy of my enemy , then it must be my friend , '' Palmer says . Still , most Republicans in Washington do n't share the party base 's newfound affection for the Russian president : A spending bill unveiled by the Republican-controlled Congress includes at least $ 100 million for a Countering Russian Influence Fund , intended to support `` civil society organizations and other entities '' in Europe and Central Asia . Aside from a verbal commitment to liberal democracy and the rule of law , what can Western countries do to curb Russia 's anti-liberal influence without risking military conflict ? Economic sanctions—particularly when they target the Russian political elite and its properties abroad , as opposed to targeting ordinary Russian consumers—can be more effective than they are often believed to be . The desire to avoid further and harsher sanctions , for example , may have helped persuade the Putin regime to abandon its territorial ambitions in eastern Ukraine and to scale down its war in that region to a simmering conflict . The threat of stronger sanctions could be used to push for genuine enforcement of the 2014–15 Minsk agreements , which were supposed to restore Ukraine 's control over the territories currently ruled by the thuggish `` people 's republics '' of Donetsk and Luhansk . Russia 's backsliding toward open contempt for those agreements was signaled in February by a decision to `` temporarily '' recognize identity documents issued by the two gangster statelets . Financial support for political forces favorable to liberal democracy—in Eastern Europe , the former Soviet republics , and Russia itself—is important as well , though private organizations have a more important role to play in this than the congressional purse . It 's true that foreign funding makes political and civic organizations vulnerable to charges of disloyalty , but it is often their only feasible source of revenue in a system where most privately owned business is extensively entangled with the state and where backing dissent can bring retaliation . Private organizations and media must also take the lead in countering Russia 's information wars , since government measures against `` fake news '' raise inevitable and well-founded concerns about censorship . Above all , it 's important not to exaggerate the Putin regime 's omnipotence . For one thing , it is running out of cash reserves , thanks not just to sanctions but to lower oil prices and other factors . That will weaken its ability to fund not only political intrigue abroad but the domestic programs that keep the population content at home . The Kremlin 's efforts to maintain its sphere of influence have been expensive : Besides the money pumped into Ukraine , Russia is saddled with massive subsidies to South Ossetia and Abkhazia , the Georgian breakaway republics it has sponsored since 2008 . Its record of victories on the larger global stage has been mixed at best , with such defeats as Montenegro 's admission to NATO and Le Pen 's crushing loss in France . And if Russia did help elect Trump , it seems so far to have been a spectacularly bad investment . While political chaos in America may benefit Putin in some sense , the Kremlin goal of a more accommodating administration in Washington is probably more elusive than before : Very public concerns about Russian influence are likely to make the White House skittish about offering concessions to the Kremlin . What lies ahead ? Victor Davidoff , the Moscow-based founder of the human rights monitoring website IXTC.org , suspects that the Kremlin 's financial difficulties will lead to less Russian influence in Eastern Europe over the next several years—including , he predicts , the electoral defeat of pro-Moscow leaders such as Hungary 's Orbán . Davidoff says he also sees new troubles for the Putin regime in the revival of the protest movement , signaled by the anti-corruption rallies in multiple cities starting March 26 . Those troubles are compounded by the changing media landscape . The latest protests were sparked by a 50-minute online documentary that accused Russian prime minister and ex-president Dmitry Medvedev of large-scale graft and exposed his alleged `` secret empire '' of mansions , villas , vineyards , and yachts . The video garnered over 20 million views on YouTube alone in a little over a month . `` A high school student who was at a protest said , 'We do n't even watch television , ' '' says Davidoff . `` Do you see what that means ? The main lever of thought control is television , but it turns out that it 's bypassing the younger generation . So what are they going to do now ? They 've lost the internet . The trolling , none of that works . There are just too many sources of information . '' Even websites that have been officially banned in Russia , such as Grani , are easily accessible through mirror sites . Meanwhile , an April survey by the Levada Center , a highly regarded independent polling firm , found that nearly four in 10 Russians approved of the protests . In May , only 48 percent said they would vote for Putin if the next presidential election—due in March 2018—were held now . Two years ago , that figure stood at 62 percent . Protests and disaffected voters may not seem to pose much of a threat to Putin , given how thoroughly the Kremlin has neutralized independent political life . But disaffected business and political elites may be a force to reckon with if they feel that Putin 's continued rule threatens their position . This is particularly true , argues Davidoff , if they manage to harness popular dissatisfaction to create pressure for Putin 's removal . That scenario may seem unlikely , but if recent experience has taught us anything , it is to not dismiss unlikely scenarios . Few expected Trump 's victory in November ; by the same token , even the more ardent Never Trumpers did not think the new administration would be so thoroughly and so quickly engulfed in Russia-related scandals . At this point , the further development of U.S.-Russian relations is virtually impossible to predict . Trump seems to be trying to straddle a conventional Republican foreign policy ( firm commitments to NATO , hawkishness in the Middle East ) and friendly rapprochement with Russia ( cooperation on the problems of ISIS and Syria ) . In actuality , he 's lurching awkwardly between those two positions . The Kremlin , for the moment , seems inclined to treat Trump as a well-intentioned hostage of the anti-Russian Washington foreign policy establishment , but it could easily adopt a more hostile stance . Meanwhile , if the Trump presidency remains a disaster zone , it could have the opposite of a domino effect elsewhere , deterring the populist uprisings Russia favors : The Trump factor probably helped defeat Le Pen in France . For both Putin and the Illiberal International , the future is far from guaranteed .

One of the surreal twists of the past year in American politics has been the rapid realignment in attitudes toward Russia. Democrats, many of whom believe that Russian interference was key to Donald Trump's unexpected victory last November, are now the ones sounding the alarm about the Russian threat. Meanwhile, quite a few Republicans—previously the keepers of the anti-Kremlin Cold War flame—have taken to praising President Vladimir Putin as a strong leader and Moscow as an ally against radical Islam. A CNN/ORC poll in late April found that 56 percent of Republicans see Russia as either "friendly" or "an ally," up from 14 percent in 2014. Over the same period, Putin's favorable rating from Republicans in the Economist/YouGov poll went from 10 percent to a startling 37 percent. The dominant narrative in the U.S. foreign policy establishment and mainstream media casts Putin as the implacable enemy of the Western liberal order—an autocratic leader at home who wants to weaken democracy abroad, using information warfare and covert activities to subvert liberal values and to promote Russia-friendly politicians and movements around the world. In this narrative, President Donald Trump is like the French nationalist Marine Le Pen, whose failed presidential campaign this year relied heavily on loans from Russian banks with Kremlin ties: a witting or unwitting instrument of subversion, useful to Putin either as an ideological ally or as an incompetent who will strengthen Russia's hand by destabilizing American democracy. At its extremes, the Russian subversion narrative relies on a great deal of conspiratorial thinking. It also far too easily absolves the Western political establishment of responsibility for its failures, from the defeat of European Union supporters in England's Brexit vote to Hillary Clinton's loss in last November's election. Putin makes a convenient boogeyman. Nonetheless, there is a real Russian effort to counter American—plus NATO and E.U.—influence by supporting authoritarian nationalist movements and groups, such as Le Pen's National Front, Hungary's quasi-fascist Jobbik Party, and Greece's neo-Nazi Golden Dawn. Today's Russia is no longer just a moderately authoritarian corrupt regime trying to maintain its regional influence. Cloaked in the mantle of religious and nationalist values, the Kremlin positions itself as a defender of tradition and sovereignty against the godless progressivism and the migrant hordes overtaking the West. It has a global propaganda machine and a network of political operatives dedicated to cultivating far-right and sometimes far-left groups in Europe and elsewhere. Tom Palmer, vice president for international programs at the Atlas Network, has been actively involved in projects promoting liberty in ex-Communist countries since the late 1980s; he has taken to warning against a new "global anti-libertarianism." Writing for the Cato Policy Report last December, Palmer noted that "Putin, the pioneer in the trend toward authoritarianism, has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into promoting anti-libertarian populism across Europe and through a sophisticated global media empire, including RT and Sputnik News, as well as a network of internet troll factories and numerous made-to-order websites." Slawomir Sierakowski of Warsaw's Institute for Advanced Study and Emma Ashford of the Cato Institute have also warned about the rise of an "Illiberal International" in which Russia plays a key role. Of course, for many libertarians, the post–Cold War international order that Putin seeks to undo is itself of dubious value. For one thing, that order is based on America's role as GloboCop, which isn't very compatible with small government. For another, it enforces its own "progressive" brand of soft authoritarianism, from over-regulation of markets to restrictions on "hate speech" and other undesirable expression. Yet for all the valid criticisms of the Western liberal establishment and its foreign and domestic policies, there is little doubt that the ascendancy of hardcore far-right or far-left authoritarianism would lead to a less freedom-friendly world. And there is little doubt that right now, Russia is a driving force in this ascendancy. The President's Rasputins One common view is that we've re-entered a Cold War–style ideological confrontation—but that this time, in a head-turning reversal from the Communist era, Russia sees itself as leading a global traditionalist resistance. The argument is superficially persuasive but tends to confuse rhetoric with motive. Former National Security Agency analyst John R. Schindler, that rare pundit who is vehemently critical of Clinton but also strongly believes Russian interference was instrumental to Trump's win, goes so far as to call Putin a champion of "Orthodox Jihadism." In a post-election New York Observer column titled "Why Vladimir Putin Hates Us," Schindler asserts that the Russian leader's holy-war ideology sees the West as "an implacable foe" of Russia and her Orthodox faith, and Russia as a country with a special spiritual mission to fight evil. Schindler anticipates the objection that Putin, a career KGB officer under the atheist Soviet state, is an unlikely Christian zealot. But in his view, it doesn't matter what Putin or other nominally Orthodox Russians may believe in their hearts. The important thing is that Putin acts like a champion of religious nationalism on a "spiritual-cum-ideological" crusade against the decadent West. As evidence, Schindler cites a 2013 speech in which Putin deplored the rejection of "Christian values" by "many Euro-Atlantic countries," defended Russia's right to protect traditional morality, and criticized attempts to export "extreme Western-style liberalism" worldwide. (The main example of Western decadence and liberal extremism was, of course, same-sex marriage.) Schindler, like the Yale historian Timothy Snyder, believes that Putin takes his inspiration from the Russian philosopher Ivan Ilyin, an émigré who died in Switzerland in 1954. Putin has quoted Ilyin on several occasions, including in an address to the Duma, and he assigned one of Ilyin's books to regional governors as winter holiday reading in 2014. Onetime Kremlin propaganda chief Vladislav Surkov is also a fan. Ilyin was an authoritarian nationalist, though late in life this was tempered by a belief in the rule of law and limits on state power. (In the 1930s, by contrast, he was openly pro-fascist.) His vision for a post-Communist Russia featured a strong government rooted in patriotic values, Orthodoxy, and national unity, run by the "single will" of a near-dictatorial ruler periodically reconfirmed by an electoral assembly. In his later years, he also saw the West as innately hostile to Russia and likely to seek its destruction. While the Ilyin passages Putin has publicly quoted have been blandly patriotic or even liberal-sounding, the elevation of this particular figure as the Kremlin's favorite political philosopher is telling. A much weirder contender for that role is the maverick ex-academic Alexander Dugin—sometimes dubbed "Putin's Rasputin," possibly because he has the shaggy beard and crazy eyes for the part. Dugin, now 55, spent the 1990s calling for a "red-and-brown" fascism and being active in a group called the National Bolshevik Party, which is every bit as bad as it sounds. In the Putin years he has rebranded himself as a "traditionalist," started an "International Eurasian Movement," and found patrons in high political and military circles; in the late 2000s, he served as an advisor to Duma chairman Sergei Naryshkin and had top officials of the ruling party, United Russia, on his movement's advisory board. At the core of Dugin's theory—much of it cribbed from 20th century reactionaries and proto-fascists, with an added dose of mystical apocalyptics—is the conviction that "Eurasian" Russia must lead the resistance to "Atlanticism," viewed as literally demonic in its promotion of sin and secularism. Dugin argues that human rights-based liberalism is totalitarian, since it wants to impose itself everywhere and allows no alternatives, while his traditionalism is genuinely pluralistic, since it respects all cultures, political systems, and beliefs—as long as they make no claim to universalism. If Putin did help elect Trump, it seems so far to have been a spectacularly bad investment. Dugin's foreign policy views do dovetail with actual Kremlin policies of the last decade, from his intense hostility to Ukrainian independence to his call for an international anti-liberal alliance. Dugin envisions a common struggle of diverse forces—nationalist, conservative Christian, Islamist, leftist—against Western norms, globalism, and liberal capitalism. That's not so far off from Russia's support for European far-right and far-left parties (in addition to the likes of Le Pen, Russia has backed Germany's Die Linke and the socialist-communist-Green Syriza coalition in Greece), diehard communist dictatorships in Cuba and North Korea (the latter of which has been hailed by "Christian traditionalist" Dugin as a brave island of independence from Western hegemony), Venezuela's socialist government, Iran's Islamic Republic, the Assad regime in Syria, and the militantly jihadist Hezbollah. Nonetheless, Dugin's actual political influence is debatable. In 2014, he was fired from his job running the international section of the sociology department at Moscow State University, apparently because of backlash against a Facebook post in which he urged the murder of Russians sympathetic to Ukraine's cause. The Kremlin also seemed to sideline him as it scaled back its active support for the pro-Russian insurgency in Eastern Ukraine, with which Dugin was in at least occasional contact. Dugin may be making a comeback, though. He has carried out some unofficial diplomacy between Russia and Turkey, where his Eurasian movement has a following. He is also the editor in chief and co-founder of the Russian Orthodox cable channel Tsargrad-TV, a project of God-loving tycoon Konstantin Malofeev—a Kremlin insider and an active supporter of the Illiberal International. Does Putin believe in Dugin's bizarre metaphysical geopolitics? That's doubtful. But Dugin's ideology "is a very useful virus to let loose," says Palmer. "It's useful to the idea of a Russian state led, as they say in Russia, with a strong hand—that hand being Mr. Putin's." The same calculus almost certainly explains the Putin circle's interest in Ilyin, whose bowdlerized ideas provide a convenient, authentically Russian foundation for the Putin regime's style of government. Likewise, Russia's current blend of nationalism and Orthodox Christianity has been a useful quasi-official ideology to fill the post-Communist void. Still, it's quite a leap from that to the conclusion that Putin—a man with a KGB past, a crony-capitalist present, and friends like the notoriously corrupt Italian ex–Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi—is a holy warrior at heart. Even his 2013 speech lamenting Western moral decline was delivered at the Valdai Club, Russia's Davos-style annual hangout for domestic and foreign intellectual and political elites. That's an odd venue for an "Orthodox Jihadist" diatribe. And even those remarks also praised secular patriotism and religious diversity, and called for openness to "the best ideas and practices of the East and the West." The Orange Threat For all the anti-Western and anti-globalist animus, for all the rhetoric about Russia's unique virtues, Moscow's elites crave the West's acceptance and respect. Putin was always an authoritarian, but he started his rule in 2000 as a pro-American authoritarian. His shift to anti-Western rhetoric didn't become evident until early 2007, with his Munich speech inveighing against the U.S.-dominated global order. Some Russia watchers, including Evan Osnos, David Remnick, and Joshua Yaffa in a March 2017 article for The New Yorker, trace this change in attitude to the war in Iraq. But while Putin opposed the U.S.-led invasion, his criticism was restrained and sometimes balanced by statements favorable to the U.S. position (such as his claim in early 2004 that Russian intelligence had received and shared information about Saddam Hussein's regime plotting terror attacks against Americans). Putin's turn against the West is far more likely to have been precipitated by perceived infringements on Russia's sphere of influence—especially Ukraine's Orange Revolution, which began in November 2004. After massive demonstrations challenged the fraud-riddled election victory of President Leonid Kuchma and forced a recount, the pro-NATO Victor Yushchenko was declared the winner in January 2005. Putin, who had visited Kiev twice to show support for Kuchma, blamed these events on Western meddling. The "Orange threat"—foreign subversion disguised as grassroots demands for change—became a staple of Russian official rhetoric. In a recent column for the independent Russian website Grani, the Ukrainian journalist and Radio Liberty commentator Vitaly Portnikov argued that Putin was pushed toward even more hardline anti-Western views by the Arab Spring, which he also attributed to Western subversion. (Putin, writes Portnikov, is "very typical of lower-rung chekists"—KGB agents—in his conviction that "all mass protests are always engineered and financed by someone.") The Russian president certainly seems to have been rattled by the brutal death of the deposed Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi in October 2011, which Putin publicly blamed on NATO. (Gaddafi was killed by insurgents, but their victory followed NATO's intervention in the country's civil war.) And in late March of this year, when protests broke out across Russia in response to a video accusing Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev of corruption, Putin warned in his remarks at an international forum in Arkhangelsk that the "instrument" of anti-corruption protests "was used at the beginning of the so-called 'Arab Spring' [with] bloody consequences." In Putin's perfect world, Russia would have an authoritarian regime that secures his own hold on power and ill-gotten wealth and treats smaller nearby countries as vassal states—while also being recognized as a major player on the world stage and a member of the club of free nations. These somewhat incompatible goals are reflected in Russia's schizophrenic official rhetoric, where broadsides against Western perfidy mix with declarations of partnership with the West. For all the talk of Russia's unique spiritual virtues, the Kremlin's fallback defense of questionable practices, such as arresting protesters, is that Western countries do it too. In Palmer's words, "They don't claim that what Putin has created is the best. What they claim is that nothing is better than anything else." The goal of protecting Putin's power at home while securing a respected position on the international scene would also explain much of Russia's activity targeting the West: The aim is to win friends by moving other countries in a more pro-Russian direction. A case in point is Kremlin support for Le Pen, a Putin admirer who not only endorses the annexation of Crimea but envisions Russia as an essential part of the alliance of sovereign European nations that she would like to see take the place of NATO and the E.U. Russian interference in the West has become the subject of fevered speculation that borders on a post-Soviet version of reds-under-the-bed panic. But there are real reasons to worry about Putin's global outreach. Kremlin-sponsored activity abroad includes not just information warfare intended to undermine the very notion of facts—weaponized postmodernism, as it were—but more literal subversion. Earlier this year, prosecutors in Montenegro charged that a thwarted violent coup in the fall of 2016 had been engineered by two Russian military intelligence officers with the help of paramilitary Russian and Serbian nationalists. The plot, they said, included a plan to assassinate the prime minister and was intended to keep the country from joining NATO. While the charges remain unproven so far, there is little doubt that Russia is extensively involved in the Balkans with the goal of undermining pro-Western forces. In Macedonia, that involvement is on the side of the conservative populist supporters of former Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski, who have refused to accept a liberal and multi-ethnic parliamentary coalition following the results of last December's elections. Russian media outlets, such as Sputnik News, have been stoking the Slav majority's fears of empowering the country's Albanian minority by flogging conspiracy theories about NATO plans for "Greater Albania" and for Macedonia's dismemberment. The conflict turned bloody after the election of an Albanian speaker in late April, when about 200 right-wing protesters stormed the parliament; about 100 people, including nine lawmakers, were injured in the melee. Less dramatic but baneful effects of Russian influence can be seen in Hungary, where the Kremlin has cultivated both the far-right Jobbik and the more moderately right-wing ruling party, Fidesz. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who has an amicable relationship with Putin and is openly skeptical of the post-Crimea sanctions, says he favors an "illiberal democracy" in which the collective good takes precedence over individual rights. In practice, this has meant reforms that weaken the separation of powers and strengthen state controls over the media. In April, Hungary passed a law requiring non-E.U. universities that issue diplomas in Hungary to have an active campus in their home country, a measure likely to force the closure of the country's top private school, Central European University, which is headquartered in New York but has no campus in the United States. Since it's funded by George Soros, the financier and controversial philanthropist at the center of many post-communist regimes' conspiracy theories, the government's critics charge that it is being targeted on purpose—perhaps taking a page from Russia, where the Soros-backed European University in St. Petersburg closed after having its license revoked in March. Aside from the separatist fighting in Ukraine, neither ethnic nor political conflicts in Europe are created primarily by Russia. But the Putin regime has been adept at exploiting and stoking conflicts and tensions that already exist. Those conflicts range from ethnic and political divisions to anxieties about social disruption and violence by migrants—an area where Russian media can vie with Breitbart in fearmongering. Between April 2016 and May of this year, Sputnik News ran 127 articles tagged "Refugee and Migrant Crisis in Europe." What Is To Be Done? What should American policy be toward Putin's Russia? The answer to that question depends, above all, on your view of America's role in the world and of how broadly America's national interest should be defined. In the wake of the Iraq War, few would defend the vision of nearly untrammeled American hegemony that some neoconservatives espoused in the early 2000s. On the other hand, you need not embrace wide-ranging American adventurism abroad to believe that we're better off in a world with more freedom-friendly countries in it. Russian interference has become the subject of fevered speculation that borders on a post-Soviet version of reds-under-the-bed panic. But there are real reasons to worry. While "democracy promotion" in countries with no homegrown liberal tradition is a project likely to remain discredited for the foreseeable future, support for genuine grassroots pro-freedom aspirations in countries that look to America for leadership is a far more complicated matter. Ukraine, Georgia, and even the Baltic states may not be paragons of liberal capitalism today. Yet if they were bullied into a return to Russian vassalage, it would be a net loss for liberty and, arguably, for America as well. Nonetheless, pro-Russian (or at least anti-anti-Russian) arguments have become fairly common not just among conservatives but among a contingent of libertarians, such as former Rep. Ron Paul and Antiwar.com Editorial Director Justin Raimondo. The new Republican affection for Russia is largely a matter of political polarization: Since Putin is the Democrats' boogeyman du jour, he can't be all bad. But quite a few conservatives also genuinely see Putin's Russia as a Christian ally against Islam, a perspective recently endorsed by Ann Coulter in a March column trollishly titled "Let's Make Russia Our Sister Country." That view manages to ignore not only Russia's coziness with Iran but the fact that one of Putin's staunchest domestic allies, Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, runs a de facto sharia state within the Russian Federation. This spring, Kadyrov was in the news for throwing gay men in prison camps and threatening a fatwa on Russian journalists who exposed the persecution. Meanwhile, Ron Paul–style libertarians are inclined to see Russia as a check on U.S. foreign adventurism and Russia hawks as hardcore proponents of the American imperial leviathan. "Unfortunately, there is a small contingent who fall victim to the fallacy that 'the enemy of the enemy is my friend,' and if the Kremlin is the enemy of my enemy, then it must be my friend," Palmer says. Still, most Republicans in Washington don't share the party base's newfound affection for the Russian president: A spending bill unveiled by the Republican-controlled Congress includes at least $100 million for a Countering Russian Influence Fund, intended to support "civil society organizations and other entities" in Europe and Central Asia. Aside from a verbal commitment to liberal democracy and the rule of law, what can Western countries do to curb Russia's anti-liberal influence without risking military conflict? Economic sanctions—particularly when they target the Russian political elite and its properties abroad, as opposed to targeting ordinary Russian consumers—can be more effective than they are often believed to be. The desire to avoid further and harsher sanctions, for example, may have helped persuade the Putin regime to abandon its territorial ambitions in eastern Ukraine and to scale down its war in that region to a simmering conflict. The threat of stronger sanctions could be used to push for genuine enforcement of the 2014–15 Minsk agreements, which were supposed to restore Ukraine's control over the territories currently ruled by the thuggish "people's republics" of Donetsk and Luhansk. Russia's backsliding toward open contempt for those agreements was signaled in February by a decision to "temporarily" recognize identity documents issued by the two gangster statelets. Financial support for political forces favorable to liberal democracy—in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet republics, and Russia itself—is important as well, though private organizations have a more important role to play in this than the congressional purse. It's true that foreign funding makes political and civic organizations vulnerable to charges of disloyalty, but it is often their only feasible source of revenue in a system where most privately owned business is extensively entangled with the state and where backing dissent can bring retaliation. Private organizations and media must also take the lead in countering Russia's information wars, since government measures against "fake news" raise inevitable and well-founded concerns about censorship. Above all, it's important not to exaggerate the Putin regime's omnipotence. For one thing, it is running out of cash reserves, thanks not just to sanctions but to lower oil prices and other factors. That will weaken its ability to fund not only political intrigue abroad but the domestic programs that keep the population content at home. The Kremlin's efforts to maintain its sphere of influence have been expensive: Besides the money pumped into Ukraine, Russia is saddled with massive subsidies to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the Georgian breakaway republics it has sponsored since 2008. Its record of victories on the larger global stage has been mixed at best, with such defeats as Montenegro's admission to NATO and Le Pen's crushing loss in France. And if Russia did help elect Trump, it seems so far to have been a spectacularly bad investment. While political chaos in America may benefit Putin in some sense, the Kremlin goal of a more accommodating administration in Washington is probably more elusive than before: Very public concerns about Russian influence are likely to make the White House skittish about offering concessions to the Kremlin. What lies ahead? Victor Davidoff, the Moscow-based founder of the human rights monitoring website IXTC.org, suspects that the Kremlin's financial difficulties will lead to less Russian influence in Eastern Europe over the next several years—including, he predicts, the electoral defeat of pro-Moscow leaders such as Hungary's Orbán. Davidoff says he also sees new troubles for the Putin regime in the revival of the protest movement, signaled by the anti-corruption rallies in multiple cities starting March 26. Those troubles are compounded by the changing media landscape. The latest protests were sparked by a 50-minute online documentary that accused Russian prime minister and ex-president Dmitry Medvedev of large-scale graft and exposed his alleged "secret empire" of mansions, villas, vineyards, and yachts. The video garnered over 20 million views on YouTube alone in a little over a month. "A high school student who was at a protest said, 'We don't even watch television,'" says Davidoff. "Do you see what that means? The main lever of thought control is television, but it turns out that it's bypassing the younger generation. So what are they going to do now? They've lost the internet. The trolling, none of that works. There are just too many sources of information." Even websites that have been officially banned in Russia, such as Grani, are easily accessible through mirror sites. Meanwhile, an April survey by the Levada Center, a highly regarded independent polling firm, found that nearly four in 10 Russians approved of the protests. In May, only 48 percent said they would vote for Putin if the next presidential election—due in March 2018—were held now. Two years ago, that figure stood at 62 percent. Protests and disaffected voters may not seem to pose much of a threat to Putin, given how thoroughly the Kremlin has neutralized independent political life. But disaffected business and political elites may be a force to reckon with if they feel that Putin's continued rule threatens their position. This is particularly true, argues Davidoff, if they manage to harness popular dissatisfaction to create pressure for Putin's removal. That scenario may seem unlikely, but if recent experience has taught us anything, it is to not dismiss unlikely scenarios. Few expected Trump's victory in November; by the same token, even the more ardent Never Trumpers did not think the new administration would be so thoroughly and so quickly engulfed in Russia-related scandals. At this point, the further development of U.S.-Russian relations is virtually impossible to predict. Trump seems to be trying to straddle a conventional Republican foreign policy (firm commitments to NATO, hawkishness in the Middle East) and friendly rapprochement with Russia (cooperation on the problems of ISIS and Syria). In actuality, he's lurching awkwardly between those two positions. The Kremlin, for the moment, seems inclined to treat Trump as a well-intentioned hostage of the anti-Russian Washington foreign policy establishment, but it could easily adopt a more hostile stance. Meanwhile, if the Trump presidency remains a disaster zone, it could have the opposite of a domino effect elsewhere, deterring the populist uprisings Russia favors: The Trump factor probably helped defeat Le Pen in France. For both Putin and the Illiberal International, the future is far from guaranteed.

www.reason.com

right

9zqwEal8eS2Ubnq2

test

2ygVwsz3OiMAe7Zq

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/perry-booked-corruption-charges/2014/08/19/id/589625/

Perry to Be Booked on Corruption Charges Today

2014-08-19

Laurel Brubaker Calkins

Texas Governor Rick Perry will go to the Travis County criminal courthouse in Austin today to be booked on charges of public corruption , his lawyer , Tony Buzbee , said . Perry ’ s defense lawyers have rejected his indictment by a grand jury last week as an attempt to criminalize politics and damage his prospects as a potential presidential candidate in 2016 . Perry says he is fighting a criminal indictment with the law on his side — not to mention a team of high-powered attorneys with formidable records in big cases . His lead attorney took on BP after the Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico . Another argued before the U.S. Supreme Court and won changes to campaign finance laws . Joining them is George W. Bush 's former lawyer during the Florida recount that decided the 2000 presidential election . That does n't even include the Austin attorney who 's been paid at least $ 80,000 in taxpayer money since a grand jury was first seated in April to consider abuse of power allegations against Perry , a potential 2016 presidential candidate . Now , as Perry plans trips to Washington and New Hampshire this week to continue courting GOP voters , it 's unclear how much of the tab the public will keep picking up . `` Which of these lawyers will be paid for by the state of Texas and which will be paid by other funds , whether it be a defense fund or whatnot , that has n't been sorted yet , '' said Tony Buzbee , a Houston attorney . Perry did not attend Monday 's unveiling of his new all-star defense team at an upscale Austin hotel . But they said the longest-serving governor in Texas history wo n't hide from the charges , and promised to publicize when Perry will complete the unflattering process of being booked , fingerprinted and having his mug shot taken . Perry on Friday became the first Texas governor since 1917 to be indicted . He is facing charges of coercion and official oppression that carry a maximum sentence of 109 years in prison for carrying out a threat to veto funding for the state 's public integrity unit last summer . The governor has emphatically stood by his veto and denied all wrongdoing . The judge overseeing the case , Republican Bert Richardson , decided against issuing an arrest warrant and instead granted a simple legal summons . That still means a booking is in Perry 's future . A summons has been issued for Perry to be arraigned on Friday , though Michael McCrum , the San Antonio-based special prosecutor presenting the case against Perry , said the governor may waive his arraignment altogether . Perry spokesman Felix Browne said the governor would n't need to appear personally . Buzbee is a well-known name in Texas courtrooms , winning millions of dollars for clients who sued BP over a refinery explosion near Houston in 2005 . Bobby Burchfield argued before the Supreme Court last fall in a case in which justices ultimately freed individuals to give more money to political candidates . Ben Ginsburg represented Bush in the Florida recount — and also co-chaired President Barack Obama 's bipartisan committee on election administration . `` Like the overwhelming majority of people who have discussed this issue , and I 'm talking about both Republicans and Democrats , I find this prosecution both outrageous and inexplicable , '' Burchfield said . Some Democrats disagreed . The head of the Texas Democratic Party , Will Hailer , said Perry was indicted `` by a Republican-appointed prosecutor and a jury of his peers because of coercion and abuse of power . '' A grand jury in Austin , a liberal bastion in otherwise largely conservative Texas , indicted Perry for carrying out a threat to veto $ 7.5 million in funding for the state 's public integrity unit after Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg , a Democrat , refused to resign following a drunken driving arrest . The ethics unit is housed under Lehmberg 's office . No one disputes that Perry has the power to veto measures approved by the Legislature , but his threat to do so before actually carrying it out prompted a complaint from a left-leaning watchdog group . The grand jury met for months before handing down its indictment , and Perry 's $ 450-per-hour defense attorney , David L. Botsford , was paid using state funds . Aides said the case would n't prevent Perry from maintaining his packed upcoming schedule , which includes visits to the key presidential battleground states of Iowa , New Hampshire and South Carolina in the next two weeks . Perry also has a Thursday speech on immigration at the Heritage Foundation in Washington .

Texas Governor Rick Perry will go to the Travis County criminal courthouse in Austin today to be booked on charges of public corruption, his lawyer, Tony Buzbee, said. Perry’s defense lawyers have rejected his indictment by a grand jury last week as an attempt to criminalize politics and damage his prospects as a potential presidential candidate in 2016. Perry says he is fighting a criminal indictment with the law on his side — not to mention a team of high-powered attorneys with formidable records in big cases. His lead attorney took on BP after the Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. Another argued before the U.S. Supreme Court and won changes to campaign finance laws. Joining them is George W. Bush's former lawyer during the Florida recount that decided the 2000 presidential election. That doesn't even include the Austin attorney who's been paid at least $80,000 in taxpayer money since a grand jury was first seated in April to consider abuse of power allegations against Perry, a potential 2016 presidential candidate. Now, as Perry plans trips to Washington and New Hampshire this week to continue courting GOP voters, it's unclear how much of the tab the public will keep picking up. "Which of these lawyers will be paid for by the state of Texas and which will be paid by other funds, whether it be a defense fund or whatnot, that hasn't been sorted yet," said Tony Buzbee, a Houston attorney. Perry did not attend Monday's unveiling of his new all-star defense team at an upscale Austin hotel. But they said the longest-serving governor in Texas history won't hide from the charges, and promised to publicize when Perry will complete the unflattering process of being booked, fingerprinted and having his mug shot taken. Perry on Friday became the first Texas governor since 1917 to be indicted. He is facing charges of coercion and official oppression that carry a maximum sentence of 109 years in prison for carrying out a threat to veto funding for the state's public integrity unit last summer. The governor has emphatically stood by his veto and denied all wrongdoing. The judge overseeing the case, Republican Bert Richardson, decided against issuing an arrest warrant and instead granted a simple legal summons. That still means a booking is in Perry's future. A summons has been issued for Perry to be arraigned on Friday, though Michael McCrum, the San Antonio-based special prosecutor presenting the case against Perry, said the governor may waive his arraignment altogether. Perry spokesman Felix Browne said the governor wouldn't need to appear personally. Buzbee is a well-known name in Texas courtrooms, winning millions of dollars for clients who sued BP over a refinery explosion near Houston in 2005. Bobby Burchfield argued before the Supreme Court last fall in a case in which justices ultimately freed individuals to give more money to political candidates. Ben Ginsburg represented Bush in the Florida recount — and also co-chaired President Barack Obama's bipartisan committee on election administration. "Like the overwhelming majority of people who have discussed this issue, and I'm talking about both Republicans and Democrats, I find this prosecution both outrageous and inexplicable," Burchfield said. Some Democrats disagreed. The head of the Texas Democratic Party, Will Hailer, said Perry was indicted "by a Republican-appointed prosecutor and a jury of his peers because of coercion and abuse of power." A grand jury in Austin, a liberal bastion in otherwise largely conservative Texas, indicted Perry for carrying out a threat to veto $7.5 million in funding for the state's public integrity unit after Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, a Democrat, refused to resign following a drunken driving arrest. The ethics unit is housed under Lehmberg's office. No one disputes that Perry has the power to veto measures approved by the Legislature, but his threat to do so before actually carrying it out prompted a complaint from a left-leaning watchdog group. The grand jury met for months before handing down its indictment, and Perry's $450-per-hour defense attorney, David L. Botsford, was paid using state funds. Aides said the case wouldn't prevent Perry from maintaining his packed upcoming schedule, which includes visits to the key presidential battleground states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in the next two weeks. Perry also has a Thursday speech on immigration at the Heritage Foundation in Washington.

www.newsmax.com

right

2ygVwsz3OiMAe7Zq

test

8Xer1jpt4KYnezVg

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/06/the_stunning_weirdness_of_ayn_rand_why_her_newfound_popularity_makes_no_sense_partner/

The stunning weirdness of Ayn Rand: Why her newfound popularity makes no sense

2014-10-06

On Last Week Tonight , perhaps to balance out his less-than-friendly main segment on Obama ’ s drone policies , John Oliver asked a question that has bothered people about Ayn Rand since she first emerged in the middle of the twentieth century : why are people into this dreck ? Rand was the founder of Objectivism , a sub-Nietzschean philosophy that glorified selfishness and denigrated altruism , aggressively detailed in two novels bearing both the weight and prose style of a cement brick . Not surprisingly , this organized atavism never gained serious purchase : during her lifetime she was rejected by everyone from literary critics to philosophy professors to Frank Lloyd Wright , who didn ’ t appreciate her cribbing protagonist Howard Roark from his biography . But her views achieved both outsider chic during the rise of the Great Society and some establishment cred when Alan Greenspan smuggled them into economic policy . Her tomes were bestsellers . And , in a vulgarized form Rand would almost certainly reject , they have spread even further since her death in 1982 . Lawmakers cite her ; celebrities namedrop her ; fringe movements style themselves her heirs ; scores of Twitter users swipe her visage as their avatar . A film adaptation of Atlas Shrugged lasted three installments ( and outlasted its budget ) . There ’ s even going to be an off-Broadway musical this fall . Rand ’ s political and pop cultural cache has risen even as her ideas fail basic empirical challenges . The 2008 financial collapse , an historic repudiation of rational self-interest on a systemic level , forced even Greenspan , a former friend of Rand and lifetime devotee of her philosophy , to admit a foundational flaw in his free market ideology . Yet Atlas Shrugged continues to sell . Oliver ’ s question deserves to be taken seriously : what ’ s to account for Rand ’ s unlikely and long-lasting cultural influence ? Almost seventy years after she first became involved in the American political process , Rand has finally made it into the halls of power . She has the extreme right wing to thank . Representatives Steve King ( R-IA ) , Mike Mulvaney ( R-SC ) and former Rep. Allen West ( R-FL ) all tout her . Senator Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) pitched her book on the Senate floor . Senator Rand Paul ( R-KY ) claims he ’ s not named after her ; nobody believes him . But House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan ( R-WI ) , who requires staffers to read Atlas Shrugged , has labored the hardest to legitimize Rand . The wonk-whisperer ’ s specific brand of Rand devotion suggests that her true lasting power is seen not in the portable axioms about freedom and tyranny parroted by tea partiers but in Ryan ’ s more nuanced strategy to preserve the conservative elite . Since Edmund Burke conservatism has been the defense of the distressed elite disguised as populism . Rand was a perfect iteration of this . Born into wealth in St. Petersburg , she formed an early sense of disenfranchisement when her father ’ s chemistry shop was seized by the Soviets and her family was plunked into the proletariat . As Burke cried for Marie Antionette , so Rand burned over her lost privilege for her entire life , reading her personal expulsion into a society-large injustice orchestrated by a succession of mobs . Burke had the Jacobins ; Rand had the Democrats . The philosophy she forged was a counterattack on behalf of an aristocracy she thought threatened , first by Lenin , later by LBJ . Ryan , a conservative technocrat who sees budgets as vehicles for social reengineering , fits this Burke-via-Rand mold impeccably . His Ancien Régime is America ’ s 1 % . Armed with charts and graphs , Ryan declares that the job creators must be protected from a metastasizing federal government taxing them into oblivion to fund a decadent welfare state . ( Rand called the latter second-handers . ) His massive upward redistribution of wealth is portrayed as a rational rescue of the producer class , the engines that selflessly generate the economy for the rest of us . It ’ s the encapsulation of Rand ’ s central ideal of economic activity as morality , one that anoints the moneyed elite as not only deserving but Good . But when Ryan was selected as Mitt Romney ’ s running mate he discovered just how difficult it was to pull this bait-and-switch on an entire nation , especially when Romney ’ s infamous 47 % remarks too baldly expressed Rand ’ s anti-mob fever . Sure enough , Ryan crabwalked away from his former idol , carefully severing himself from her philosophy—though not , pointedly , her ideas . ( That ’ s his story , anyway . ) It didn ’ t take ; voters rejected Ryan ’ s plan to salvage the 1 % from the claws of the state . But even as the intensity of Rand ’ s followers hasn ’ t translated into widespread appreciation Ryan continues to tote her elite philosophy to the Capitol , where the defense of the wealthy is an ever-present crisis . None should be surprised that Wall Street investors seized upon Rand ’ s muscular view of capitalism as a sort of intellectual codex to Gordon Gecko-ism . Rand fetishized greed , né self-interest , as not only a beneficent aspect of human nature but a catalyzing moral force . If you weren ’ t reading carefully—and accounts of the derivative markets and bank leveraging suggests nobody was doing anything carefully—you could easily take from Rand ’ s works a near-religious imperative to grab as much money as possible without regard to consequences . But Rand resonated even more deeply among a different style of businessmen . Oliver ’ s show chose early dot-com mogul Marc Cuban as the modern Randian ; counted with him are tech figures and venture capitalists like PayPal founder Peter Thiel , Uber founder Travis Kalanick , Union Square Ventures ’ Fred Wilson , Foundry Group ’ s Brad Feld , and more . Start-up figures wear their libertarianism like their hoodies , but there ’ s a reason they hat-tip Rand above anybody . Here Jennifer Burns ’ biography Goddess of the Market is instructive in its reading of Atlas Shrugged . Burns distinguished in Rand ’ s view the capitalist—who could be as bland a conformist as could a Bolshevik—from the entrepreneur , who was creativity incarnate . Never an economist , Rand developed instead a metaphysical theory of capitalism in which industry became the incorporated expression of the individual will . Objectivism was less about the rational distribution of resources or allocation of profits than it was a vision of how the economy and the human will realized each other . The belief that entrepreneurs are a fusion of personal and economic invention is not an idea exclusive to Rand , though she certainly invoked Edison and the Wright brothers as examples of her self-made , and self-making , supermen ; it was Rand ’ s elaboration of the corporation as a cathectic object , through which the energy of the individual is projected and embodied , that made it hers . Lululemon founder Chip Wilson captured this process when he smacked a John Galt reference on one the company ’ s tote bags ( to the horror of his customers ) . “ Only later , looking back , did he realize the impact the book ’ s ideology had on his quest to elevate the world from mediocrity to greatness , ” Wilson explained ( in third person ) . “ It is not coincidental that this is Lululemon ’ s company vision . ” Not coincidental at all : Rand and the ascendant brand of tech entrepreneurs don ’ t see corporations as people but a select echelon of people as creative energy literally incorporated . Corporations aren ’ t people ; people are corporations . Rand was fond of quoting Aristotle ’ s rule of identity , A is A ( something Corey Robin convincingly argues in The Reactionary Mind she misunderstood ) . So Chip Wilson ’ s values are Lululemon ’ s values and vice versa ; it ’ s the real life enactment of Rand ’ s vision of personal morality as economic activity , the other side of the equation Ryan wants to promulgate politically . Thanks to the Supreme Court , it ’ s also now a legal theory of corporate personhood that includes religious rights , showing just how far Rand ’ s theory of wealth as morality has spread . The least appreciated but perhaps farthest-reaching of Rand ’ s impacts was achieved through neither her philosophy nor her novels , but through her longtime lover , business partner , and protégé Nathaniel Branden . Branden was an early convert to Objectivism , and by the time he ended his protracted affair with Rand he ’ d become the second most important member in the Collective , the cult-like cadre of followers who orbited Rand . Branden spearheaded a sort of mail-order Objectivist college , which sent taped lectures to budding Objectivists around the country , published pored-over newsletters , and constructed an entire alternate culture in New York City that promoted Objectivist values . More than anyone he was responsible for inflating Rand ’ s philosophy into a movement , albeit a restricted and insular one . Branden was never Rand ’ s visionary equal , but where he could only enunciate her ideas in philosophy , he was able to transform them in psychology . After his dramatic break up with Rand , which all but toppled the Collective and marked the end of her public life , Branden moved to California and developed the Objectivist idea that one should always act for oneself into the extraordinarily influential theory of self-esteem . As Rand found “ living for others ” to be the fundamental weakness of the modern condition , one that gave rise to both decadence and totalitarianism , so Branden theorized that living for others created pathologies of unfulfilled self-conceptions . Branden retained pillars of Objectivism , such as self-awareness via rationality and an immediacy between conviction and actions , but changed the goal from metaphysical triumph to personal happiness . Like his former teacher ’ s novels , Branden ’ s book The Psychology of Self-Esteem was a runaway bestseller . Here Objectivism ’ s permanent exclusion from the academy not only helped Branden ’ s book sell to a wide lay audience but propelled the idea of self-esteem into the mainstream consciousness , from which it ’ s never left . ( Though it ’ s been definitively rebutted . ) Self-esteem is now so enmeshed in American culture that its Randian origins are entirely forgotten . Oliver featured a clip from a snotty reality show as a vulgar example of Rand ’ s “ virtue of selfishness , ” but it was more an example of her views filtered through Branden ’ s psychological conception and several decades of American consumerism . Rand viewed economic activity as morality , which ( theoretically at least ) entailed the creative energies of the producer . But Branden raided Rand ’ s theory and distributed the cause of individual fulfillment to the second-handers . Where Rand praised Howard Roark as the rare hero , Branden allowed everyone be their own Howard Roark . Rand , ever the elitist , would have loathed such a popular end . If she were alive today , she might , like Oliver , wonder about why everyone was so into her .

On Last Week Tonight, perhaps to balance out his less-than-friendly main segment on Obama’s drone policies, John Oliver asked a question that has bothered people about Ayn Rand since she first emerged in the middle of the twentieth century: why are people into this dreck? Rand was the founder of Objectivism, a sub-Nietzschean philosophy that glorified selfishness and denigrated altruism, aggressively detailed in two novels bearing both the weight and prose style of a cement brick. Not surprisingly, this organized atavism never gained serious purchase: during her lifetime she was rejected by everyone from literary critics to philosophy professors to Frank Lloyd Wright, who didn’t appreciate her cribbing protagonist Howard Roark from his biography. Advertisement: But her views achieved both outsider chic during the rise of the Great Society and some establishment cred when Alan Greenspan smuggled them into economic policy. Her tomes were bestsellers. And, in a vulgarized form Rand would almost certainly reject, they have spread even further since her death in 1982. Lawmakers cite her; celebrities namedrop her; fringe movements style themselves her heirs; scores of Twitter users swipe her visage as their avatar. A film adaptation of Atlas Shrugged lasted three installments (and outlasted its budget). There’s even going to be an off-Broadway musical this fall. Rand’s political and pop cultural cache has risen even as her ideas fail basic empirical challenges. The 2008 financial collapse, an historic repudiation of rational self-interest on a systemic level, forced even Greenspan, a former friend of Rand and lifetime devotee of her philosophy, to admit a foundational flaw in his free market ideology. Yet Atlas Shrugged continues to sell. Oliver’s question deserves to be taken seriously: what’s to account for Rand’s unlikely and long-lasting cultural influence? Paul Ryan and the Defense of Elitism Advertisement: Almost seventy years after she first became involved in the American political process, Rand has finally made it into the halls of power. She has the extreme right wing to thank. Representatives Steve King (R-IA), Mike Mulvaney (R-SC) and former Rep. Allen West (R-FL) all tout her. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) pitched her book on the Senate floor. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) claims he’s not named after her; nobody believes him. But House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), who requires staffers to read Atlas Shrugged, has labored the hardest to legitimize Rand. The wonk-whisperer’s specific brand of Rand devotion suggests that her true lasting power is seen not in the portable axioms about freedom and tyranny parroted by tea partiers but in Ryan’s more nuanced strategy to preserve the conservative elite. Since Edmund Burke conservatism has been the defense of the distressed elite disguised as populism. Rand was a perfect iteration of this. Born into wealth in St. Petersburg, she formed an early sense of disenfranchisement when her father’s chemistry shop was seized by the Soviets and her family was plunked into the proletariat. As Burke cried for Marie Antionette, so Rand burned over her lost privilege for her entire life, reading her personal expulsion into a society-large injustice orchestrated by a succession of mobs. Burke had the Jacobins; Rand had the Democrats. The philosophy she forged was a counterattack on behalf of an aristocracy she thought threatened, first by Lenin, later by LBJ. Advertisement: Ryan, a conservative technocrat who sees budgets as vehicles for social reengineering, fits this Burke-via-Rand mold impeccably. His Ancien Régime is America’s 1%. Armed with charts and graphs, Ryan declares that the job creators must be protected from a metastasizing federal government taxing them into oblivion to fund a decadent welfare state. (Rand called the latter second-handers.) His massive upward redistribution of wealth is portrayed as a rational rescue of the producer class, the engines that selflessly generate the economy for the rest of us. It’s the encapsulation of Rand’s central ideal of economic activity as morality, one that anoints the moneyed elite as not only deserving but Good. But when Ryan was selected as Mitt Romney’s running mate he discovered just how difficult it was to pull this bait-and-switch on an entire nation, especially when Romney’s infamous 47% remarks too baldly expressed Rand’s anti-mob fever. Sure enough, Ryan crabwalked away from his former idol, carefully severing himself from her philosophy—though not, pointedly, her ideas. (That’s his story, anyway.) Advertisement: It didn’t take; voters rejected Ryan’s plan to salvage the 1% from the claws of the state. But even as the intensity of Rand’s followers hasn’t translated into widespread appreciation Ryan continues to tote her elite philosophy to the Capitol, where the defense of the wealthy is an ever-present crisis. Start-ups and People as Corporations None should be surprised that Wall Street investors seized upon Rand’s muscular view of capitalism as a sort of intellectual codex to Gordon Gecko-ism. Rand fetishized greed, né self-interest, as not only a beneficent aspect of human nature but a catalyzing moral force. If you weren’t reading carefully—and accounts of the derivative markets and bank leveraging suggests nobody was doing anything carefully—you could easily take from Rand’s works a near-religious imperative to grab as much money as possible without regard to consequences. Advertisement: But Rand resonated even more deeply among a different style of businessmen. Oliver’s show chose early dot-com mogul Marc Cuban as the modern Randian; counted with him are tech figures and venture capitalists like PayPal founder Peter Thiel, Uber founder Travis Kalanick, Union Square Ventures’ Fred Wilson, Foundry Group’s Brad Feld, and more. Start-up figures wear their libertarianism like their hoodies, but there’s a reason they hat-tip Rand above anybody. Here Jennifer Burns’ biography Goddess of the Market is instructive in its reading of Atlas Shrugged. Burns distinguished in Rand’s view the capitalist—who could be as bland a conformist as could a Bolshevik—from the entrepreneur, who was creativity incarnate. Never an economist, Rand developed instead a metaphysical theory of capitalism in which industry became the incorporated expression of the individual will. Objectivism was less about the rational distribution of resources or allocation of profits than it was a vision of how the economy and the human will realized each other. The belief that entrepreneurs are a fusion of personal and economic invention is not an idea exclusive to Rand, though she certainly invoked Edison and the Wright brothers as examples of her self-made, and self-making, supermen; it was Rand’s elaboration of the corporation as a cathectic object, through which the energy of the individual is projected and embodied, that made it hers. Advertisement: Lululemon founder Chip Wilson captured this process when he smacked a John Galt reference on one the company’s tote bags (to the horror of his customers). “Only later, looking back, did he realize the impact the book’s ideology had on his quest to elevate the world from mediocrity to greatness,” Wilson explained (in third person). “It is not coincidental that this is Lululemon’s company vision.” Not coincidental at all: Rand and the ascendant brand of tech entrepreneurs don’t see corporations as people but a select echelon of people as creative energy literally incorporated. Corporations aren’t people; people are corporations. Rand was fond of quoting Aristotle’s rule of identity, A is A (something Corey Robin convincingly argues in The Reactionary Mind she misunderstood). So Chip Wilson’s values are Lululemon’s values and vice versa; it’s the real life enactment of Rand’s vision of personal morality as economic activity, the other side of the equation Ryan wants to promulgate politically. Thanks to the Supreme Court, it’s also now a legal theory of corporate personhood that includes religious rights, showing just how far Rand’s theory of wealth as morality has spread. Narcissism and the Rise of Self-Esteem Advertisement: The least appreciated but perhaps farthest-reaching of Rand’s impacts was achieved through neither her philosophy nor her novels, but through her longtime lover, business partner, and protégé Nathaniel Branden. Branden was an early convert to Objectivism, and by the time he ended his protracted affair with Rand he’d become the second most important member in the Collective, the cult-like cadre of followers who orbited Rand. Branden spearheaded a sort of mail-order Objectivist college, which sent taped lectures to budding Objectivists around the country, published pored-over newsletters, and constructed an entire alternate culture in New York City that promoted Objectivist values. More than anyone he was responsible for inflating Rand’s philosophy into a movement, albeit a restricted and insular one. Branden was never Rand’s visionary equal, but where he could only enunciate her ideas in philosophy, he was able to transform them in psychology. After his dramatic break up with Rand, which all but toppled the Collective and marked the end of her public life, Branden moved to California and developed the Objectivist idea that one should always act for oneself into the extraordinarily influential theory of self-esteem. As Rand found “living for others” to be the fundamental weakness of the modern condition, one that gave rise to both decadence and totalitarianism, so Branden theorized that living for others created pathologies of unfulfilled self-conceptions. Branden retained pillars of Objectivism, such as self-awareness via rationality and an immediacy between conviction and actions, but changed the goal from metaphysical triumph to personal happiness. Advertisement: Like his former teacher’s novels, Branden’s book The Psychology of Self-Esteem was a runaway bestseller. Here Objectivism’s permanent exclusion from the academy not only helped Branden’s book sell to a wide lay audience but propelled the idea of self-esteem into the mainstream consciousness, from which it’s never left. (Though it’s been definitively rebutted.) Self-esteem is now so enmeshed in American culture that its Randian origins are entirely forgotten. Oliver featured a clip from a snotty reality show as a vulgar example of Rand’s “virtue of selfishness,” but it was more an example of her views filtered through Branden’s psychological conception and several decades of American consumerism. Rand viewed economic activity as morality, which (theoretically at least) entailed the creative energies of the producer. But Branden raided Rand’s theory and distributed the cause of individual fulfillment to the second-handers. Where Rand praised Howard Roark as the rare hero, Branden allowed everyone be their own Howard Roark. Rand, ever the elitist, would have loathed such a popular end. If she were alive today, she might, like Oliver, wonder about why everyone was so into her.

www.salon.com

left

8Xer1jpt4KYnezVg

test

UXQyE9ZWgtYgEidM

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/16/indisputable_proof_that_republicans_are_warriors_for_the_aristocracy/

Indisputable proof that Republicans are warriors for the aristocracy

2015-04-16

Heather Digparton

It 's been quite interesting to see Republicans embrace the notion that wealth inequality ( or any inequality ) is something to worry their pretty little heads about . Over the winter we heard numerous reports of various GOP luminaries expressing serious concern that average Americans were getting the short end of the stick while the wealthy few reaped all the rewards . Ted Cruz might as well have put on a blond wig and called himself `` Elizabeth '' when he railed against it after the State of the Union : “ We ’ re facing right now a divided America when it comes to the economy . It is true that the top 1 percent are doing great under Barack Obama . Today , the top 1 percent earn a higher share of our national income than any year since 1928 , ” And here we thought that was supposed to be a good thing . Are n't they the `` job producers '' ? That 's how weird the GOP 's messaging has gotten lately . Mitt `` 47 Percent '' Romney clutched his very expensive opera-length pearls , wailing that “ under President Obama , the rich have gotten richer , income inequality has gotten worse and there are more people in poverty than ever before. ” Rand Paul channeled his heretofore unknown inner Bernie Sanders , proclaiming that “ income inequality has worsened under this administration . And tonight , President Obama offers more of the same policies — policies that have allowed the poor to get poorer and the rich to get richer. ” It seemed to many observers at the time that this was a very odd choice of issue for potential Republican presidential aspirants to take up , since every item in the domestic GOP agenda would make wealth inequality even worse . This certainly was n't something they lost any sleep over before now . As Brendan Nyhan at the New York Times explained in February , this sort of thing is called `` issue-trespassing , '' where one party attempts to co-opt an advantage of the other by pretending to care about something nobody thinks they care about . In this case , the GOP seemed to be admitting that their reputation as the party of the 1 percent was n't helpful to their cause , so they decided to try to shift the blame to President Obama . Nyhan points out that data suggests this rarely ever works , because people rely on party stereotypes no matter how hard those parties try to co-opt the rhetoric of the other side for their own use . Certainly , it 's hard to see how anyone can possibly believe that the Republican Party , which fetishizes low taxes for the rich above all other priorities , truly cares about wealth inequality ; but perhaps this is one of those times when the mere pretense of caring signals that they understand how badly their reputation of callous disregard for everyday Americans ' economic security has hurt them . In any case , this shallow attempt at appearing to give a damn was short-lived . This week the GOP is voting , as they always do , to ensure that the heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune wo n't be faced with the terrible responsibility of having to pay taxes on their inheritances . Dana Milbank of the Washington Post pointed out just how successful these protectors of the progeny of the one percenters have been in recent years : It had long been a conservative ideal , and the essence of the American Dream , to believe that everybody should have an equal shot at success . But in their current bid to end the estate tax , Republicans could create a permanent elite of trust-fund babies . The estate tax was a meaningful check on a permanent aristocracy as recently as 2001 , when there were taxes on the portion of estates above $ 675,000 ; even then there were plenty of ways for the rich to shelter money for their heirs . As the son of a schoolteacher and a cabinetmaker , I ’ d like to see the estate tax exemptions lowered — so that taxes encourage enterprise and entre­pre­neur­ship while keeping to a minimum the number of Americans born who will never have to work a day in their lives . The current exemption of $ 5.4 million ( the current estate tax has an effective rate averaging under 17 percent , according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center ) does little to prevent a permanent aristocracy from growing — and abolishing it entirely turns democracy into kleptocracy . No , that was n't a mistaken cut and paste from the World Socialist Website . That really was Dana Milbank writing in the Washington Post , which is a testament to just how outlandish these Republicans have become . When mainstream columnists start using words like aristocracy and kleptocracy you know that something 's in the air . This is nothing new , of course . The conservative project has always been fundamentally about aristocracy . Sure , they love to wax on about freedom and liberty but the freedom and liberty they care about is the freedom to attain property and pass it on to their heirs . Everything else is secondary . What 's more interesting is the way they are able to make ordinary people who will never benefit from this scheme -- in fact , they will suffer -- agitate for it as if it meant the bread on their own table and the roof over their own heads . Paul Waldman tackled this phenomenon in a piece for the American Prospect a while back . He concluded that voters did n't understand that the tax only kicks in for very high amounts , and that most people instinctively think it should be okay to bequeath your fortune to your kids -- regardless that the consequences of vastly wealthy people doing this are fundamentally un-American . Americans tend to think that no matter what their current situation , eventually , they 're going to be rich . Most of us are wrong about that , but that 's what we think . It 's practically our patriotic duty to believe it . So most everyone thinks that this tax will apply to their estate upon their death , no matter how modest that estate might be at the moment . I will never forget hearing a caller tell Rush Limbaugh one day that he was happy for his CEO to make a lot of money because that meant the company was doing well and would probably give him a raise someday . Rush , needless to say , sagely agreed with his assessment , although he sounded a bit distracted . ( I believe it was around the time he had negotiated his several-hundred-million dollar contract , so he was likely engaged in counting his fortune . ) This is one of the main keys to the perpetuation of the aristocratic project : Convincing average people to support `` their betters '' with the promise that they will themselves benefit . In the old aristocracy , this used to be a simple pledge of fealty to ones noble house , but American conservatives have `` democratized '' it to make the serfs and peasants believe that they too will be nobles one day if only they agree to allow the rich to keep every last penny of their wealth . It 's a very sweet scam . Unfortunately for the conservatives , inequality is becoming impossible to ignore and the people are starting to wake up to what is happening . The confusion on the right about how to handle it is a sign that it 's verging out of their control . And again , as Nyhan pointed out in his NYT piece , simply paying lip service to a democratic , egalitarian concern is probably not going to be enough to give them cover when the Republican stereotype of being servants of the rich is so deeply embedded in our political culture . ( Thanks Mitt ! ) Voting for the Paris Hilton tax exemption bill certainly wo n't help . On the other hand , it could be worse . The former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is now saying outright that democracy is n't working and is calling for benevolent dictatorships . It 's convenient that the United Kingdom maintained their monarchy is n't it ? It will be so much easier than building one from the ground up .

It's been quite interesting to see Republicans embrace the notion that wealth inequality (or any inequality) is something to worry their pretty little heads about. Over the winter we heard numerous reports of various GOP luminaries expressing serious concern that average Americans were getting the short end of the stick while the wealthy few reaped all the rewards. Ted Cruz might as well have put on a blond wig and called himself "Elizabeth" when he railed against it after the State of the Union: “We’re facing right now a divided America when it comes to the economy. It is true that the top 1 percent are doing great under Barack Obama. Today, the top 1 percent earn a higher share of our national income than any year since 1928,” And here we thought that was supposed to be a good thing. Aren't they the "job producers"? That's how weird the GOP's messaging has gotten lately. Mitt "47 Percent" Romney clutched his very expensive opera-length pearls, wailing that “under President Obama, the rich have gotten richer, income inequality has gotten worse and there are more people in poverty than ever before.” Rand Paul channeled his heretofore unknown inner Bernie Sanders, proclaiming that “income inequality has worsened under this administration. And tonight, President Obama offers more of the same policies — policies that have allowed the poor to get poorer and the rich to get richer.” It seemed to many observers at the time that this was a very odd choice of issue for potential Republican presidential aspirants to take up, since every item in the domestic GOP agenda would make wealth inequality even worse. This certainly wasn't something they lost any sleep over before now. Advertisement: As Brendan Nyhan at the New York Times explained in February, this sort of thing is called "issue-trespassing," where one party attempts to co-opt an advantage of the other by pretending to care about something nobody thinks they care about. In this case, the GOP seemed to be admitting that their reputation as the party of the 1 percent wasn't helpful to their cause, so they decided to try to shift the blame to President Obama. Nyhan points out that data suggests this rarely ever works, because people rely on party stereotypes no matter how hard those parties try to co-opt the rhetoric of the other side for their own use. Certainly, it's hard to see how anyone can possibly believe that the Republican Party, which fetishizes low taxes for the rich above all other priorities, truly cares about wealth inequality; but perhaps this is one of those times when the mere pretense of caring signals that they understand how badly their reputation of callous disregard for everyday Americans' economic security has hurt them. In any case, this shallow attempt at appearing to give a damn was short-lived. This week the GOP is voting, as they always do, to ensure that the heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune won't be faced with the terrible responsibility of having to pay taxes on their inheritances. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post pointed out just how successful these protectors of the progeny of the one percenters have been in recent years: Advertisement: It had long been a conservative ideal, and the essence of the American Dream, to believe that everybody should have an equal shot at success. But in their current bid to end the estate tax, Republicans could create a permanent elite of trust-fund babies. The estate tax was a meaningful check on a permanent aristocracy as recently as 2001, when there were taxes on the portion of estates above $675,000; even then there were plenty of ways for the rich to shelter money for their heirs. As the son of a schoolteacher and a cabinetmaker, I’d like to see the estate tax exemptions lowered — so that taxes encourage enterprise and entre­pre­neur­ship while keeping to a minimum the number of Americans born who will never have to work a day in their lives. The current exemption of $5.4 million (the current estate tax has an effective rate averaging under 17 percent, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center) does little to prevent a permanent aristocracy from growing — and abolishing it entirely turns democracy into kleptocracy. No, that wasn't a mistaken cut and paste from the World Socialist Website. That really was Dana Milbank writing in the Washington Post, which is a testament to just how outlandish these Republicans have become. When mainstream columnists start using words like aristocracy and kleptocracy you know that something's in the air. This is nothing new, of course. The conservative project has always been fundamentally about aristocracy. Sure, they love to wax on about freedom and liberty but the freedom and liberty they care about is the freedom to attain property and pass it on to their heirs. Everything else is secondary. What's more interesting is the way they are able to make ordinary people who will never benefit from this scheme -- in fact, they will suffer -- agitate for it as if it meant the bread on their own table and the roof over their own heads. Paul Waldman tackled this phenomenon in a piece for the American Prospect a while back. He concluded that voters didn't understand that the tax only kicks in for very high amounts, and that most people instinctively think it should be okay to bequeath your fortune to your kids -- regardless that the consequences of vastly wealthy people doing this are fundamentally un-American. Advertisement: Waldman mentioned this silly notion as well: Americans tend to think that no matter what their current situation, eventually, they're going to be rich. Most of us are wrong about that, but that's what we think. It's practically our patriotic duty to believe it. So most everyone thinks that this tax will apply to their estate upon their death, no matter how modest that estate might be at the moment. I will never forget hearing a caller tell Rush Limbaugh one day that he was happy for his CEO to make a lot of money because that meant the company was doing well and would probably give him a raise someday. Rush, needless to say, sagely agreed with his assessment, although he sounded a bit distracted. (I believe it was around the time he had negotiated his several-hundred-million dollar contract, so he was likely engaged in counting his fortune.) Advertisement: This is one of the main keys to the perpetuation of the aristocratic project: Convincing average people to support "their betters" with the promise that they will themselves benefit. In the old aristocracy, this used to be a simple pledge of fealty to ones noble house, but American conservatives have "democratized" it to make the serfs and peasants believe that they too will be nobles one day if only they agree to allow the rich to keep every last penny of their wealth. It's a very sweet scam. Unfortunately for the conservatives, inequality is becoming impossible to ignore and the people are starting to wake up to what is happening. The confusion on the right about how to handle it is a sign that it's verging out of their control. And again, as Nyhan pointed out in his NYT piece, simply paying lip service to a democratic, egalitarian concern is probably not going to be enough to give them cover when the Republican stereotype of being servants of the rich is so deeply embedded in our political culture. (Thanks Mitt!) Voting for the Paris Hilton tax exemption bill certainly won't help. On the other hand, it could be worse. The former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is now saying outright that democracy isn't working and is calling for benevolent dictatorships. It's convenient that the United Kingdom maintained their monarchy isn't it? It will be so much easier than building one from the ground up.

www.salon.com

left

UXQyE9ZWgtYgEidM

test

HIsniFY0HfMQ0zom

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-split/california-high-court-orders-proposal-to-split-up-state-removed-from-november-ballot-idUSKBN1K8300

California high court orders proposal to split up state removed from November ballot

2018-07-18

Steve Gorman

LOS ANGELES ( ███ ) - The California Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the November ballot purged of an initiative that seeks to split California into three states , citing significant questions raised about the proposal ’ s validity . State election officials certified last month that supporters of the so-called Cal3 measure , also known as Proposition 9 , had collected enough signatures to qualify it for the ballot in the country ’ s most populous state . An environmental group , the Planning and Conservation League , challenged the measure in court , arguing it posed a “ revision ” of the state constitution - as opposed to an amendment - that is too sweeping to be legally subjected to the direct consent of the voters . Siding with opponents for the time being , the court directed state election officials to keep the measure off the upcoming November ballot to allow the justices sufficient time to review and decide the merits of the case . The court left open the possibility of allowing the initiative to be put before voters in the future , saying the “ potential harm in permitting the measure to remain on the ballot outweighs ” the harm of its delay . The initiative was launched by billionaire Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper , who has argued that California ’ s size makes it ungovernable . He failed in two previous bids to qualify a six-way split of California for the ballot . Draper decried Wednesday ’ s outcome as indicative of a “ corrupted ” political system , saying : “ This is not the way democracies are supposed to work . ” Opponents said Draper ’ s partition plan would be chaotic and a costly waste of time and resources . Voter approval of Cal3 would not automatically divide California into three states . Instead , the governor would be directed to petition Congress to approve the split , as called for under the U.S. Constitution , and the president would be required to sign such legislation into law . Political experts say Congress is unlikely to embrace the concept of three Californias and they question whether state voters would take it seriously . The last time a state was split apart was during the Civil War , when a portion of Virginia seceded to form West Virginia . Under Cal3 , California - home to nearly 40 million people - would be partitioned into “ Northern California , ” comprising San Francisco , Sacramento and a tract extending to the Oregon border ; “ Southern California , ” including San Diego and inland cities such as Fresno , Bakersfield , San Bernardino and Riverside ; and a new “ California , ” consisting of Los Angeles and a coastal swath stretching north to Monterey .

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The California Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the November ballot purged of an initiative that seeks to split California into three states, citing significant questions raised about the proposal’s validity. State election officials certified last month that supporters of the so-called Cal3 measure, also known as Proposition 9, had collected enough signatures to qualify it for the ballot in the country’s most populous state. An environmental group, the Planning and Conservation League, challenged the measure in court, arguing it posed a “revision” of the state constitution - as opposed to an amendment - that is too sweeping to be legally subjected to the direct consent of the voters. Siding with opponents for the time being, the court directed state election officials to keep the measure off the upcoming November ballot to allow the justices sufficient time to review and decide the merits of the case. The court left open the possibility of allowing the initiative to be put before voters in the future, saying the “potential harm in permitting the measure to remain on the ballot outweighs” the harm of its delay. The initiative was launched by billionaire Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper, who has argued that California’s size makes it ungovernable. He failed in two previous bids to qualify a six-way split of California for the ballot. Draper decried Wednesday’s outcome as indicative of a “corrupted” political system, saying: “This is not the way democracies are supposed to work.” Opponents said Draper’s partition plan would be chaotic and a costly waste of time and resources. Voter approval of Cal3 would not automatically divide California into three states. Instead, the governor would be directed to petition Congress to approve the split, as called for under the U.S. Constitution, and the president would be required to sign such legislation into law. FILE PHOTO: Venture capitalist and CAL 3 Chairman Tim Draper speaks during a press conference after announcing he has collected more than 600,000 signatures to put the plan to partition California into three states into the November ballot in San Mateo, California, April 12, 2018. REUTERS/ Stephen Lam/File Photo Political experts say Congress is unlikely to embrace the concept of three Californias and they question whether state voters would take it seriously. The last time a state was split apart was during the Civil War, when a portion of Virginia seceded to form West Virginia. Under Cal3, California - home to nearly 40 million people - would be partitioned into “Northern California,” comprising San Francisco, Sacramento and a tract extending to the Oregon border; “Southern California,” including San Diego and inland cities such as Fresno, Bakersfield, San Bernardino and Riverside; and a new “California,” consisting of Los Angeles and a coastal swath stretching north to Monterey.

www.reuters.com

center

HIsniFY0HfMQ0zom

test

gBPw26SX8NrtZHJ0

race_and_racism

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53141449

Police kill Canadian man during mental health check

A Canadian man in mental health distress was shot dead by Ontario police , intensifying demands for reform . Ejaz Choudry , 62 , was killed over the weekend when police responded to a call to `` check on the well-being of a man '' . In May , Toronto woman Regis Korchinski-Paquet , 29 , fell from a balcony and died after police arrived to help her . Ontario 's police watchdog , the Special Investigation Unit ( SIU ) , is investigating the two deaths . In a press conference , Mr Choudry 's family said he suffered from schizophrenia , was paranoid and afraid of police . His nephew Khizar Shahzad says Mr Choudry 's daughter had called for a non-emergency ambulance on Saturday because her father was having an `` episode '' . Once paramedics arrived at his apartment in Malton , outside of Toronto , Mr Shahzad said they saw he had a knife and called the police . Family recalled pleading with police to be allowed to go with them into the building to make Mr Choudry more comfortable , explaining that he was likely to be paranoid . `` I said , 'Hey , he 's scared of your uniform , he 's not scared of you , ' '' Mr Shahzad recalled . In a news release , the SIU said Peel Regional Police arrived at 5pm local time , and that they communicated with Mr Choudry , who was barricaded in his apartment . `` Shortly after communication stopped , officers breached the door and entered the unit . An interaction occurred which included officers deploying a conducted energy weapon at the man , as well as firing plastic projectiles , '' said the SIU in its press release . `` When these had no effect , an officer discharged a firearm and the man was struck . '' Ms Korchinski-Paquet , who was of black and indigenous descent , died after falling from a 24th-floor balcony in Toronto , after police had been called to help her . According to her family she suffered from epilepsy . Her mother had called police to ask them to take her to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto . The SIU has released few details about her death , which has been widely covered by local media . In a news release announcing its investigation , it said `` officers were inside an apartment unit on the 24th floor , they observed a woman on the balcony . A short time later , the woman fell from the balcony to the ground below . '' Over the past month , Ms Korchinski-Paquet 's name has been mentioned alongside George Floyd 's at Black Lives Matter protests across Canada , and the words `` Justice for Regis '' has become a rallying cry for people demanding an end to systemic racism in Canadian policing . Now , Mr Choudry 's name has been added to the growing list of ethnic minority people across Canada who have been killed during a police `` wellness check '' on their mental health . Protests erupted in the Toronto area on Sunday and Monday . Protesters marched through the streets of Mississauga and closed down a section of road near where Mr Choudry was shot , demanding an independent inquiry into his death . In a joint press conference on Monday afternoon , the National Council of Canadian Muslims , the Urban Alliance on Race Relations and Muslim Council of Peel said they wanted the officer who shot him to be fired immediately . `` The police need to be held to the same level of justice as the rest of us are . There is blood on their hands and the officer who pulled the trigger should never be trusted with a gun or badge again , '' said Mohammed Hashim , who is on the board of the Urban Alliance . The SIU , which investigates all civilian deaths that occur during interactions with police , is currently investigating both Mr Choudry 's death and the death of Ms Korchinski-Paquet . But many have doubted the police watchdog 's ability to deliver justice . Ms Korchinski-Paquet 's family delayed their interview with the SIU over concerns the investigation was compromised after they allege police leaked details of her death to the media . The Muslim Council of Peel is calling for an independent inquiry unconnected to the SIU , and a review of police use of force during mental-health checks . Mr Choudry was originally from Pakistan . `` I am heartbroken for the family , '' the council 's executive director Rabia Khedr said in a statement . `` Police are trained to catch criminals and shoot to kill . Regardless of all the mental health training they receive , they should never be the first responders in such incidents . We have to invest in crisis intervention services with the right expertise and protocols to manage someone in mental distress . '' Concerns over the efficacy of the SIU to prosecute police brutality go back years . In 2008 , Ontario 's ombudsman André Marin released a critical report , saying `` there 's no doubt in my mind that an SIU investigation is one which is currently done through blue-coloured glasses '' . Subsequent governments have attempted to reform the SIU , with various desired outcomes . In 2019 , Ontario 's current premier Doug Ford passed legislation meant to streamline the investigations process after promising free police of `` onerous restrictions that treat those in uniform as subjects of suspicion and scorn '' . Critics , including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association , accused the bill of gutting police oversight .

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption A protest near where Ejaz Choudry was shot by police has shut down an intersection A Canadian man in mental health distress was shot dead by Ontario police, intensifying demands for reform. Ejaz Choudry, 62, was killed over the weekend when police responded to a call to "check on the well-being of a man". In May, Toronto woman Regis Korchinski-Paquet, 29, fell from a balcony and died after police arrived to help her. Ontario's police watchdog, the Special Investigation Unit (SIU), is investigating the two deaths. Image copyright GoFundMe / Submitted photo Image caption Ejaz Choudry, left, and Regis Korchinski-Paquet died less than four weeks apart in separate encounters with Toronto-area police What happened to Mr Choudry? In a press conference, Mr Choudry's family said he suffered from schizophrenia, was paranoid and afraid of police. His nephew Khizar Shahzad says Mr Choudry's daughter had called for a non-emergency ambulance on Saturday because her father was having an "episode". Once paramedics arrived at his apartment in Malton, outside of Toronto, Mr Shahzad said they saw he had a knife and called the police. Family recalled pleading with police to be allowed to go with them into the building to make Mr Choudry more comfortable, explaining that he was likely to be paranoid. "I said, 'Hey, he's scared of your uniform, he's not scared of you,'" Mr Shahzad recalled. In a news release, the SIU said Peel Regional Police arrived at 5pm local time, and that they communicated with Mr Choudry, who was barricaded in his apartment. "Shortly after communication stopped, officers breached the door and entered the unit. An interaction occurred which included officers deploying a conducted energy weapon at the man, as well as firing plastic projectiles," said the SIU in its press release. "When these had no effect, an officer discharged a firearm and the man was struck." He was pronounced dead at the scene. What happened to Ms Korchinski-Paquet? Ms Korchinski-Paquet, who was of black and indigenous descent, died after falling from a 24th-floor balcony in Toronto, after police had been called to help her. According to her family she suffered from epilepsy. Her mother had called police to ask them to take her to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto. The SIU has released few details about her death, which has been widely covered by local media. In a news release announcing its investigation, it said "officers were inside an apartment unit on the 24th floor, they observed a woman on the balcony. A short time later, the woman fell from the balcony to the ground below." Over the past month, Ms Korchinski-Paquet's name has been mentioned alongside George Floyd's at Black Lives Matter protests across Canada, and the words "Justice for Regis" has become a rallying cry for people demanding an end to systemic racism in Canadian policing. Now, Mr Choudry's name has been added to the growing list of ethnic minority people across Canada who have been killed during a police "wellness check" on their mental health. What has been the reaction to the deaths? Image copyright Getty Images Protests erupted in the Toronto area on Sunday and Monday. Protesters marched through the streets of Mississauga and closed down a section of road near where Mr Choudry was shot, demanding an independent inquiry into his death. In a joint press conference on Monday afternoon, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the Urban Alliance on Race Relations and Muslim Council of Peel said they wanted the officer who shot him to be fired immediately. "The police need to be held to the same level of justice as the rest of us are. There is blood on their hands and the officer who pulled the trigger should never be trusted with a gun or badge again," said Mohammed Hashim, who is on the board of the Urban Alliance. The SIU, which investigates all civilian deaths that occur during interactions with police, is currently investigating both Mr Choudry's death and the death of Ms Korchinski-Paquet. But many have doubted the police watchdog's ability to deliver justice. Ms Korchinski-Paquet's family delayed their interview with the SIU over concerns the investigation was compromised after they allege police leaked details of her death to the media. The Muslim Council of Peel is calling for an independent inquiry unconnected to the SIU, and a review of police use of force during mental-health checks. Mr Choudry was originally from Pakistan. "I am heartbroken for the family," the council's executive director Rabia Khedr said in a statement. "Police are trained to catch criminals and shoot to kill. Regardless of all the mental health training they receive, they should never be the first responders in such incidents. We have to invest in crisis intervention services with the right expertise and protocols to manage someone in mental distress." Concerns over the efficacy of the SIU to prosecute police brutality go back years. In 2008, Ontario's ombudsman André Marin released a critical report, saying "there's no doubt in my mind that an SIU investigation is one which is currently done through blue-coloured glasses". Subsequent governments have attempted to reform the SIU, with various desired outcomes. In 2019, Ontario's current premier Doug Ford passed legislation meant to streamline the investigations process after promising free police of "onerous restrictions that treat those in uniform as subjects of suspicion and scorn". Critics, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, accused the bill of gutting police oversight.

www.bbc.com

center

gBPw26SX8NrtZHJ0

test

Z6rI70os8U0sc74O

national_defense

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207

Trump revokes Obama rule on reporting drone strike deaths

President Donald Trump has revoked a policy set by his predecessor requiring US intelligence officials to publish the number of civilians killed in drone strikes outside of war zones . The 2016 executive order was brought in by then-President Barack Obama , who was under pressure to be more transparent . Since the 9/11 terror attack , drone strikes have been increasingly used against terror and military targets . The Trump administration said the rule was `` superfluous '' and distracting . The order applied to the CIA , which has carried out drone strikes in countries such as Afghanistan , Pakistan , and Somalia . `` This action eliminates superfluous reporting requirements , requirements that do not improve government transparency , but rather distract our intelligence professionals from their primary mission , '' an official said . It required the head of the CIA to release annual summaries of US drone strikes and assess how many died as a result . Mr Trump 's executive order does not overturn reporting requirements on civilian deaths set for the military by Congress . There have been 2,243 drone strikes in the first two years of the Trump presidency , compared with 1,878 in Mr Obama 's eight years in office , according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism , a UK-based think tank . Human-rights activists complained about the drone programme under the Obama administration , saying the operations were overly secretive and hid the fact that civilians were sometimes killed in the strikes . President Obama responded by saying that strikes were carried out in a precise manner - and that intelligence officials would release data on civilians who were accidentally killed in the strikes that occurred outside of war zones . President Trump has built on the existing programme and made it even more ambitious . During Mr Obama 's eight years in office , 1,878 drone strikes were carried out , according to researchers . Since Mr Trump was elected in 2016 , there have been 2,243 drone strikes . The Republican president has also made some of the operations , the ones outside of war zones , more secretive . As a result , things have different today : under Mr Trump , there are more drone strikes - and less transparency . Lawmakers and rights groups have criticised Mr Trump 's decision , saying it could allow the CIA to conduct drone strikes without accountability . `` The Trump administration 's action is an unnecessary and dangerous step backwards on transparency and accountability for the use of lethal force , and the civilian casualties they cause , '' Rita Siemion of Human Rights First told AFP news agency . Representative Adam Schiff , a Democrat who chairs Congress 's intelligence committee , called the requirement issued by Obama `` an important measure of transparency , '' and said `` there is simply no justification '' for cancelling it .

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption US drone strikes have been used to fight extremists in countries such as Yemen President Donald Trump has revoked a policy set by his predecessor requiring US intelligence officials to publish the number of civilians killed in drone strikes outside of war zones. The 2016 executive order was brought in by then-President Barack Obama, who was under pressure to be more transparent. Since the 9/11 terror attack, drone strikes have been increasingly used against terror and military targets. The Trump administration said the rule was "superfluous" and distracting. The order applied to the CIA, which has carried out drone strikes in countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia. "This action eliminates superfluous reporting requirements, requirements that do not improve government transparency, but rather distract our intelligence professionals from their primary mission," an official said. What was the rule? It required the head of the CIA to release annual summaries of US drone strikes and assess how many died as a result. Mr Trump's executive order does not overturn reporting requirements on civilian deaths set for the military by Congress. There have been 2,243 drone strikes in the first two years of the Trump presidency, compared with 1,878 in Mr Obama's eight years in office, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a UK-based think tank. An uptick in deaths Tara McKelvey, BBC News, White House Reporter Human-rights activists complained about the drone programme under the Obama administration, saying the operations were overly secretive and hid the fact that civilians were sometimes killed in the strikes. President Obama responded by saying that strikes were carried out in a precise manner - and that intelligence officials would release data on civilians who were accidentally killed in the strikes that occurred outside of war zones. President Trump has built on the existing programme and made it even more ambitious. During Mr Obama's eight years in office, 1,878 drone strikes were carried out, according to researchers. Since Mr Trump was elected in 2016, there have been 2,243 drone strikes. The Republican president has also made some of the operations, the ones outside of war zones, more secretive. As a result, things have different today: under Mr Trump, there are more drone strikes - and less transparency. What is the reaction? Lawmakers and rights groups have criticised Mr Trump's decision, saying it could allow the CIA to conduct drone strikes without accountability. "The Trump administration's action is an unnecessary and dangerous step backwards on transparency and accountability for the use of lethal force, and the civilian casualties they cause," Rita Siemion of Human Rights First told AFP news agency. Representative Adam Schiff, a Democrat who chairs Congress's intelligence committee, called the requirement issued by Obama "an important measure of transparency," and said "there is simply no justification" for cancelling it.

www.bbc.com

center

Z6rI70os8U0sc74O

test

6mDcPgCX2gagY7bK

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/01/paul-manafort-trump-passports-russia

Paul Manafort has three passports and ties to Russian oligarchs, prosecutors say

2017-11-01

Paul Manafort , the former campaign manager for Donald Trump , had three US passports , millions in assets and ties to Russian oligarchs , according to federal court documents related to his indictment on tax fraud and money laundering charges . Trump-Russia inquiry heats up as three key aides indicted Read more Manafort and associate Rick Gates pose a significant flight risk because of the serious nature of the charges , the strong evidence of guilt , their wealth and “ their history of deceptive and misleading conduct ” , federal prosecutors said in a filing on Tuesday in US district court for the District of Columbia . Manafort , 68 , and Gates , who also worked on Trump ’ s campaign , pleaded not guilty on Monday in a 12-count indictment , ranging from money laundering to acting as unregistered agents of Ukraine ’ s former pro-Russian government . The charges came as part of federal special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s five-month-old investigation into alleged Russian efforts to tilt the 2016 presidential election in Trump ’ s favor and potential collusion by campaign aides . The allegations are not related to campaign activities but reveal close ties to Russia and include activities from 2006 to 2017 , which overlaps with the men ’ s work on Trump ’ s campaign . The two men are under house arrest and have relinquished their US passports , with a $ 10m bond set for Manafort and a $ 5m bond for Gates . “ Both defendants have substantial ties abroad , including in Ukraine , where both have spent time and have served as agents of its government , ” according to the government ’ s memorandum in support of the conditions of release . “ And both Manafort and Gates have connections to Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs , who have provided millions of dollars to Manafort and Gates. “ Manafort was a longtime US Republican operative before turning his attention to political consulting overseas . Manafort submitted 10 passport application in the last decade and currently holds three US passports , the memo said . Asked about the information in the memo , Manafort lawyer Jason Maloni told Reuters on Wednesday his client “ looks forward to having these allegations tried before a judge and jury ” . The memo said Manafort ’ s financial assets were substantial but difficult to quantify because he listed figures on loan applications and other financial documents since 2012 that ranged from from $ 19m to $ 136m . Manafort and Gates owned or controlled entities and accounts worldwide including in Cyprus , Grenadines , Seychelles and England , it said .

This article is more than 2 years old This article is more than 2 years old Paul Manafort, the former campaign manager for Donald Trump, had three US passports, millions in assets and ties to Russian oligarchs, according to federal court documents related to his indictment on tax fraud and money laundering charges. Trump-Russia inquiry heats up as three key aides indicted Read more Manafort and associate Rick Gates pose a significant flight risk because of the serious nature of the charges, the strong evidence of guilt, their wealth and “their history of deceptive and misleading conduct”, federal prosecutors said in a filing on Tuesday in US district court for the District of Columbia. Manafort, 68, and Gates, who also worked on Trump’s campaign, pleaded not guilty on Monday in a 12-count indictment, ranging from money laundering to acting as unregistered agents of Ukraine’s former pro-Russian government. The charges came as part of federal special counsel Robert Mueller’s five-month-old investigation into alleged Russian efforts to tilt the 2016 presidential election in Trump’s favor and potential collusion by campaign aides. The allegations are not related to campaign activities but reveal close ties to Russia and include activities from 2006 to 2017, which overlaps with the men’s work on Trump’s campaign. The two men are under house arrest and have relinquished their US passports, with a $10m bond set for Manafort and a $5m bond for Gates. “Both defendants have substantial ties abroad, including in Ukraine, where both have spent time and have served as agents of its government,” according to the government’s memorandum in support of the conditions of release. “And both Manafort and Gates have connections to Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs, who have provided millions of dollars to Manafort and Gates.“ Manafort was a longtime US Republican operative before turning his attention to political consulting overseas. Manafort submitted 10 passport application in the last decade and currently holds three US passports, the memo said. Asked about the information in the memo, Manafort lawyer Jason Maloni told Reuters on Wednesday his client “looks forward to having these allegations tried before a judge and jury”. The memo said Manafort’s financial assets were substantial but difficult to quantify because he listed figures on loan applications and other financial documents since 2012 that ranged from from $19m to $136m. Manafort and Gates owned or controlled entities and accounts worldwide including in Cyprus, Grenadines, Seychelles and England, it said.

www.theguardian.com

left

6mDcPgCX2gagY7bK

test

SkUSkvMtav8uUfpY

national_defense

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-usa/trump-says-he-aborted-retaliatory-strike-to-spare-iranian-lives-idUSKCN1TL07P

Trump says he aborted retaliatory strike to spare Iranian lives

2019-06-22

Jeff Mason

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday he aborted a military strike to retaliate for Iran ’ s downing of an unmanned U.S. drone because it could have killed 150 people , and signaled he was open to talks with Tehran . An Iranian surface-to-air missile destroyed a U.S . Global Hawk surveillance drone on Thursday . Tehran said the drone was shot down over its territory and Washington said it occurred in international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz . The incident aggravated fears of a direct military clash between the longtime foes . Oil futures rose more than 1 % to above $ 65 per barrel on Friday over worries about possible disruptions to crude exports from the Gulf . Trump ’ s decision to cancel what he said was a planned attack on three sites suggests he wants a diplomatic solution to end weeks of festering tensions with Iran , which Washington accuses of a spate of attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf region . “ I ’ m not looking for war , and if there is , it ’ ll be obliteration like you ’ ve never seen before . But I ’ m not looking to do that , ” Trump told NBC News in an interview aired on Friday night . Iranian sources told ███ that Trump had warned Tehran via Oman that a U.S. attack was imminent , but had said he was against war and wanted talks . Washington also requested a closed-door U.N. Security Council meeting on Monday . The State Department denied the ███ report . “ Reports that a message was passed last night to the Iranians via an Omani back channel are completely false . These reports are pure Iranian propaganda , ” department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said on Twitter . In a series of early-morning tweets , Trump said he was in no hurry to launch a strike and that U.S. economic sanctions designed to force Iran to curb its nuclear and missile programs and its involvement in regional wars were having an effect . “ We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night , ” Trump tweeted . “ Ten minutes before the strike I stopped it , not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone . I am in no hurry , our military is rebuilt , new , and ready to go , by far the best in the world , ” Trump tweeted . Typically , the U.S. military would seek to target Iranian facilities that could be connected to the shooting down of the American drone . The military would not seek to inflict casualties and although Iranian military casualties could occur in an attack , forecasts such as 150 are normally only rough estimates . White House national security adviser John Bolton , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and CIA Director Gina Haspel , along with the rest of Trump ’ s team , favored a retaliatory strike , a senior Trump administration official said . “ There was complete unanimity amongst the president ’ s advisers and DOD ( Department of Defense ) leadership on an appropriate response to Iran ’ s activities . The president made the final decision , ” said the official . Trump ’ s decision drew mixed reviews in Washington , with some people criticizing him for flinching while others , notably senior Democrats , praised what they saw as restraint . “ A strike of that amount of collateral damage would be very provocative , and I ’ m glad the president did not take that , ” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , the top Democrat in Congress , told reporters . However , Michael Makovsky , a former Pentagon official who heads the Jewish Institute for National Security of America , a think tank that favors strong U.S.-Israeli security ties , said Trump was undermining U.S. credibility . “ Trump has given the impression he lost his nerve , ” Makovsky said in a statement . Iran ’ s destruction of the U.S. drone was the latest among ever more serious incidents in the Gulf region , a critical artery for global oil supplies , since mid-May . There have also been explosions on six oil tankers that the U.S. suspects Iran or its proxies of carrying out . Iran has denied any involvement . After interviewing Trump for NBC ’ s “ Meet the Press ” program , NBC correspondent Chuck Todd said Trump had said he had no preconditions for talks with Iran and was willing to speak to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani or Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei . FILE PHOTO - U.S. President Donald Trump listens to questions from reporters during a meeting with Canada 's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington , U.S. , June 20 , 2019 . ███/Jonathan Ernst U.S. forces are preparing to evacuate nearly 400 people working for Lockheed Martin Corp and Sallyport Global from an Iraqi military base north of Baghdad over potential security threats , Iraqi military sources said on Friday . The sources did not give any details about the threats . Three bases hosting U.S. forces in Iraq have been attacked in the past week with no claims of responsibility . Local officials blamed Iran-backed Shi ’ ite militias for one of the incidents . Trump on Friday spoke with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman about Middle East stability and the oil market , the White House said . German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Friday she and fellow EU leaders “ are concerned about the situation and support diplomatic negotiations , a political solution for a very tense situation . ” Some global airlines are re-routing flights to avoid Iran-controlled airspace over the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman , they said on Friday after the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration barred U.S. air carriers from the area . News of the Trump message to Iran , delivered through Oman overnight , broke shortly after the New York Times reported that Trump had called off air strikes targeting Iranian radar and missile batteries at the last minute . “ In his message , Trump said he was against any war with Iran and wanted to talk to Tehran about various issues , ” one Iranian official told ███ , speaking on condition of anonymity . “ He gave a short period of time to get our response , but Iran ’ s immediate response was that it is up to Supreme Leader Khamenei to decide about this issue . ” A second Iranian official said : “ We made it clear that the leader is against any talks , but the message will be conveyed to him to make a decision . “ However , we told the Omani official that any attack against Iran will have regional and international consequences . ” Khamenei has the last say on all state matters and has ruled out any talks with Washington while Tehran is under sanctions . Trump ’ s decision in May to tighten sanctions to try to eliminate Iran ’ s oil exports led to the latest tensions . In May 2018 , Trump unilaterally withdrew Washington from a 2015 accord between Iran and major powers under which Tehran curtailed its path to building a nuclear bomb in return for sanctions relief .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday he aborted a military strike to retaliate for Iran’s downing of an unmanned U.S. drone because it could have killed 150 people, and signaled he was open to talks with Tehran. An Iranian surface-to-air missile destroyed a U.S. Global Hawk surveillance drone on Thursday. Tehran said the drone was shot down over its territory and Washington said it occurred in international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz. The incident aggravated fears of a direct military clash between the longtime foes. Oil futures rose more than 1% to above $65 per barrel on Friday over worries about possible disruptions to crude exports from the Gulf. Trump’s decision to cancel what he said was a planned attack on three sites suggests he wants a diplomatic solution to end weeks of festering tensions with Iran, which Washington accuses of a spate of attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf region. “I’m not looking for war, and if there is, it’ll be obliteration like you’ve never seen before. But I’m not looking to do that,” Trump told NBC News in an interview aired on Friday night. Iranian sources told Reuters that Trump had warned Tehran via Oman that a U.S. attack was imminent, but had said he was against war and wanted talks. Washington also requested a closed-door U.N. Security Council meeting on Monday. The State Department denied the Reuters report. “Reports that a message was passed last night to the Iranians via an Omani back channel are completely false. These reports are pure Iranian propaganda,” department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said on Twitter. In a series of early-morning tweets, Trump said he was in no hurry to launch a strike and that U.S. economic sanctions designed to force Iran to curb its nuclear and missile programs and its involvement in regional wars were having an effect. “We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night,” Trump tweeted. “Ten minutes before the strike I stopped it, not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone. I am in no hurry, our military is rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world,” Trump tweeted. Typically, the U.S. military would seek to target Iranian facilities that could be connected to the shooting down of the American drone. The military would not seek to inflict casualties and although Iranian military casualties could occur in an attack, forecasts such as 150 are normally only rough estimates. White House national security adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and CIA Director Gina Haspel, along with the rest of Trump’s team, favored a retaliatory strike, a senior Trump administration official said. “There was complete unanimity amongst the president’s advisers and DOD (Department of Defense) leadership on an appropriate response to Iran’s activities. The president made the final decision,” said the official. Trump’s decision drew mixed reviews in Washington, with some people criticizing him for flinching while others, notably senior Democrats, praised what they saw as restraint. “A strike of that amount of collateral damage would be very provocative, and I’m glad the president did not take that,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the top Democrat in Congress, told reporters. However, Michael Makovsky, a former Pentagon official who heads the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, a think tank that favors strong U.S.-Israeli security ties, said Trump was undermining U.S. credibility. “Trump has given the impression he lost his nerve,” Makovsky said in a statement. Iran’s destruction of the U.S. drone was the latest among ever more serious incidents in the Gulf region, a critical artery for global oil supplies, since mid-May. There have also been explosions on six oil tankers that the U.S. suspects Iran or its proxies of carrying out. Iran has denied any involvement. After interviewing Trump for NBC’s “Meet the Press” program, NBC correspondent Chuck Todd said Trump had said he had no preconditions for talks with Iran and was willing to speak to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani or Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. FILE PHOTO - U.S. President Donald Trump listens to questions from reporters during a meeting with Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, U.S., June 20, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst SECURITY THREATS IN IRAQ U.S. forces are preparing to evacuate nearly 400 people working for Lockheed Martin Corp and Sallyport Global from an Iraqi military base north of Baghdad over potential security threats, Iraqi military sources said on Friday. The sources did not give any details about the threats. Three bases hosting U.S. forces in Iraq have been attacked in the past week with no claims of responsibility. Local officials blamed Iran-backed Shi’ite militias for one of the incidents. Trump on Friday spoke with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman about Middle East stability and the oil market, the White House said. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Friday she and fellow EU leaders “are concerned about the situation and support diplomatic negotiations, a political solution for a very tense situation.” Some global airlines are re-routing flights to avoid Iran-controlled airspace over the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman, they said on Friday after the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration barred U.S. air carriers from the area. TRUMP MESSAGE TO IRAN News of the Trump message to Iran, delivered through Oman overnight, broke shortly after the New York Times reported that Trump had called off air strikes targeting Iranian radar and missile batteries at the last minute. “In his message, Trump said he was against any war with Iran and wanted to talk to Tehran about various issues,” one Iranian official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity. “He gave a short period of time to get our response, but Iran’s immediate response was that it is up to Supreme Leader Khamenei to decide about this issue.” A second Iranian official said: “We made it clear that the leader is against any talks, but the message will be conveyed to him to make a decision. Slideshow (4 Images) “However, we told the Omani official that any attack against Iran will have regional and international consequences.” Khamenei has the last say on all state matters and has ruled out any talks with Washington while Tehran is under sanctions. Trump’s decision in May to tighten sanctions to try to eliminate Iran’s oil exports led to the latest tensions. In May 2018, Trump unilaterally withdrew Washington from a 2015 accord between Iran and major powers under which Tehran curtailed its path to building a nuclear bomb in return for sanctions relief.

www.reuters.com

center

SkUSkvMtav8uUfpY

test

3gTfwktGeoxqGiG9

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/june/trump-declares-on-twitter-lsquo-i-have-absolute-right-to-pardon-myself-rsquo

Trump Declares on Twitter ‘I Have Absolute Right to PARDON Myself’

2018-06-04

WASHINGTON – Does the nation 's commander in chief have the power to pardon himself ? President Donald Trump took to Twitter Monday morning to issue a resounding yes . The hypothetical question has been dominating the headlines lately – especially when it comes to the ongoing Russia probe . As has been stated by numerous legal scholars , I have the absolute right to PARDON myself , but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong ? In the meantime , the never ending Witch Hunt , led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats ( & others ) continues into the mid-terms ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) June 4 , 2018 Meanwhile , Trump 's personal attorney , Rudy Giuliani , says that constitutionally he can pardon himself , but it is n't likely . `` I think the political ramifications of that would be tough . Pardoning other people is one thing ; pardoning yourself is another , '' Giuliani told ABC 's `` This Week . '' Giuliani 's statement is in response to a recently leaked 20-page letter to special counsel Robert Mueller from Trump 's former lawyer , John Dowd . That memo says it 's impossible for a president to obstruct justice and furthermore , he has the power to pardon . Republican leaders suggest the issue is a distraction and say it 's time to begin wrapping up this investigation . `` I do n't know why we 're walking through hypotheticals here in this process . The president has never said he would pardon himself , '' House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R-CA ) told CNN . `` Let them walk through their investigation , but if there is no collusion , it 's time to wind this down , '' said McCarthy . It 's all the result of a tug-of-war over whether the president will sit for an interview with the special counsel . Guiliani says he does n't see the point . `` You got everything you need . You got 1.4 million documents . You got 28 witnesses . What do you need us for ? '' he said . `` Jay ( Sekulow ) and I want to keep an open mind , but I have to just be honest : We 're leaning toward not , '' Giuliani stated . The president 's frustration with the nearly 13-month investigation boiled over on Twitter this weekend . There was No Collusion with Russia ( except by the Democrats ) . When will this very expensive Witch Hunt Hoax ever end ? So bad for our Country . Is the Special Counsel/Justice Department leaking my lawyers letters to the Fake News Media ? Should be looking at Dems corruption instead ? — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) June 2 , 2018 `` When will this very expensive witch hunt hoax ever end ? So bad for our country . Is the special counsel/Justice Department leaking my lawyers letters to the fake news media ? Should be looking at Dems corruption instead ? '' he tweeted . Meanwhile , President Trump has a busy week of preparing for the G7 summit where he faces tensions with Canada over recently implemented tariffs . And beyond that , there 's the high-stakes summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on June 12 .

WASHINGTON – Does the nation's commander in chief have the power to pardon himself? President Donald Trump took to Twitter Monday morning to issue a resounding yes. The hypothetical question has been dominating the headlines lately – especially when it comes to the ongoing Russia probe. As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong? In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats (& others) continues into the mid-terms! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 4, 2018 Meanwhile, Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, says that constitutionally he can pardon himself, but it isn't likely. "I think the political ramifications of that would be tough. Pardoning other people is one thing; pardoning yourself is another," Giuliani told ABC's "This Week." Giuliani's statement is in response to a recently leaked 20-page letter to special counsel Robert Mueller from Trump's former lawyer, John Dowd. That memo says it's impossible for a president to obstruct justice and furthermore, he has the power to pardon. Republican leaders suggest the issue is a distraction and say it's time to begin wrapping up this investigation. "I don't know why we're walking through hypotheticals here in this process. The president has never said he would pardon himself," House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) told CNN. "Let them walk through their investigation, but if there is no collusion, it's time to wind this down," said McCarthy. It's all the result of a tug-of-war over whether the president will sit for an interview with the special counsel. Guiliani says he doesn't see the point. "You got everything you need. You got 1.4 million documents. You got 28 witnesses. What do you need us for?" he said. "Jay (Sekulow) and I want to keep an open mind, but I have to just be honest: We're leaning toward not," Giuliani stated. The president's frustration with the nearly 13-month investigation boiled over on Twitter this weekend. There was No Collusion with Russia (except by the Democrats). When will this very expensive Witch Hunt Hoax ever end? So bad for our Country. Is the Special Counsel/Justice Department leaking my lawyers letters to the Fake News Media? Should be looking at Dems corruption instead? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 2, 2018 "When will this very expensive witch hunt hoax ever end? So bad for our country. Is the special counsel/Justice Department leaking my lawyers letters to the fake news media? Should be looking at Dems corruption instead?" he tweeted. Meanwhile, President Trump has a busy week of preparing for the G7 summit where he faces tensions with Canada over recently implemented tariffs. And beyond that, there's the high-stakes summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on June 12.

www1.cbn.com

right

3gTfwktGeoxqGiG9

test

hZ21pOGpDtXnF7PU

national_defense

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/04/02/trump-should-forget-iran-america-has-a-pandemic-to-handle/

Trump Should Forget Iran. America Has a Pandemic To Handle.

2020-04-02

Bonnie Kristian, Josh Blackman, Christy Ford Chapin, Eugene Volokh, Ronald Bailey, Baylen Linnekin, Kurt Loder, Jacob Sullum

The Trump administration 's Iran policy has been business as usual since the spread of the novel coronavirus began , and that 's a grave mistake . The president 's tweet today warning Iran `` or its proxies '' against any `` sneak attack on U.S. troops and/or assets in Iraq '' is merely the latest example of misplaced priorities while a pandemic worsens in the U.S . President Trump 's `` maximum pressure '' approach to U.S.-Iran relations was counterproductive to our security and deleterious to diplomatic progress under ordinary conditions . Now , the United States and Iran are suffering two of the most severe COVID-19 outbreaks on the planet . Keeping up maximum pressure is a dangerous distraction for the United States and catastrophic for the Iranian people , whom Trump administration officials profess to support against their oppressive regime . Trump should abandon maximum pressure once and for all . It does n't work ; it will damage prospects of a free and democratic Iran for decades to come ; and it 's an unjustifiable distraction from vital U.S. interests in a time of pandemic . The failure of maximum pressure was evident before the COVID-19 crisis started . After withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ( JCPOA ) , commonly known as the Iran deal , the Trump administration re-imposed harsh sanctions the deal had lifted and deployed U.S. forces and ships ( currently including two of our 11 aircraft carriers ) as an unmistakable threat to Tehran . The goal is to force Iran , as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo likes to put it , to behave like `` a normal country . '' The entirely foreseeable effect has been exactly the opposite . Again and again it has incentivized escalation by a regime desperate to prove it will not be cowed . It has brought us closer to war , not peace . `` Through a series of relatively limited but still dangerous military actions and incremental retreat from the terms of the JCPOA , Iran has signaled that it will not concede to the U.S. demands without a fight , '' explains MIT 's Barry Posen at Boston Review . Maximum pressure is exacerbating Iran 's regional troublemaking . It is making us less secure . Posen suggests a thought experiment : What would we do were the United States under similar pressure from another nation—a nation which had , in the last two decades , invaded our near neighbors and conducted regime change operations and long-term occupations . `` Given the intensity and religious elements of Iranian nationalism , the regime is unlikely to comply , '' he concludes , `` and the Iranian people will likely support them , despite the regime 's present domestic difficulties . '' If ever there was a chance that U.S. sanctions could push the Iranian people to rebel against their government , as Pompeo hopes , COVID-19 has killed it . U.S. sanctions have compounded the effects of cruel and stupid pandemic response decisions by Tehran , severely impeding the Iranian medical response . Although Washington insists humanitarian goods are exempted from the sanctions , restrictions on financial institutions sharply curtail movement of desperately needed supplies . However angry ordinary Iranians may be at their government , this moment will create a lasting—and still avoidable ! —antipathy for the United States and the values we tout if Trump does not change course . The novel coronavirus pandemic adds a fresh urgency to the need for a new model of U.S.-Iran relations . Whatever trivial threat Iran could pose the U.S. , we have more pressing concerns here at home ( and so does Tehran , for that matter ) . Redoubling maximum pressure , as Trump and Pompeo have done in recent weeks , is a damaging and irrational distraction . The very last thing we need is continuing escalation toward another unnecessary Mideast war . It would be reckless , wasteful , and unstrategic in the best of times . It is inexcusable when we have a pandemic to handle .

The Trump administration's Iran policy has been business as usual since the spread of the novel coronavirus began, and that's a grave mistake. The president's tweet today warning Iran "or its proxies" against any "sneak attack on U.S. troops and/or assets in Iraq" is merely the latest example of misplaced priorities while a pandemic worsens in the U.S. President Trump's "maximum pressure" approach to U.S.-Iran relations was counterproductive to our security and deleterious to diplomatic progress under ordinary conditions. Now, the United States and Iran are suffering two of the most severe COVID-19 outbreaks on the planet. Keeping up maximum pressure is a dangerous distraction for the United States and catastrophic for the Iranian people, whom Trump administration officials profess to support against their oppressive regime. Trump should abandon maximum pressure once and for all. It doesn't work; it will damage prospects of a free and democratic Iran for decades to come; and it's an unjustifiable distraction from vital U.S. interests in a time of pandemic. The failure of maximum pressure was evident before the COVID-19 crisis started. After withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran deal, the Trump administration re-imposed harsh sanctions the deal had lifted and deployed U.S. forces and ships (currently including two of our 11 aircraft carriers) as an unmistakable threat to Tehran. The goal is to force Iran, as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo likes to put it, to behave like "a normal country." The entirely foreseeable effect has been exactly the opposite. Again and again it has incentivized escalation by a regime desperate to prove it will not be cowed. It has brought us closer to war, not peace. "Through a series of relatively limited but still dangerous military actions and incremental retreat from the terms of the JCPOA, Iran has signaled that it will not concede to the U.S. demands without a fight," explains MIT's Barry Posen at Boston Review. Maximum pressure is exacerbating Iran's regional troublemaking. It is making us less secure. Posen suggests a thought experiment: What would we do were the United States under similar pressure from another nation—a nation which had, in the last two decades, invaded our near neighbors and conducted regime change operations and long-term occupations. "Given the intensity and religious elements of Iranian nationalism, the regime is unlikely to comply," he concludes, "and the Iranian people will likely support them, despite the regime's present domestic difficulties." If ever there was a chance that U.S. sanctions could push the Iranian people to rebel against their government, as Pompeo hopes, COVID-19 has killed it. U.S. sanctions have compounded the effects of cruel and stupid pandemic response decisions by Tehran, severely impeding the Iranian medical response. Although Washington insists humanitarian goods are exempted from the sanctions, restrictions on financial institutions sharply curtail movement of desperately needed supplies. However angry ordinary Iranians may be at their government, this moment will create a lasting—and still avoidable!—antipathy for the United States and the values we tout if Trump does not change course. The novel coronavirus pandemic adds a fresh urgency to the need for a new model of U.S.-Iran relations. Whatever trivial threat Iran could pose the U.S., we have more pressing concerns here at home (and so does Tehran, for that matter). Redoubling maximum pressure, as Trump and Pompeo have done in recent weeks, is a damaging and irrational distraction. The very last thing we need is continuing escalation toward another unnecessary Mideast war. It would be reckless, wasteful, and unstrategic in the best of times. It is inexcusable when we have a pandemic to handle.

www.reason.com

right

hZ21pOGpDtXnF7PU

test

K0a6bZXpb2lqJyYf

race_and_racism

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/07/16/fox-refuses-fire-nick-cannon-anti-semitic-anti-white-comments/

Fox Refuses To Fire Nick Cannon After Anti-Semitic, Anti-White Comments

2020-07-16

Fox is allowing Nick Cannon to remain on “ The Masked Singer ” despite his anti-Semitic and anti-white comments , the company said in a statement . Cannon ’ s commentary came during a June 30 episode of his “ Cannon ’ s Class ” podcast , where he spoke with Professor Griff , who has a record of making anti-Semitic comments . The two pushed anti-Semitic theories , claimed black people are unable to be anti-Semitic because “ the Semitic people are black people. ” Cannon also said “ white people ” and Jewish people are “ the true savages . ” Fox confirmed that Cannon “ is clear and remorseful that his words were wrong ” after the host issued an apology Wednesday . The network added that it “ will move forward with Nick and help him advance this important conversation , broadly . ” “ When we were made aware of Nick Cannon ’ s interview with Richard Griffin on YouTube , we immediately began a dialogue with Nick , ” Fox wrote in a statement to ███ . “ He is clear and remorseful that his words were wrong and lacked both understanding and context , and inadvertently promoted hate . This was important for us to observe . ” “ Nick has sincerely apologized , and quickly taken steps to educate himself and make amends . On that basis and given a belief that this moment calls for dialogue , we will move forward with Nick and help him advance this important conversation , broadly . FOX condemns all forms of hate directed toward any community and we will combat bigotry of any kind . ” ViacomCBS , on the other hand , terminated its relationship with Cannon after the commentary , saying in a statement that it “ condemns bigotry of any kind. ” The statement added that ViacomCBS is “ deeply troubled that Nick has failed to acknowledge or apologize for perpetuating anti-Semitism . ” Cannon ’ s apology Wednesday came after first refusing to do so . The host demanded an apology from ViacomCBS and ordered the company give him full ownership of the comedy show “ Wild ‘ N Out. ” Cannon also posted a statement on Facebook that many deemed insufficient , saying that “ anyone who knows me knows that I have no hatred in my heart or malicious intent . ” Following backlash from that statement , Cannon again refused to apologize in an interview with Fast Company , saying that “ apologies are empty. ” ( RELATED : Superstar Nick Cannon No Longer Getting His Own Late-Night Show ) “ Are you forcing me to say the words ‘ I ’ m sorry ’ ? ” Cannon said in that interview . “ Are you making me bow down , ’ cause then again , that would be perpetuating that same rhetoric that we ’ re trying to get away from , ” Cannon says . “ What we need is healing . What we need is discussion . Correct me . I don ’ t tell my children to say , ‘ I ’ m sorry. ’ I want them to understand where they need to be corrected . And then that ’ s how we grow . ” Cannon ’ s most recent statement , which Fox referred ███ to , is in full below : First and foremost I extend my deepest and most sincere apologies to my Jewish sisters and brothers for the hurtful and divisive words that came out of my mouth during my interview with Richard Griffin . They reinforced the worst stereotypes of a proud and magnificent people and I feel ashamed of the uninformed and naïve place that these words came from . The video of this interview has since been removed . While the Jewish experience encompasses more than 5,000 years and there is so much I have yet to learn , I have had at least a minor history lesson over the past few days and to say that it is eye-opening would be a vast understatement . I want to express my gratitude to the Rabbis , community leaders and institutions who reached out to me to help enlighten me , instead of chastising me . I want to assure my Jewish friends , new and old , that this is only the beginning of my education—I am committed to deeper connections , more profound learning and strengthening the bond between our two cultures today and every day going forward . Cannon also announced Thursday that he would be taking time away from his morning radio show so he can “ commit ” himself “ to deeper , more thorough reflection and education. ” He has been backed by multiple prominent figures such as radio host Charlamagne tha God and rapper Sean ‘ Diddy ’ Combs .

Fox is allowing Nick Cannon to remain on “The Masked Singer” despite his anti-Semitic and anti-white comments, the company said in a statement. Cannon’s commentary came during a June 30 episode of his “Cannon’s Class” podcast, where he spoke with Professor Griff, who has a record of making anti-Semitic comments. The two pushed anti-Semitic theories, claimed black people are unable to be anti-Semitic because “the Semitic people are black people.” Cannon also said “white people” and Jewish people are “the true savages.” Fox confirmed that Cannon “is clear and remorseful that his words were wrong” after the host issued an apology Wednesday. The network added that it “will move forward with Nick and help him advance this important conversation, broadly.” “When we were made aware of Nick Cannon’s interview with Richard Griffin on YouTube, we immediately began a dialogue with Nick,” Fox wrote in a statement to the Daily Caller. “He is clear and remorseful that his words were wrong and lacked both understanding and context, and inadvertently promoted hate. This was important for us to observe.” “Nick has sincerely apologized, and quickly taken steps to educate himself and make amends. On that basis and given a belief that this moment calls for dialogue, we will move forward with Nick and help him advance this important conversation, broadly. FOX condemns all forms of hate directed toward any community and we will combat bigotry of any kind.” ViacomCBS, on the other hand, terminated its relationship with Cannon after the commentary, saying in a statement that it “condemns bigotry of any kind.” The statement added that ViacomCBS is “deeply troubled that Nick has failed to acknowledge or apologize for perpetuating anti-Semitism.” Cannon’s apology Wednesday came after first refusing to do so. The host demanded an apology from ViacomCBS and ordered the company give him full ownership of the comedy show “Wild ‘N Out.” Cannon also posted a statement on Facebook that many deemed insufficient, saying that “anyone who knows me knows that I have no hatred in my heart or malicious intent.” Following backlash from that statement, Cannon again refused to apologize in an interview with Fast Company, saying that “apologies are empty.” (RELATED: Superstar Nick Cannon No Longer Getting His Own Late-Night Show) “Are you forcing me to say the words ‘I’m sorry’?” Cannon said in that interview. “Are you making me bow down, ’cause then again, that would be perpetuating that same rhetoric that we’re trying to get away from,” Cannon says. “What we need is healing. What we need is discussion. Correct me. I don’t tell my children to say, ‘I’m sorry.’ I want them to understand where they need to be corrected. And then that’s how we grow.” Cannon’s most recent statement, which Fox referred the Daily Caller to, is in full below: First and foremost I extend my deepest and most sincere apologies to my Jewish sisters and brothers for the hurtful and divisive words that came out of my mouth during my interview with Richard Griffin. They reinforced the worst stereotypes of a proud and magnificent people and I feel ashamed of the uninformed and naïve place that these words came from. The video of this interview has since been removed. While the Jewish experience encompasses more than 5,000 years and there is so much I have yet to learn, I have had at least a minor history lesson over the past few days and to say that it is eye-opening would be a vast understatement. I want to express my gratitude to the Rabbis, community leaders and institutions who reached out to me to help enlighten me, instead of chastising me. I want to assure my Jewish friends, new and old, that this is only the beginning of my education—I am committed to deeper connections, more profound learning and strengthening the bond between our two cultures today and every day going forward. Cannon also announced Thursday that he would be taking time away from his morning radio show so he can “commit” himself “to deeper, more thorough reflection and education.” He has been backed by multiple prominent figures such as radio host Charlamagne tha God and rapper Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs.

www.dailycaller.com

right

K0a6bZXpb2lqJyYf

test

2e1FkznMJY28ynYG

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/19/wall-street-cheers-joe-biden-smacks-hillary-clinton-vegas-i-never-thought-she-was-correct-candidate/

Wall Street Cheers as Joe Biden Smacks Hillary Clinton in Vegas: ‘I Never Thought She Was the Correct Candidate’

2017-05-19

Matthew Boyle

LAS VEGAS , Nevada — Former Vice President Joe Biden smacked failed 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton here at the Salt Conference in Las Vegas on Thursday evening . Speaking to a packed ballroom at the Bellagio conference center on the Las Vegas Strip , the former vice president , who himself declined to run for president , said he believes Clinton was not the “ correct ” candidate , but he was . “ I never thought she was the correct candidate , ” Biden said . “ I thought I was the correct candidate . ” The Salt Conference is an annual gathering of private equity leaders here in Las Vegas , organized by SkyBridge Capital founder Anthony Scaramucci . Scaramucci , last cycle , supported now-President Donald Trump . Biden declined to run for president last cycle after the death of his son . “ No man or woman should announce for the presidency unless they genuinely believe that for that moment in the nation ’ s history they are the most qualified person to deal with the issues facing the country , ” Biden also said . In an exclusive interview with ███ in 2015 in his Trump Tower office , Trump said he expected to face Biden in the general election if Biden ran since Clinton had so many problems . “ I think Hillary has got huge problems right now , ” Trump said then , adding : “ Is she going to make it ? I hear this thing is big league . Why did she do it ? You use the server ? Because they ’ re always looking to go over the edge , whether it ’ s Whitewater or anything else . They always want to go over the edge . I ’ m just looking at it saying , ‘ What the hell was she doing ? ’ You know what she was doing . She was guarding from the president seeing what she was doing . ” Biden did not run , Clinton got the nomination , and Trump smoked her on Election Day in the electoral college .

LAS VEGAS, Nevada — Former Vice President Joe Biden smacked failed 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton here at the Salt Conference in Las Vegas on Thursday evening. Speaking to a packed ballroom at the Bellagio conference center on the Las Vegas Strip, the former vice president, who himself declined to run for president, said he believes Clinton was not the “correct” candidate, but he was. “I never thought she was the correct candidate,” Biden said. “I thought I was the correct candidate.” The audience erupted into applause. The Salt Conference is an annual gathering of private equity leaders here in Las Vegas, organized by SkyBridge Capital founder Anthony Scaramucci. Scaramucci, last cycle, supported now-President Donald Trump. Biden declined to run for president last cycle after the death of his son. “No man or woman should announce for the presidency unless they genuinely believe that for that moment in the nation’s history they are the most qualified person to deal with the issues facing the country,” Biden also said. In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News in 2015 in his Trump Tower office, Trump said he expected to face Biden in the general election if Biden ran since Clinton had so many problems. “I think Hillary has got huge problems right now,” Trump said then, adding: “Is she going to make it? I hear this thing is big league. Why did she do it? You use the server? Because they’re always looking to go over the edge, whether it’s Whitewater or anything else. They always want to go over the edge. I’m just looking at it saying, ‘What the hell was she doing?’ You know what she was doing. She was guarding from the president seeing what she was doing.” Biden did not run, Clinton got the nomination, and Trump smoked her on Election Day in the electoral college.

www.breitbart.com

right

2e1FkznMJY28ynYG

test

7Yucy1TYYBnXX3Wq

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/does-president-trump-get-it/

Does President Trump Get It?

Arnold Steinberg, Jeffrey Lord, David Catron, Dov Fischer, John C. Wohlstetter, William Murchison

“ It makes me mildly nauseous to think that we might have had some impact on the election , ” FBI Director James Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee less than two weeks ago . Hearing Comey supercilious testimony , made me , well , mildly nauseous . Mr. Comey was speaking about his unilateral decision to publicly reopen the investigation of Hillary Clinton on October 29 , just ten days before the election . That pre-election announcement and the specter of evil Russians are why Hillary lost , we are told ( by Hillary ) . Let ’ s forget her lack of appeal , her disconnect with much of America , her inept campaign , especially her dissing of Michigan and Wisconsin . “ But honestly , it [ the alleged Comey effect on the election outcome ] wouldn ’ t change the decision [ I made ] , ” Comey added . Indeed , in his ultimate chutzpah-hubris , Comey also refused to recant his preposterous news conference of July 5 . At that time he had provided all the reasons why Hillary should be indicted and prosecuted and then , usurping the role of the Department of Justice , Comey violated historic protocols and , in a non-sequitur for the history books , gave her a get-out-of-jail-free card . That was then , this is now . If you believe the media , Trump ’ s firing of Comey somehow threatens the rule of law , though Trump had the right to fire him . The same Democrats who repeatedly and strongly urged that Comey be fired , condemn Trump for “ the suspicious timing. ” The patronizing Adam Schiff , arguably the most pompous member of Congress , said the reason for the firing was Trump ’ s alleged ties to Russia . A former prosecutor who knows better , Schiff routinely makes charges without proof , but he does so with gravitas . “ Comey was fired because of the Russians , ” also observed Pocahontas , aka Sen. Elizabeth Warren , perennially self-righteous . Warren became a professor at Harvard Law School because she described herself as of Cherokee and Delaware Indian ancestry ; she is neither . Of dubious credibility , she joins the chorus : “ We need a special prosecutor ! ” Over more than four decades , “ special ” prosecutors have acted like IRS agents who , after an exhaustive taxpayer audit , find nothing . But to validate their time , the agents nonetheless pressure the taxpayer into a “ settlement. ” In other words , if a special prosecutor finds no crimes related to Trump and “ the Russians , ” he will ask for an expanded budget and prosecute someone connected to Trump… for something . “ He ’ s a showboat , a grandstander , ” Trump has said of Comey . Trump ’ s detractors would say , “ It takes one to know one. ” But Trump got it right . Comey became ( per Simon Cowell ) “ self-indulgent. ” His firing was overdue , yet with no expiration date . But Trump ’ s dismissal of Comey was awkward ; let us count the ways . Trump ’ s senior staff remains dysfunctional , evidenced by self-serving leaks from rivals , not all of them Trump ’ s fiduciaries . Intent on discharging Comey , Trump thus feared premature ejaculation . Avoiding tactical if not strategic proofreading , Trump seemed to act not deliberatively ( i.e. , presidential ) , but impulsively ; then oddly , he seemed to be genuinely surprised at the uproar . He and his team would evolve a contradictory and implausible narrative . Even Vice President Mike Pence continually said President Trump “ showed leadership ” by acting quickly after reading Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein ’ s memorandum faulting Comey ’ s performance , but then President Trump said he had already made up his mind to fire Comey . Everyone should have been on the same page , from the outset , but no one knew the page number , much less what was on it . Spicer , President Trump more recently said , is “ doing a good job but he gets beat up. ” In reality , Spicer and his deputy Sarah Huckabee Sanders can not do their job if the storyline keeps changing , and especially if Spicer does not have access to Trump before airtime . Now Trump says he works so fast that White House briefings are obsolete . But in firing Comey , the dictum should have been , “ This is my story , and I ’ m sticking to it . ” Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein ’ s memorandum to AG Jeff Sessions made the case for Comey ’ s dismissal . But it was dated the same day that Sessions then ( immediately ? ) wrote to POTUS who then ( straightaway ? ) wrote Comey ’ s farewell , and ( without pausing ? ) dispatched his long-time personal aide to deliver that termination letter to Comey . Except that Comey had flown on the FBI jet to Los Angeles , the sanctuary city where you press “ 2 ” if you want to hear a city message in English ( just kidding ) . Here leaders are passing a municipal decree to implant the scarlet letter on any minor subcontractor on Trump ’ s wall ( not kidding ) . The politically correct Comey was at the Los Angeles FBI field office , speaking to agents not about such trivial matters as terrorism or cyber warfare , but the far more urgent matter of diversity . As Comey spoke , the agents saw the news of his firing on a television screen behind the needlessly humiliated Comey . Let ’ s now talk Russia . All we know ( so far ) suggests that Putin preferred Trump to Hillary , and that the Russians hacked Hillary ’ s campaign to hurt her . No evidence suggests collusion or complicity between Trump and his campaign… and Putin and his operatives , nor acts that are illegal . Yet , as one observer noted , “ Trump seems to act like he ’ s guilty. ” Meanwhile , the mainstream media has kept the Russia story alive , because its agenda is to question the legitimacy of Trump ’ s election . Major media outlets repeatedly relate gossip as fact . For example , Comey supposedly asked for more money to investigate Trump , who then sacked him . But this turned out to be fake news . The real news , the media reported last week , is that Trump is served two scoops of ice cream for dessert , while his White House guests get only one . CNN noted that Abby Grace , age 9 , who lives next door to Comey in McLean , Virginia baked him chocolate chip cookies to cheer him up . There is no evidence to suggest that Trump ’ s dismissal of Comey was to “ obstruct ” the FBI investigation ; it continues , with no shortage of agents or budget . If Trump were trying to shut down the investigation , firing Comey guaranteed it will continue , robustly , and all eyes will focus on Comey ’ s successor , who will be under pressure , in confirmation hearings , and on the job , to insure an independent investigation . Here ’ s what probably happened . Trump has become increasingly agitated because : ( a ) Comey did not move the FBI “ Russia ” investigation toward closure , but made it open-ended ; ( b ) Comey is a loose cannon , which is different than being independent ; ( c ) Comey showed little inclination to investigate illegal leaks by government officials intent on subverting the Trump presidency ; and , most egregiously : ( d ) Comey implied that Trump ’ s reelection made Comey nauseous . There was no good time to fire Comey , but there was a better way . Ask the respected Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to prepare his memo ; wait at least a day for AG Jeff Sessions to react , then on the third day either give Comey a chance to resign , or fire him , but do so privately . Already have a list of possible replacements , then interview them , all within 72 hours of Comey ’ s firing , and appoint his successor a day after the last interview , to make the FBI Director the story and Comey “ old news . ” The rationale for Comey ’ s firing should have been that Comey ’ s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee was unacceptable , especially his intransigent refusal to acknowledge his bad judgment last year . Therefore , the president , who has for a couple of weeks been pondering Mr. Comey ’ s future , now accepts the deputy attorney general conclusion , spurred by the testimony . And similarly , President Trump lacks confidence in Comey , so he can no longer serve as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation . Talking points should have been developed before Comey ’ s dismissal . In this drama , some of the principals may be vulnerable to prosecution . From what we know , Gen. Mike Flynn may have violated some laws relating to disclosure to government agencies . But Mike Flynn is no longer with the administration . And by all accounts , Flynn also failed to disclose material information to candidate Trump and his campaign . Paul Manafort , whose foreign clients included Russian proxies , was asked by Trump to oversee the convention after Ted Cruz was using the rules to pick up delegates . But Manafort was dismissed soon after the convention . And Roger Stone , another alleged link to the Russians , has joyfully volunteered to testify publicly , without immunity . That ’ s not what guilty conspirators do . All this raises the question of context . If President Donald Trump is the “ Manchurian candidate ” — then why was Donald Trump so obvious about it during the campaign ? That is , if Trump were a covert operative for Putin , why would he go public about it in his campaign , praising Putin and urging rapprochement with Russia ? In other words , if the Russians influenced or bribed Donald Trump and his sons , Donald Jr. and Eric , with loans and business deals , why not wait until after Trump becomes president to embrace Putin and Russia ? Why tip your hand throughout the campaign ? The answer is not elusive , because we can observe the Trump Administration . President Trump ’ s principal foreign policy appointments have been unsympathetic to Putin . Hardliners in the U.S. Senate do not detect softness in U.S. policy toward Russia . Trump seems reassuring of our NATO allies that the U.S. will join NATO to resist regional Russian aggression . The U.S. is confronting Russian air incursions , especially near Alaska . And in Putin ’ s most dramatic foreign adventure — in Syria — President Trump ordered a symbolic air strike against Putin ’ s proxy , Bashar Assad . Is all this a head-fake ? I think not . But at the end of the day , what counts is perception , not reality . Perhaps one-third of the nation sees Trump as some kind of savior . And maybe another third is comprised of unrepentant Trump haters . That leaves a likely third of the nation that is increasingly restless with drama , instead of policy . And the latest episode is the James Comey soap opera . Putin said something like , “ Once a KGB guy , always a KGB guy. ” The KGB has placed within the U.S. government over the years a number of home-grown operatives , via blackmail , or by providing sexual favors or money , or feeding their ego . Some of these moles have simply been dupes . What we know is that the KGB would not discredit them in advance . If President Trump was sympathetic toward better relations with Russia , not because he was complicit with Russia , but because he thought it was in the best interest of the U.S. , why would President Trump obsess about such a policy , if it would discredit that policy in advance ? He was quite transparent about his views . Indeed , the disposition of President Trump ’ s policy toward Russia is this : his campaign pronouncements have put him and his administration on the spot . If anything , he may now go overboard in demonstrating “ firmness ” and “ toughness ” against Putin and Russia . And similarly , given the sacking of Comey , what happens now with the FBI — can it be seen as “ soft ” on investigating “ Trump and Russia ” — whatever that means ? Sooner than later , perhaps imminently , President Donald Trump will name a new FBI director . For his sake , and more importantly for the nation , let ’ s hope he avoids a partisan . If he chooses a man or woman of unquestionable integrity and demonstrated judgment who pledges to be independent of politics , President Trump will implicitly refute the challenge to his legitimacy .

“It makes me mildly nauseous to think that we might have had some impact on the election,” FBI Director James Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee less than two weeks ago. Hearing Comey supercilious testimony, made me, well, mildly nauseous. Mr. Comey was speaking about his unilateral decision to publicly reopen the investigation of Hillary Clinton on October 29, just ten days before the election. That pre-election announcement and the specter of evil Russians are why Hillary lost, we are told (by Hillary). Let’s forget her lack of appeal, her disconnect with much of America, her inept campaign, especially her dissing of Michigan and Wisconsin. “But honestly, it [the alleged Comey effect on the election outcome] wouldn’t change the decision [I made],” Comey added. Indeed, in his ultimate chutzpah-hubris, Comey also refused to recant his preposterous news conference of July 5. At that time he had provided all the reasons why Hillary should be indicted and prosecuted and then, usurping the role of the Department of Justice, Comey violated historic protocols and, in a non-sequitur for the history books, gave her a get-out-of-jail-free card. That was then, this is now. If you believe the media, Trump’s firing of Comey somehow threatens the rule of law, though Trump had the right to fire him. The same Democrats who repeatedly and strongly urged that Comey be fired, condemn Trump for “the suspicious timing.” The patronizing Adam Schiff, arguably the most pompous member of Congress, said the reason for the firing was Trump’s alleged ties to Russia. A former prosecutor who knows better, Schiff routinely makes charges without proof, but he does so with gravitas. “Comey was fired because of the Russians,” also observed Pocahontas, aka Sen. Elizabeth Warren, perennially self-righteous. Warren became a professor at Harvard Law School because she described herself as of Cherokee and Delaware Indian ancestry; she is neither. Of dubious credibility, she joins the chorus: “We need a special prosecutor!” Over more than four decades, “special” prosecutors have acted like IRS agents who, after an exhaustive taxpayer audit, find nothing. But to validate their time, the agents nonetheless pressure the taxpayer into a “settlement.” In other words, if a special prosecutor finds no crimes related to Trump and “the Russians,” he will ask for an expanded budget and prosecute someone connected to Trump… for something. “He’s a showboat, a grandstander,” Trump has said of Comey. Trump’s detractors would say, “It takes one to know one.” But Trump got it right. Comey became (per Simon Cowell) “self-indulgent.” His firing was overdue, yet with no expiration date. But Trump’s dismissal of Comey was awkward; let us count the ways. Trump’s senior staff remains dysfunctional, evidenced by self-serving leaks from rivals, not all of them Trump’s fiduciaries. Intent on discharging Comey, Trump thus feared premature ejaculation. Avoiding tactical if not strategic proofreading, Trump seemed to act not deliberatively (i.e., presidential), but impulsively; then oddly, he seemed to be genuinely surprised at the uproar. He and his team would evolve a contradictory and implausible narrative. Even Vice President Mike Pence continually said President Trump “showed leadership” by acting quickly after reading Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein’s memorandum faulting Comey’s performance, but then President Trump said he had already made up his mind to fire Comey. Everyone should have been on the same page, from the outset, but no one knew the page number, much less what was on it. Spicer, President Trump more recently said, is “doing a good job but he gets beat up.” In reality, Spicer and his deputy Sarah Huckabee Sanders cannot do their job if the storyline keeps changing, and especially if Spicer does not have access to Trump before airtime. Now Trump says he works so fast that White House briefings are obsolete. But in firing Comey, the dictum should have been, “This is my story, and I’m sticking to it.” Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein’s memorandum to AG Jeff Sessions made the case for Comey’s dismissal. But it was dated the same day that Sessions then (immediately?) wrote to POTUS who then (straightaway?) wrote Comey’s farewell, and (without pausing?) dispatched his long-time personal aide to deliver that termination letter to Comey. Except that Comey had flown on the FBI jet to Los Angeles, the sanctuary city where you press “2” if you want to hear a city message in English (just kidding). Here leaders are passing a municipal decree to implant the scarlet letter on any minor subcontractor on Trump’s wall (not kidding). The politically correct Comey was at the Los Angeles FBI field office, speaking to agents not about such trivial matters as terrorism or cyber warfare, but the far more urgent matter of diversity. As Comey spoke, the agents saw the news of his firing on a television screen behind the needlessly humiliated Comey. Let’s now talk Russia. All we know (so far) suggests that Putin preferred Trump to Hillary, and that the Russians hacked Hillary’s campaign to hurt her. No evidence suggests collusion or complicity between Trump and his campaign… and Putin and his operatives, nor acts that are illegal. Yet, as one observer noted, “Trump seems to act like he’s guilty.” Meanwhile, the mainstream media has kept the Russia story alive, because its agenda is to question the legitimacy of Trump’s election. Major media outlets repeatedly relate gossip as fact. For example, Comey supposedly asked for more money to investigate Trump, who then sacked him. But this turned out to be fake news. The real news, the media reported last week, is that Trump is served two scoops of ice cream for dessert, while his White House guests get only one. CNN noted that Abby Grace, age 9, who lives next door to Comey in McLean, Virginia baked him chocolate chip cookies to cheer him up. There is no evidence to suggest that Trump’s dismissal of Comey was to “obstruct” the FBI investigation; it continues, with no shortage of agents or budget. If Trump were trying to shut down the investigation, firing Comey guaranteed it will continue, robustly, and all eyes will focus on Comey’s successor, who will be under pressure, in confirmation hearings, and on the job, to insure an independent investigation. Here’s what probably happened. Trump has become increasingly agitated because: (a) Comey did not move the FBI “Russia” investigation toward closure, but made it open-ended; (b) Comey is a loose cannon, which is different than being independent; (c) Comey showed little inclination to investigate illegal leaks by government officials intent on subverting the Trump presidency; and, most egregiously: (d) Comey implied that Trump’s reelection made Comey nauseous. There was no good time to fire Comey, but there was a better way. Ask the respected Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to prepare his memo; wait at least a day for AG Jeff Sessions to react, then on the third day either give Comey a chance to resign, or fire him, but do so privately. Already have a list of possible replacements, then interview them, all within 72 hours of Comey’s firing, and appoint his successor a day after the last interview, to make the FBI Director the story and Comey “old news.” The rationale for Comey’s firing should have been that Comey’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee was unacceptable, especially his intransigent refusal to acknowledge his bad judgment last year. Therefore, the president, who has for a couple of weeks been pondering Mr. Comey’s future, now accepts the deputy attorney general conclusion, spurred by the testimony. And similarly, President Trump lacks confidence in Comey, so he can no longer serve as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Talking points should have been developed before Comey’s dismissal. In this drama, some of the principals may be vulnerable to prosecution. From what we know, Gen. Mike Flynn may have violated some laws relating to disclosure to government agencies. But Mike Flynn is no longer with the administration. And by all accounts, Flynn also failed to disclose material information to candidate Trump and his campaign. Paul Manafort, whose foreign clients included Russian proxies, was asked by Trump to oversee the convention after Ted Cruz was using the rules to pick up delegates. But Manafort was dismissed soon after the convention. And Roger Stone, another alleged link to the Russians, has joyfully volunteered to testify publicly, without immunity. That’s not what guilty conspirators do. All this raises the question of context. If President Donald Trump is the “Manchurian candidate” — then why was Donald Trump so obvious about it during the campaign? That is, if Trump were a covert operative for Putin, why would he go public about it in his campaign, praising Putin and urging rapprochement with Russia? In other words, if the Russians influenced or bribed Donald Trump and his sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, with loans and business deals, why not wait until after Trump becomes president to embrace Putin and Russia? Why tip your hand throughout the campaign? The answer is not elusive, because we can observe the Trump Administration. President Trump’s principal foreign policy appointments have been unsympathetic to Putin. Hardliners in the U.S. Senate do not detect softness in U.S. policy toward Russia. Trump seems reassuring of our NATO allies that the U.S. will join NATO to resist regional Russian aggression. The U.S. is confronting Russian air incursions, especially near Alaska. And in Putin’s most dramatic foreign adventure — in Syria — President Trump ordered a symbolic air strike against Putin’s proxy, Bashar Assad. Is all this a head-fake? I think not. But at the end of the day, what counts is perception, not reality. Perhaps one-third of the nation sees Trump as some kind of savior. And maybe another third is comprised of unrepentant Trump haters. That leaves a likely third of the nation that is increasingly restless with drama, instead of policy. And the latest episode is the James Comey soap opera. Putin said something like, “Once a KGB guy, always a KGB guy.” The KGB has placed within the U.S. government over the years a number of home-grown operatives, via blackmail, or by providing sexual favors or money, or feeding their ego. Some of these moles have simply been dupes. What we know is that the KGB would not discredit them in advance. If President Trump was sympathetic toward better relations with Russia, not because he was complicit with Russia, but because he thought it was in the best interest of the U.S., why would President Trump obsess about such a policy, if it would discredit that policy in advance? He was quite transparent about his views. Indeed, the disposition of President Trump’s policy toward Russia is this: his campaign pronouncements have put him and his administration on the spot. If anything, he may now go overboard in demonstrating “firmness” and “toughness” against Putin and Russia. And similarly, given the sacking of Comey, what happens now with the FBI — can it be seen as “soft” on investigating “Trump and Russia” — whatever that means? Sooner than later, perhaps imminently, President Donald Trump will name a new FBI director. For his sake, and more importantly for the nation, let’s hope he avoids a partisan. If he chooses a man or woman of unquestionable integrity and demonstrated judgment who pledges to be independent of politics, President Trump will implicitly refute the challenge to his legitimacy.

www.spectator.org

right

7Yucy1TYYBnXX3Wq

test

pqG7VnujkW2iIRNN

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/17/mueller-trump-russia-investigation-drowned-out-news

How a year of Mueller's Trump-Russia investigation drowned out the news

2018-05-17

David Taylor

The greatest political spy drama of the age has been playing out daily for 12 months , with the former FBI chief Robert Mueller at its centre and an audience of millions around the world playing amateur detective . Mueller , appointed special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election , has spent the last year diligently pursuing a complex web of money and influence – or , as Trump would have it , engaging in a “ $ 10,000,000 witch-hunt ” . Did Donald Trump win the White House aided by Russia ’ s hidden hand ? What does the steely special counsel know ? And as his inquiry into alleged collusion enters its second year today , when will he deliver ? Mueller ’ s investigation has already yielded charges against four Trump associates and , while he has not spoken publicly , the charges testify to the scope of the investigation . So far Mueller has brought charges or reached plea agreements against 19 people and three Russian entities . Trump ’ s former national security adviser Michael Flynn , campaign aide Rick Gates and former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos have entered plea deals . Ex-election campaign chairman Paul Manafort has pleaded not guilty to charges of money laundering , tax fraud , failure to register as a foreign agent and other charges . As the investigation encircles Trump , some of his family , his closest friends and White House officials have been questioned by Mueller ’ s team . Meanwhile , as the inquiry has expanded and dominated the news agenda over the last year , the real issues of people ’ s lives are in danger of being drowned out by obsessive cable television coverage of the Russia investigation . From leading columnists to frontline politicians , people are grappling with how to create space to talk about something other than Mueller . Kyle Pope , editor and publisher of the Columbia Journalism Review , said while print and digital news media have mostly done a good job of lifting their gaze , cable news has struggled to escape a constant daily focus on Mueller and the Trump scandal . “ The Mueller investigation really boils down the partisan approach of cable news , ” he said , with MSNBC on the left and conservative Fox News on the right . “ My own reading is that both sides are losing credibility – you can only tell me so many times that this is the beginning of the end and it not happen for me to start turning it off . And you can only dismiss things as nonsense so many times without me realising , ‘ well you ’ re not paying attention to anything ’ . ” He said : “ I do think there is too much reactivity . The outrage meter is broken . The calibration of it is all messed up . Little things cause people to go crazy . Things I think are much bigger and more important seem to pass unnoticed . ” Crucial issues are ignored in a breathless television news cycle that seems incapable of going after more than one subject at a time . Latest cable news audience figures from Nielsen suggest some evidence of what Pope calls audience ‘ burnout ’ . Fox News is still number one in US cable news , but prime-time viewers have slipped 13 % in the first quarter of 2018 compared with the peak first three months of the Trump presidency when the channel set records . CNN , which has begun to break the habit of always carrying entire Trump speeches live , is also down 17 % in prime time . By contrast , the Trump obsession burns strong for viewers of the liberal-leaning MSNBC – at 1.85 million viewers , it is smaller than Fox , but up by 30 % year-on-year . While CNN , Fox News and MSNBC viewers stagger from one Trump scandal to the next , America ’ s deep social challenges may have been overlooked in the past year , but they have emphatically not gone away . Teachers – vilified for years by conservative politicians – have gone on strike , highlighting stagnant wages and impoverished schools . Tax cuts have been rammed through by Trump and Republicans in Congress for the benefit of corporations and the wealthiest Americans – including himself and his inner circle while the Fight for 15 continues to campaign against longer hours and low pay for millions of workers . Trump-Russia : Pence urges Mueller to end investigation – 'Time to wrap it up ' Read more The Rev Dr William Barber ’ s Poor People ’ s Campaign has been on the march across the country for months , highlighting inequality and honouring the unfinished work of Dr Martin Luther King 50 years on . Life expectancy fell in America , with a 21 % increase in overdose deaths from legal and illegal opioids a key driver . Unions are coming under attack in the courts and from conservative groups in all 50 states . An almost daily litany of cases reveals a justice system marred at every stage by inherent racial bias . Pope said : “ I don ’ t turn on cable news and say , ‘ Hey , I wonder what happened in the world ’ . It ’ s more like what happened today in the Mueller investigation … they have almost just embraced the idea that it ’ s the Robert Mueller show and that ’ s it . “ I want to know about our crumbling cities , I want to know about race , I want to know about drug addiction , I want to know about schools . I live in New York and all of these things are very real and happening right now . ” New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof conceded in a recent article that like most Americans , he was addicted to the daily Trump minutiae . “ In America today , it ’ s all Trump , all the time . We ’ re collectively addicted to him . The non-stop scandals and outrages suck us in ; they amount to Trump porn . ” The challenge for politicians trying to raise issues more relevant to people ’ s everyday lives is that they struggle to compete with the garish appeal of Trump . Jessica Post , executive director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee told the Daily Beast , she was dropped at the last moment three times from an MSNBC show as Trump news broke . “ It ’ s difficult to break through with stories about teachers ’ strikes or assaults on voting rights because there ’ s a new bad thing that Trump has done or Scott Pruitt has done in every news cycle , ” Post told the Daily Beast . For some politicians struggling to change the subject , the answer has been to establish their own platforms and even stage their own events – Bernie Sanders has led the way , creating a Facebook account which is followed by more than 7 million people , where audiences of more than 1 million have tuned in for livestreams of town hall events covering issues such as income inequality and the movement for government-funded healthcare for all . For campaigners trying to keep their issues alive , the challenge is how to reach and galvanise local activists while the news cycle is dominated by Trump drama . Elizabeth Beaver , associate policy director for Indivisible , the organisation set up by former congressional staffers to cultivate a grassroots network opposed to the Trump agenda , said : “ It shouldn ’ t be the choice between do we talk about the Mueller investigation and the constant scandals of the Trump administration versus talk about the issues that affect everyone ’ s lives . We should be ‘ both/and ’ and should never be either/or . ” Indivisible tries to “ poke holes in the Trump agenda ” by alerting its network of 6,000 local groups to votes and issues unfolding in Congress that week , where they can put pressure on politicians through phone calls , events outside of their member of Congress ’ s offices and by showing up to town halls . She praised some media outlets , but said : “ I would like to continue to see coverage that reflects the things that are happening in the US Congress that will affect us all for generations to come . Quite often , that will happen simultaneously with the scandals of the day from the Trump administration . “ The viewers can walk and chew gum at the same time , so I think that they expect the networks to do the same . ”

The greatest political spy drama of the age has been playing out daily for 12 months, with the former FBI chief Robert Mueller at its centre and an audience of millions around the world playing amateur detective. Sign up for the Guardian's US daily email Read more Mueller, appointed special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election, has spent the last year diligently pursuing a complex web of money and influence – or, as Trump would have it, engaging in a “$10,000,000 witch-hunt”. Did Donald Trump win the White House aided by Russia’s hidden hand? What does the steely special counsel know? And as his inquiry into alleged collusion enters its second year today, when will he deliver? Mueller’s investigation has already yielded charges against four Trump associates and, while he has not spoken publicly, the charges testify to the scope of the investigation. So far Mueller has brought charges or reached plea agreements against 19 people and three Russian entities. Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, campaign aide Rick Gates and former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos have entered plea deals. Ex-election campaign chairman Paul Manafort has pleaded not guilty to charges of money laundering, tax fraud, failure to register as a foreign agent and other charges. Trump-Russia investigation: the key questions answered Read more As the investigation encircles Trump, some of his family, his closest friends and White House officials have been questioned by Mueller’s team. Meanwhile, as the inquiry has expanded and dominated the news agenda over the last year, the real issues of people’s lives are in danger of being drowned out by obsessive cable television coverage of the Russia investigation. From leading columnists to frontline politicians, people are grappling with how to create space to talk about something other than Mueller. Kyle Pope, editor and publisher of the Columbia Journalism Review, said while print and digital news media have mostly done a good job of lifting their gaze, cable news has struggled to escape a constant daily focus on Mueller and the Trump scandal. “The Mueller investigation really boils down the partisan approach of cable news,” he said, with MSNBC on the left and conservative Fox News on the right. Facebook Twitter Pinterest MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow reveals leaked pages of Donald Trump’s 2005 tax return. Photograph: MSNBC “My own reading is that both sides are losing credibility – you can only tell me so many times that this is the beginning of the end and it not happen for me to start turning it off. And you can only dismiss things as nonsense so many times without me realising, ‘well you’re not paying attention to anything’.” He said: “I do think there is too much reactivity. The outrage meter is broken. The calibration of it is all messed up. Little things cause people to go crazy. Things I think are much bigger and more important seem to pass unnoticed.” Crucial issues are ignored in a breathless television news cycle that seems incapable of going after more than one subject at a time. Latest cable news audience figures from Nielsen suggest some evidence of what Pope calls audience ‘burnout’. Fox News is still number one in US cable news, but prime-time viewers have slipped 13% in the first quarter of 2018 compared with the peak first three months of the Trump presidency when the channel set records. CNN, which has begun to break the habit of always carrying entire Trump speeches live, is also down 17% in prime time. By contrast, the Trump obsession burns strong for viewers of the liberal-leaning MSNBC – at 1.85 million viewers, it is smaller than Fox, but up by 30% year-on-year. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Donald Trump Jr on ‘Hannity’ on Fox News, 12 July 2017. Photograph: Fox News While CNN, Fox News and MSNBC viewers stagger from one Trump scandal to the next, America’s deep social challenges may have been overlooked in the past year, but they have emphatically not gone away. Teachers – vilified for years by conservative politicians – have gone on strike, highlighting stagnant wages and impoverished schools. Tax cuts have been rammed through by Trump and Republicans in Congress for the benefit of corporations and the wealthiest Americans – including himself and his inner circle while the Fight for 15 continues to campaign against longer hours and low pay for millions of workers. Trump-Russia: Pence urges Mueller to end investigation – 'Time to wrap it up' Read more The Rev Dr William Barber’s Poor People’s Campaign has been on the march across the country for months, highlighting inequality and honouring the unfinished work of Dr Martin Luther King 50 years on. Life expectancy fell in America, with a 21% increase in overdose deaths from legal and illegal opioids a key driver. Unions are coming under attack in the courts and from conservative groups in all 50 states. An almost daily litany of cases reveals a justice system marred at every stage by inherent racial bias. Pope said: “I don’t turn on cable news and say, ‘Hey, I wonder what happened in the world’. It’s more like what happened today in the Mueller investigation … they have almost just embraced the idea that it’s the Robert Mueller show and that’s it. “I want to know about our crumbling cities, I want to know about race, I want to know about drug addiction, I want to know about schools. I live in New York and all of these things are very real and happening right now.” New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof conceded in a recent article that like most Americans, he was addicted to the daily Trump minutiae. “In America today, it’s all Trump, all the time. We’re collectively addicted to him. The non-stop scandals and outrages suck us in; they amount to Trump porn.” The challenge for politicians trying to raise issues more relevant to people’s everyday lives is that they struggle to compete with the garish appeal of Trump. Jessica Post, executive director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee told the Daily Beast, she was dropped at the last moment three times from an MSNBC show as Trump news broke. “It’s difficult to break through with stories about teachers’ strikes or assaults on voting rights because there’s a new bad thing that Trump has done or Scott Pruitt has done in every news cycle,” Post told the Daily Beast. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Teachers dance during a protest outside the state capitol in Raleigh, North Carolina, on Wednesday. Teachers’ strikes have swept the country. Photograph: Logan Cyrus/AFP/Getty Images For some politicians struggling to change the subject, the answer has been to establish their own platforms and even stage their own events – Bernie Sanders has led the way, creating a Facebook account which is followed by more than 7 million people, where audiences of more than 1 million have tuned in for livestreams of town hall events covering issues such as income inequality and the movement for government-funded healthcare for all. For campaigners trying to keep their issues alive, the challenge is how to reach and galvanise local activists while the news cycle is dominated by Trump drama. Elizabeth Beaver, associate policy director for Indivisible, the organisation set up by former congressional staffers to cultivate a grassroots network opposed to the Trump agenda, said: “It shouldn’t be the choice between do we talk about the Mueller investigation and the constant scandals of the Trump administration versus talk about the issues that affect everyone’s lives. We should be ‘both/and’ and should never be either/or.” Indivisible tries to “poke holes in the Trump agenda” by alerting its network of 6,000 local groups to votes and issues unfolding in Congress that week, where they can put pressure on politicians through phone calls, events outside of their member of Congress’s offices and by showing up to town halls. She praised some media outlets, but said: “I would like to continue to see coverage that reflects the things that are happening in the US Congress that will affect us all for generations to come. Quite often, that will happen simultaneously with the scandals of the day from the Trump administration. “The viewers can walk and chew gum at the same time, so I think that they expect the networks to do the same.”

www.theguardian.com

left

pqG7VnujkW2iIRNN

test

DbNygURNvx9ghg8u

media_bias

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2019/04/01/can-journalists-drop-the-political-shena

Media Must Drop the Political Shenanigans and Get Back to Scrutinizing the Powerful

2019-04-01

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

Looking for evidence that ink- and pixel-stained wretches are their own worst enemies when it comes to destroying public trust in the media ? Consider the continuing turmoil of a week which closed with an MSNBC news editor pressuring a freelance writer on behalf of the Democratic Party just days after media types donned collective frowny faces because an investigation apparently did not find evidence that the president conspired with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election . That MSNBC editor , Dafna Linzer , called journalist Yashar Ali to try and convince him to delay or kill a small story that would slightly inconvenience the Democratic Party over its presidential primary debate plans . According to Ali , `` the head of all political coverage for NBC News and MSNBC '' had not been `` calling to advocate for her network , she was calling to advocate the DNC 's position . '' `` She wanted me to wait so they could call state party leaders , '' wrote Ali . It was , he noted , `` unethical '' —and way off base , since he was n't writing for any outfit that she represented . `` What he ran up against here was just a tendril of the media-PR-political complex , '' commented Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple on the to-do . That is , it was a brief glimpse into some unpleasant behind-the-scenes workings . Relative to events of the previous weekend , Yashar Ali 's tale of being pressured by Linzer was a minor kerfuffle . But it came in the same week in which Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded his high-media-profile investigation into charges that Donald Trump and company conspired with the Russian government to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election . The full report has yet to be released , but a summary by Attorney General William Barr quotes Mueller to the effect that `` the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities . '' `` Barr 's announcement was a thunderclap to mainstream news outlets and the cadre of mostly liberal-leaning commentators who have spent months emphasizing the possible-collusion narrative in opinion columns and cable TV panel discussions , '' wrote Washington Post media reporter Paul Farhi . Thunderclap is right . Way too many reporters bet heavily on what they assumed would be the administration-ending outcome of the report . It turned out to be a bad gamble . `` If the story fell apart it would benefit Donald Trump politically , a fact that made a number of reporters queasy about coming forward '' with doubts about the collusion story , wrote Matt Taibbi , a rare insider critic of the media 's herd mentality , after Barr released his summary . `` # Russiagate became synonymous with # Resistance , which made public skepticism a complicated proposition . '' But unless there 's something earth-shattering in the report that Barr is very unwisely eliding , it 's just not going to have the impact that so many Trump critics—and too many media types—had hoped and anticipated . `` The release of the findings was a significant political victory for Mr. Trump and lifted a cloud that has hung over his presidency since before he took the oath of office , '' Mark Mazzetti and Katie Benner of The New York Times concluded . That does n't help journalists with the public , half of whom already thought the investigation was a witch hunt , according to a March 2019 Suffolk University/USA Today poll , and a majority of whom `` have lost trust in the news media in recent years , '' according to the Knight Foundation . Despite the screams of ( mostly conservative ) critics , the partisan affiliations of so many journalists are unlikely to be the big problem by itself . Boomer mythologizing about Walter Cronkite and a supposed golden age of journalism aside , the era of `` objective '' news coverage was something between a historical aberration and complete nonsense . Most news organs of the past , as of the present , had partisan preferences . But they were expected to be open about their affiliations , and to at least try to get the story right . And they were supposed to have some basic understanding of and connection to the people they were covering—at least within the United States . By contrast , most Americans now think that reporters are sloppy about writing stories before learning all the facts , and that they even get paid by sources , according to Columbia Journalism Review . Just as bad , 58 percent of the U.S. adults surveyed `` feel the news media do not understand people like them , '' Pew Research finds—a number that rises to 73 percent among Republicans . Even worse , `` the news media is the enemy of the American people , '' 29 percent of Americans say , echoing the president who so many people think was the victorious subject of a recently concluded and unsuccessful witch hunt . A big part of the problem is that `` the national media really does work in a bubble , '' insisted Politico 's Jack Shafer after the 2016 election . `` And the bubble is growing more extreme . Concentrated heavily along the coasts , the bubble is both geographic and political . '' The result , he said , is an industry-wide groupthink that represents the views and priorities of the few cities where national journalistic jobs are located . It 's a groupthink that almost certainly means that many Americans are alien and `` misunderstood '' by bubble-dwelling journalists who take each other 's sloppy thinking for granted . So when journalists start favoring outcomes–like salvation in a special counsel 's report or special consideration for political apparatchiks—over just covering stories , they tend to overwhelmingly favor the same faction . And that comes off as especially obvious to the large segment of the population that lives at a distance from them geographically , culturally , and ideologically . Benefiting from these missteps are the politicians who journalists are supposed to be scrutinizing and holding to account . Democrats either get a pass or else are understandably believed to get such a pass by a public that sees them as part of the same team . Republicans get to cast shade on what is easily portrayed as an excitable pack of opposition campaign workers . In the eyes of Trump 's inner circle , `` the report is a gift that vindicates Trump , undercuts Democratic investigations , and repudiates critical news coverage , '' reports The Atlantic . Going forward , any reporter who gives the president a hard time `` will be hit with 30-second spots of all their ridiculous claims about collusion , '' a Republican source told the magazine . `` Nothing Trump is accused of from now on by the press will be believed by huge chunks of the population , '' worries Taibbi . Which is too bad , because there 's plenty to report about Trump on matters of policy and personal conduct . Some of what he does is good , and much of what he does is bad—which can be said of many politicians , to be honest . There 's plenty of hard work for the news media to do in gathering , analyzing , and presenting information instead of hoping that an investigation will magically annul an election , or that every scribbler will be on-side in favoring the `` right '' political faction . `` Journalists respond to their failings best when their vanity is punctured with proof that they blew a story that was right in front of them , '' Shafer concluded in his 2017 piece . We 'll see . Because in favoring political games over covering the news , too many journalists have badly blown their reputations along with a lot of stories . If journalists abandoning real work in favor of political shenanigans only cost some their professional reputations , you could just break out the popcorn and watch the show . But journalists , when we do our jobs right , serve an important role by keeping people informed and scrutinizing the powerful . When we drag our own credibility into public view and shoot it in the head , that deprives the public of an important service while also empowering bottom-dwellers who should be subject to constant observation .

Looking for evidence that ink- and pixel-stained wretches are their own worst enemies when it comes to destroying public trust in the media? Consider the continuing turmoil of a week which closed with an MSNBC news editor pressuring a freelance writer on behalf of the Democratic Party just days after media types donned collective frowny faces because an investigation apparently did not find evidence that the president conspired with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election. That MSNBC editor, Dafna Linzer, called journalist Yashar Ali to try and convince him to delay or kill a small story that would slightly inconvenience the Democratic Party over its presidential primary debate plans. According to Ali, "the head of all political coverage for NBC News and MSNBC" had not been "calling to advocate for her network, she was calling to advocate the DNC's position." "She wanted me to wait so they could call state party leaders," wrote Ali. It was, he noted, "unethical"—and way off base, since he wasn't writing for any outfit that she represented. "What he ran up against here was just a tendril of the media-PR-political complex," commented Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple on the to-do. That is, it was a brief glimpse into some unpleasant behind-the-scenes workings. Relative to events of the previous weekend, Yashar Ali's tale of being pressured by Linzer was a minor kerfuffle. But it came in the same week in which Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded his high-media-profile investigation into charges that Donald Trump and company conspired with the Russian government to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The full report has yet to be released, but a summary by Attorney General William Barr quotes Mueller to the effect that "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." "Barr's announcement was a thunderclap to mainstream news outlets and the cadre of mostly liberal-leaning commentators who have spent months emphasizing the possible-collusion narrative in opinion columns and cable TV panel discussions," wrote Washington Post media reporter Paul Farhi. Thunderclap is right. Way too many reporters bet heavily on what they assumed would be the administration-ending outcome of the report. It turned out to be a bad gamble. "If the story fell apart it would benefit Donald Trump politically, a fact that made a number of reporters queasy about coming forward" with doubts about the collusion story, wrote Matt Taibbi, a rare insider critic of the media's herd mentality, after Barr released his summary. "#Russiagate became synonymous with #Resistance, which made public skepticism a complicated proposition." But unless there's something earth-shattering in the report that Barr is very unwisely eliding, it's just not going to have the impact that so many Trump critics—and too many media types—had hoped and anticipated. "The release of the findings was a significant political victory for Mr. Trump and lifted a cloud that has hung over his presidency since before he took the oath of office," Mark Mazzetti and Katie Benner of The New York Times concluded. That doesn't help journalists with the public, half of whom already thought the investigation was a witch hunt, according to a March 2019 Suffolk University/USA Today poll, and a majority of whom "have lost trust in the news media in recent years," according to the Knight Foundation. Despite the screams of (mostly conservative) critics, the partisan affiliations of so many journalists are unlikely to be the big problem by itself. Boomer mythologizing about Walter Cronkite and a supposed golden age of journalism aside, the era of "objective" news coverage was something between a historical aberration and complete nonsense. Most news organs of the past, as of the present, had partisan preferences. But they were expected to be open about their affiliations, and to at least try to get the story right. And they were supposed to have some basic understanding of and connection to the people they were covering—at least within the United States. By contrast, most Americans now think that reporters are sloppy about writing stories before learning all the facts, and that they even get paid by sources, according to Columbia Journalism Review. Just as bad, 58 percent of the U.S. adults surveyed "feel the news media do not understand people like them," Pew Research finds—a number that rises to 73 percent among Republicans. Even worse, "the news media is the enemy of the American people," 29 percent of Americans say, echoing the president who so many people think was the victorious subject of a recently concluded and unsuccessful witch hunt. A big part of the problem is that "the national media really does work in a bubble," insisted Politico's Jack Shafer after the 2016 election. "And the bubble is growing more extreme. Concentrated heavily along the coasts, the bubble is both geographic and political." The result, he said, is an industry-wide groupthink that represents the views and priorities of the few cities where national journalistic jobs are located. It's a groupthink that almost certainly means that many Americans are alien and "misunderstood" by bubble-dwelling journalists who take each other's sloppy thinking for granted. So when journalists start favoring outcomes–like salvation in a special counsel's report or special consideration for political apparatchiks—over just covering stories, they tend to overwhelmingly favor the same faction. And that comes off as especially obvious to the large segment of the population that lives at a distance from them geographically, culturally, and ideologically. Benefiting from these missteps are the politicians who journalists are supposed to be scrutinizing and holding to account. Democrats either get a pass or else are understandably believed to get such a pass by a public that sees them as part of the same team. Republicans get to cast shade on what is easily portrayed as an excitable pack of opposition campaign workers. In the eyes of Trump's inner circle, "the report is a gift that vindicates Trump, undercuts Democratic investigations, and repudiates critical news coverage," reports The Atlantic. Going forward, any reporter who gives the president a hard time "will be hit with 30-second spots of all their ridiculous claims about collusion," a Republican source told the magazine. It may work. "Nothing Trump is accused of from now on by the press will be believed by huge chunks of the population," worries Taibbi. Which is too bad, because there's plenty to report about Trump on matters of policy and personal conduct. Some of what he does is good, and much of what he does is bad—which can be said of many politicians, to be honest. There's plenty of hard work for the news media to do in gathering, analyzing, and presenting information instead of hoping that an investigation will magically annul an election, or that every scribbler will be on-side in favoring the "right" political faction. "Journalists respond to their failings best when their vanity is punctured with proof that they blew a story that was right in front of them," Shafer concluded in his 2017 piece. We'll see. Because in favoring political games over covering the news, too many journalists have badly blown their reputations along with a lot of stories. If journalists abandoning real work in favor of political shenanigans only cost some their professional reputations, you could just break out the popcorn and watch the show. But journalists, when we do our jobs right, serve an important role by keeping people informed and scrutinizing the powerful. When we drag our own credibility into public view and shoot it in the head, that deprives the public of an important service while also empowering bottom-dwellers who should be subject to constant observation.

www.reason.com

right

DbNygURNvx9ghg8u

test

1aRWvpHI9rcO1RAG

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/24/go-straight-to-the-fifth-paragraph-of-the-latest-nyt-bombshell-on-russia-collusion/

Go Straight To The Fifth Paragraph Of The Latest NYT ‘Bombshell’ On Russia Collusion

2017-05-24

The New York Times dropped another “ bombshell ” report on Russian influence on the 2016 election Wednesday , and once again what is presented as salacious news in the headline and lead is revealed to be anything but midway through the report . “ Months before the election , U.S. spies learned that top Russians had discussed ways to use Donald Trump ’ s advisers to influence him , ” reads the headline blasted by TheNYT in a breaking news email . The story is clearly meant to further the “ Trump colluded with Russia ” narrative the media has pushed for months , although it ’ s as yet totally unsubstantiated . TheNYT lead builds an atmosphere of wrongdoing around Trump and his campaign aides using important sounding buzzwords and phrases . “ Spies ” and “ revealing ” information and big-time Russian officials who “ exert influence. ” It ’ s quite official sounding and obviously intended to sow suspicion . But the ( few ) readers who make it to the fifth paragraph and are paying attention will realize there ’ s not actually much meat to the report . That paragraph hedges on the information collected by the spies , and notes the reporter has no real clue whether Russian officials actually made any attempt to influence the Trump aides in question . Oh yeah and the Trump campaign as well as both aides have consistently denied the longstanding accusations of collusion with Russia . “ The information collected last summer was considered credible enough for intelligence agencies to pass to the F.B.I. , which during that period opened a counterintelligence investigation that is ongoing , ” the paragraph reads . “ It is unclear , however , whether Russian officials actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn . Both have denied any collusion with the Russian government on the campaign to disrupt the election . ” What this report really boils down to is the “ revelation ” that senior Russian officials are interested in influencing important U.S. actors , and that American spies are mostly sure they had a conversation about it . Maybe newsworthy , but hardly a bombshell . A buried explanatory paragraph that deflates the lead is a constant in report after report on the Russia collusion narrative . When The New York Times reported the FBI was investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia , it was not until the tenth paragraph readers were informed of an important fact : “ American officials have said that they have so far found no proof of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia . ” But the report adds there is evidence Trump ’ s associates were in “ repeated contact ” with people linked to Russian intelligence officials . Some months later Reuters dropped an important sounding report on some of those contacts . Six paragraphs into the report on “ 18 undisclosed contacts ” between Trump associates and Russian officials , the reader learns that those who familiar with the conversations see “ no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia . ” The New York Times pumped out another “ collusion ” story Wednesday with another buried caveat , this time on “ mounting concern ” among U.S. officials “ revealed ” by former CIA director John Brennan in a big bad congressional hearing . Six paragraphs in : “ Mr . Brennan acknowledged that he did not know whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russian operatives and said the contacts might have been benign . ” ███ ’ s Chuck Ross nailed it in a recent tweet . “ Out of all the leaks thus far in the Trump-Russia probe , there have been none showing actual collusion , ” he said .

The New York Times dropped another “bombshell” report on Russian influence on the 2016 election Wednesday, and once again what is presented as salacious news in the headline and lead is revealed to be anything but midway through the report. “Months before the election, U.S. spies learned that top Russians had discussed ways to use Donald Trump’s advisers to influence him,” reads the headline blasted by TheNYT in a breaking news email. The story is clearly meant to further the “Trump colluded with Russia” narrative the media has pushed for months, although it’s as yet totally unsubstantiated. TheNYT lead builds an atmosphere of wrongdoing around Trump and his campaign aides using important sounding buzzwords and phrases. “Spies” and “revealing” information and big-time Russian officials who “exert influence.” It’s quite official sounding and obviously intended to sow suspicion. But the (few) readers who make it to the fifth paragraph and are paying attention will realize there’s not actually much meat to the report. That paragraph hedges on the information collected by the spies, and notes the reporter has no real clue whether Russian officials actually made any attempt to influence the Trump aides in question. Oh yeah and the Trump campaign as well as both aides have consistently denied the longstanding accusations of collusion with Russia. “The information collected last summer was considered credible enough for intelligence agencies to pass to the F.B.I., which during that period opened a counterintelligence investigation that is ongoing,” the paragraph reads. “It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn. Both have denied any collusion with the Russian government on the campaign to disrupt the election.” What this report really boils down to is the “revelation” that senior Russian officials are interested in influencing important U.S. actors, and that American spies are mostly sure they had a conversation about it. Maybe newsworthy, but hardly a bombshell. A buried explanatory paragraph that deflates the lead is a constant in report after report on the Russia collusion narrative. When The New York Times reported the FBI was investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, it was not until the tenth paragraph readers were informed of an important fact: “American officials have said that they have so far found no proof of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.” But the report adds there is evidence Trump’s associates were in “repeated contact” with people linked to Russian intelligence officials. Some months later Reuters dropped an important sounding report on some of those contacts. Six paragraphs into the report on “18 undisclosed contacts” between Trump associates and Russian officials, the reader learns that those who familiar with the conversations see “no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia.” The New York Times pumped out another “collusion” story Wednesday with another buried caveat, this time on “mounting concern” among U.S. officials “revealed” by former CIA director John Brennan in a big bad congressional hearing. Six paragraphs in: “Mr. Brennan acknowledged that he did not know whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russian operatives and said the contacts might have been benign.” The Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross nailed it in a recent tweet. “Out of all the leaks thus far in the Trump-Russia probe, there have been none showing actual collusion,” he said. Follow Rachel on Twitter Send tips to rachel@ dailycallernewsfoundation.org. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

www.dailycaller.com

right

1aRWvpHI9rcO1RAG

test

xQAymcsiobnLRR7p

fbi

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-FBI-Islamic-State/2015/07/23/id/658527/

FBI Chief: ISIS Bigger Threat than al-Qaida

2015-07-23

Ken Dilanian

The Islamic State group 's effort to inspire troubled Americans to violence has become more of a terror threat to the U.S. than an external attack by al-Qaida , the FBI director said Wednesday . FBI Director James Comey told an audience at the Aspen Security Forum that the Islamic State group , which has proclaimed a caliphate in parts of Syria and Iraq , has influenced a significant but unknown number of Americans through a year-long campaign on social media urging Muslims who ca n't travel to the Middle East to `` kill where you are . '' Twitter handles affiliated with the group have more than 21,000 English-language followers worldwide , he said , thousands of whom may be U.S. residents . The FBI has arrested a significant number of people over the last eight weeks who had been radicalized , Comey said , without specifying a number . He repeated his previous disclosure , without elaborating , that several people were arrested who were planning attacks related to the July Fourth holiday . The bureau has hundreds of investigations pending into such cases across the country . Comey said it was too soon to say how Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez , the Chattanooga gunman who killed five U.S. troops last week , became radicalized . Abdulazeez 's relatives have said he had a history of drug use and depression . Comey noted that `` the people the Islamic State is trying to reach are people that al-Qaida would never use as an operative , because they are often unstable , troubled drug users . '' Asked if the threat from the Islamic State group had eclipsed that of the rival organization that attacked the U.S. on September 11 , 2001 , Comey said , `` Yes . '' The U.S. has tracked dozens of Americans , ranging in age from 18 to 62 , who have traveled to Syria or Iraq to fight with the Islamic State group , he said . `` I worry very much about what I ca n't see , '' Comey added , because he said Islamic State group recruiters use encrypted communication software to avoid U.S. eavesdropping . Comey has sounded the alarm about domestic radicalization before , but his remarks Wednesday signal a deepening concern among U.S. officials about the impact of the Islamic State 's effort to inspire terrorist violence . As recently as September , senior U.S. intelligence officials were downplaying the group 's capacity to attack the U.S. Matt Olsen , then the head of the National Counter Terrorism Center , told Congress in September that the U.S. had `` no credible information that ISIL is planning to attack the United States . '' Intelligence officials last year were saying they worry most about a mass casualty attack against a U.S. airliner by al-Qaida 's Yemen affiliate , or by the Khorasan Group , a cadre of al-Qaida operatives in Syria . But Comey said Wednesday the threat from the Khorasan Group has been `` significantly diminished '' by U.S. military strikes . The Pentagon on Tuesday announced that it had killed the Khorasan Group 's leader , Muhsin al-Fadhli , in a July 8 airstrike in Syria .

The Islamic State group's effort to inspire troubled Americans to violence has become more of a terror threat to the U.S. than an external attack by al-Qaida, the FBI director said Wednesday. FBI Director James Comey told an audience at the Aspen Security Forum that the Islamic State group, which has proclaimed a caliphate in parts of Syria and Iraq, has influenced a significant but unknown number of Americans through a year-long campaign on social media urging Muslims who can't travel to the Middle East to "kill where you are." Twitter handles affiliated with the group have more than 21,000 English-language followers worldwide, he said, thousands of whom may be U.S. residents. The FBI has arrested a significant number of people over the last eight weeks who had been radicalized, Comey said, without specifying a number. He repeated his previous disclosure, without elaborating, that several people were arrested who were planning attacks related to the July Fourth holiday. The bureau has hundreds of investigations pending into such cases across the country. Comey said it was too soon to say how Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, the Chattanooga gunman who killed five U.S. troops last week, became radicalized. Abdulazeez's relatives have said he had a history of drug use and depression. Comey noted that "the people the Islamic State is trying to reach are people that al-Qaida would never use as an operative, because they are often unstable, troubled drug users." Asked if the threat from the Islamic State group had eclipsed that of the rival organization that attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001, Comey said, "Yes." The U.S. has tracked dozens of Americans, ranging in age from 18 to 62, who have traveled to Syria or Iraq to fight with the Islamic State group, he said. "I worry very much about what I can't see," Comey added, because he said Islamic State group recruiters use encrypted communication software to avoid U.S. eavesdropping. Comey has sounded the alarm about domestic radicalization before, but his remarks Wednesday signal a deepening concern among U.S. officials about the impact of the Islamic State's effort to inspire terrorist violence. As recently as September, senior U.S. intelligence officials were downplaying the group's capacity to attack the U.S. Matt Olsen, then the head of the National Counter Terrorism Center, told Congress in September that the U.S. had "no credible information that ISIL is planning to attack the United States." Intelligence officials last year were saying they worry most about a mass casualty attack against a U.S. airliner by al-Qaida's Yemen affiliate, or by the Khorasan Group, a cadre of al-Qaida operatives in Syria. But Comey said Wednesday the threat from the Khorasan Group has been "significantly diminished" by U.S. military strikes. The Pentagon on Tuesday announced that it had killed the Khorasan Group's leader, Muhsin al-Fadhli, in a July 8 airstrike in Syria.

www.newsmax.com

right

xQAymcsiobnLRR7p

test

dU5g3Je3IYi4q07q

education

Reason

https://reason.com/2019/05/21/are-millennials-responsible-for-their-own-student-debt/

Are Millennials Responsible for Their Own Student Debt?

2019-05-21

Nick Gillespie, Josh Blackman, Shikha Dalmia, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Jacob Sullum, Eric Boehm, Ilya Somin, Mike Riggs

As the father to sons who are 25 and 17 years old , I love millennials and Generation Z . But it 's getting harder and harder to feel sympathy for kids born between 1981 and 2012 ( give or take ) . It 's not all—or maybe even mostly—their fault . Much of the problem stems from the ways in which the media covers the plight of younger Americans , especially the supposedly catastrophic amount of student loan debt they have taken on simply to get a college degree which is now , we 're told , a nearly meaningless piece of paper that no longer `` automatically '' guarantees admission to the `` middle class . '' A recent story in The Wall Street Journal exemplifies this approach . It 's titled `` Playing Catch-Up in the Game of Life : Millennials Approach Middle Age in Crisis '' and promises `` New data show they 're in worse financial shape than every preceding living generation and may never recover . '' Mostly , it highlights individuals and couples who have tons of student debt and , as a result , supposedly ca n't buy houses , have kids , or even get married . In fact , it 's far from clear that crude economics is driving , say , the reduction in fertility rates , which have been dropping for decades everywhere in the world and are tied to increases in female autonomy . And for all the talk about generational poverty , it 's not immediately clear that all is darkness . According to a Pew study in 2018 , millennial households now `` match the highest household income for their age group . '' Throw in higher rates of advanced education , and the future actually looks promising . And it appears that millennials may be better off in various ways than Gen X was at the same stage of life . In any case , there is so much wrong with the narrative about student loan debt that it 's hard to know where to start . In the first place , more people , including more low-income people , are going to college than ever before and college grads have much higher lifetime earnings and much lower unemployment rates than folks with just a high school diploma , an associate 's degree , or a few years of college . As the economist Scott Winship has written , `` If we 're counting rising student indebtedness on the debt side of the ledger , should n't we count the value of the asset financed by the debt ( human capital ) on the asset side ? '' And despite the aggregate $ 1.5 trillion out there in student debt , the average and median amounts owed by individuals students are hardly breathtaking . According to data from Lending Tree , for instance , about 70 percent of the class of 2018 took out loans ; their median monthly payment was $ 222 . The average loan amount ( which will be higher than the median ) for graduates with debt was about $ 30,000 . According to Pew : The median borrower with outstanding student loan debt for his or her own education owed $ 17,000 in 2016 . The amount owed varies considerably , however . A quarter of borrowers with outstanding debt reported owing $ 7,000 or less , while another quarter owed $ 43,000 or more . So most borrowers are actually acting responsibly . College grads make about 80 percent more than high school grads , so taking on debt is n't stupid . And even though college has been getting more expensive , the wage premium remains high enough that the number of years needed to recoup the price of college has n't increased for decades , according to work done by the New York Federal Reserve : It 's extremely difficult to get straight answers about many aspects of education-related debt . Often , it 's not clear if the debt for a given year includes loans for grad school , including law school or medical school , which are not just much more expensive but also much more remunerative and optional . Ninety percent of law school grads borrow , for instance , and the average debt load is $ 127,000 for people attending private schools and $ 88,000 for those going to state schools . Three-quarters of med students take out loans that average around $ 200,000 , but the typical doctor makes between $ 150,000 and $ 312,000 per year , so the debt is n't particularly tough to pay back . Should we feel bad for lawyers and doctors ? It 's obviously preferable to graduate from college with little or no debt . But media accounts inevitably gravitate to people with eye-popping amounts of debt that are nobody 's fault but their own . Worse still , the reports rarely include any sort of detailed information that would allow a reader to get a better sense of the individual 's life choices . Yes , relatively cheap loans doubtlessly entice some people to go to college who would n't if they had to pay higher interest rates ( if student loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings , interest rates—even those offered by the federal government , which disburses about 90 percent of student loan dollars—would be much higher ) . But ultimately the borrower has to take responsibility for his or her actions . I say that as someone who paid his way through undergraduate and graduate school and sweated blood every time I signed for a student loan . Youth is a time of great folly , yes , but you know exactly how much you 're going to be paying back for exactly how long . In The Wall Street Journal story , we meet a 32-year-old woman living in Chicago who `` is a renter who is single and earns $ 75,000 a year [ working for the city ] . She also owes $ 102,000 in student loans and $ 10,000 in credit-card debt . '' Her salary is actually kind of great , especially for someone her age . The median household income for Chicago is about $ 53,000 and the median per capita income there is $ 33,000 . She 's got three times the average student debt , but we have no way of knowing where she went to college or whether there 's a grad degree tucked into that . Making $ 75,000 a year breaks down to $ 6,250 a month . Assume she 's paying 33 percent in total taxes , that brings her monthly take-home pay to about $ 4,200 . Assuming she 's paying 7 percent on her loans , she 's on the hook for about $ 1,200 a month , leaving $ 3,000 to cover rent , food , and everything else . That 's not great , but it 's doable . In real dollars , it 's about $ 20,000 more than I was bringing home in the mid-'90s when I started at ███ and lived in Los Angeles with a non-working spouse and 1-year-old son . Does she have roommates ? Why did she spend so much on college ? Reading this story made me think of last year 's Time cover story on teachers who supposedly had to work two or three extra jobs because they 're `` not paid for the work [ they ] do . '' So much of household finance is tied to spending levels , which are never really discussed . We also meet a thirty-something couple that `` run a financial-advice website , whittling away at their combined student debt of $ 377,000 . '' What ? One of them is a lawyer , so let 's assume that as much as $ 127,000 of the debt went toward a private school law degree . There 's still a quarter of a million dollars in student debt to account for . The story does n't provide any extenuating circumstances and , to be honest , I ca n't imagine any that would explain such as situation other than really dumb choices . Should we as a society be ready to forgive such mistakes via universal debt relief programs proposed by politicians such as Sens . Elizabeth Warren ( D–Mass . ) and Bernie Sanders ( I–Vt. ) ? That seems like an insult and an outrage to everybody , parent and student alike , who scrimped and saved and went to schools they could afford . In an Associated Press story about Robert F. Smith , the billionaire who just announced he would pay off all the student debt of Morehouse College 's class of 2019 , we meet a 22-year-old finance major with an inexplicably and shockingly high amount of student debt— $ 200,000 , an amount that would take him 25 years to pay off `` at half his monthly salary , per his calculations . '' When Smith made his pledge during Morehouse 's commencement , the student wept . `` I do n't have to live off of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches . I was shocked . My heart dropped . We all cried . In the moment it was like a burden had been taken off . '' Surely I 'm not the only one who 's wondering how the hell someone—a finance major , of all people—ended up $ 200,000 in hock by graduation . The full list price for Morehouse is almost $ 50,000 a year , but the average net price is $ 32,000 after grants and scholarships are factored in . Even if he put all four years on loans , that should be $ 128,000 , not $ 200,000 . More to the point , who would do such a thing ? The average net price of nearby Georgia State is $ 15,000 . Borrowing $ 200,000 for a bachelor 's degree is simply inexplicable . I 've written often about how younger Americans are indeed being screwed by my own generation , the baby boomers . Old-age entitlements are a brutal form of generational warfare that systematically rob from the relatively young and poor in order to give to the objectively old and rich . The 2008 financial crisis has further beggared the young , who have also grown up in a century with lower-than-average economic growth ( thank you , persistent deficit spending and massive national debt ) . Older people in America have a lot of explaining to do , and we need to reform all sorts of policies that slow economic growth and direct all sorts of unearned wealth to people who do n't need it . But younger Americans—at least those who manage to royally screw up their finances by graduation day—also need to be held accountable .

As the father to sons who are 25 and 17 years old, I love millennials and Generation Z. But it's getting harder and harder to feel sympathy for kids born between 1981 and 2012 (give or take). It's not all—or maybe even mostly—their fault. Much of the problem stems from the ways in which the media covers the plight of younger Americans, especially the supposedly catastrophic amount of student loan debt they have taken on simply to get a college degree which is now, we're told, a nearly meaningless piece of paper that no longer "automatically" guarantees admission to the "middle class." A recent story in The Wall Street Journal exemplifies this approach. It's titled "Playing Catch-Up in the Game of Life: Millennials Approach Middle Age in Crisis" and promises "New data show they're in worse financial shape than every preceding living generation and may never recover." Mostly, it highlights individuals and couples who have tons of student debt and, as a result, supposedly can't buy houses, have kids, or even get married. In fact, it's far from clear that crude economics is driving, say, the reduction in fertility rates, which have been dropping for decades everywhere in the world and are tied to increases in female autonomy. And for all the talk about generational poverty, it's not immediately clear that all is darkness. According to a Pew study in 2018, millennial households now "match the highest household income for their age group." Throw in higher rates of advanced education, and the future actually looks promising. And it appears that millennials may be better off in various ways than Gen X was at the same stage of life. In any case, there is so much wrong with the narrative about student loan debt that it's hard to know where to start. In the first place, more people, including more low-income people, are going to college than ever before and college grads have much higher lifetime earnings and much lower unemployment rates than folks with just a high school diploma, an associate's degree, or a few years of college. As the economist Scott Winship has written, "If we're counting rising student indebtedness on the debt side of the ledger, shouldn't we count the value of the asset financed by the debt (human capital) on the asset side?" And despite the aggregate $1.5 trillion out there in student debt, the average and median amounts owed by individuals students are hardly breathtaking. According to data from Lending Tree, for instance, about 70 percent of the class of 2018 took out loans; their median monthly payment was $222. The average loan amount (which will be higher than the median) for graduates with debt was about $30,000. According to Pew: The median borrower with outstanding student loan debt for his or her own education owed $17,000 in 2016. The amount owed varies considerably, however. A quarter of borrowers with outstanding debt reported owing $7,000 or less, while another quarter owed $43,000 or more. So most borrowers are actually acting responsibly. College grads make about 80 percent more than high school grads, so taking on debt isn't stupid. And even though college has been getting more expensive, the wage premium remains high enough that the number of years needed to recoup the price of college hasn't increased for decades, according to work done by the New York Federal Reserve: It's extremely difficult to get straight answers about many aspects of education-related debt. Often, it's not clear if the debt for a given year includes loans for grad school, including law school or medical school, which are not just much more expensive but also much more remunerative and optional. Ninety percent of law school grads borrow, for instance, and the average debt load is $127,000 for people attending private schools and $88,000 for those going to state schools. Three-quarters of med students take out loans that average around $200,000, but the typical doctor makes between $150,000 and $312,000 per year, so the debt isn't particularly tough to pay back. Should we feel bad for lawyers and doctors? It's obviously preferable to graduate from college with little or no debt. But media accounts inevitably gravitate to people with eye-popping amounts of debt that are nobody's fault but their own. Worse still, the reports rarely include any sort of detailed information that would allow a reader to get a better sense of the individual's life choices. Yes, relatively cheap loans doubtlessly entice some people to go to college who wouldn't if they had to pay higher interest rates (if student loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings, interest rates—even those offered by the federal government, which disburses about 90 percent of student loan dollars—would be much higher). But ultimately the borrower has to take responsibility for his or her actions. I say that as someone who paid his way through undergraduate and graduate school and sweated blood every time I signed for a student loan. Youth is a time of great folly, yes, but you know exactly how much you're going to be paying back for exactly how long. In The Wall Street Journal story, we meet a 32-year-old woman living in Chicago who "is a renter who is single and earns $75,000 a year [working for the city]. She also owes $102,000 in student loans and $10,000 in credit-card debt." Her salary is actually kind of great, especially for someone her age. The median household income for Chicago is about $53,000 and the median per capita income there is $33,000. She's got three times the average student debt, but we have no way of knowing where she went to college or whether there's a grad degree tucked into that. Making $75,000 a year breaks down to $6,250 a month. Assume she's paying 33 percent in total taxes, that brings her monthly take-home pay to about $4,200. Assuming she's paying 7 percent on her loans, she's on the hook for about $1,200 a month, leaving $3,000 to cover rent, food, and everything else. That's not great, but it's doable. In real dollars, it's about $20,000 more than I was bringing home in the mid-'90s when I started at Reason and lived in Los Angeles with a non-working spouse and 1-year-old son. Does she have roommates? Why did she spend so much on college? Reading this story made me think of last year's Time cover story on teachers who supposedly had to work two or three extra jobs because they're "not paid for the work [they] do." So much of household finance is tied to spending levels, which are never really discussed. We also meet a thirty-something couple that "run a financial-advice website, whittling away at their combined student debt of $377,000." What? One of them is a lawyer, so let's assume that as much as $127,000 of the debt went toward a private school law degree. There's still a quarter of a million dollars in student debt to account for. The story doesn't provide any extenuating circumstances and, to be honest, I can't imagine any that would explain such as situation other than really dumb choices. Should we as a society be ready to forgive such mistakes via universal debt relief programs proposed by politicians such as Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.)? That seems like an insult and an outrage to everybody, parent and student alike, who scrimped and saved and went to schools they could afford. In an Associated Press story about Robert F. Smith, the billionaire who just announced he would pay off all the student debt of Morehouse College's class of 2019, we meet a 22-year-old finance major with an inexplicably and shockingly high amount of student debt—$200,000, an amount that would take him 25 years to pay off "at half his monthly salary, per his calculations." When Smith made his pledge during Morehouse's commencement, the student wept. "I don't have to live off of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. I was shocked. My heart dropped. We all cried. In the moment it was like a burden had been taken off." Surely I'm not the only one who's wondering how the hell someone—a finance major, of all people—ended up $200,000 in hock by graduation. The full list price for Morehouse is almost $50,000 a year, but the average net price is $32,000 after grants and scholarships are factored in. Even if he put all four years on loans, that should be $128,000, not $200,000. More to the point, who would do such a thing? The average net price of nearby Georgia State is $15,000. Borrowing $200,000 for a bachelor's degree is simply inexplicable. I've written often about how younger Americans are indeed being screwed by my own generation, the baby boomers. Old-age entitlements are a brutal form of generational warfare that systematically rob from the relatively young and poor in order to give to the objectively old and rich. The 2008 financial crisis has further beggared the young, who have also grown up in a century with lower-than-average economic growth (thank you, persistent deficit spending and massive national debt). Older people in America have a lot of explaining to do, and we need to reform all sorts of policies that slow economic growth and direct all sorts of unearned wealth to people who don't need it. But younger Americans—at least those who manage to royally screw up their finances by graduation day—also need to be held accountable.

www.reason.com

right

dU5g3Je3IYi4q07q

test

xRoIN2SEWfv93897

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/2019/05/22/justin-amash-is-right-about-impeachable-conduct/

Justin Amash Is Right About Impeachable Conduct

2019-05-22

Jacob Sullum, Zuri Davis, Christian Britschgi, Josh Blackman, Cosmo Wenman, Joe Setyon

Justin Amash thinks Donald Trump is guilty of `` impeachable conduct , '' and he is absolutely right . Impeachable conduct is whatever the House of Representatives decides it is , a point the president 's defenders and some of his critics seem determined to obscure . The House impeached Bill Clinton for lying under oath about oral sex , and the conduct described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's report is more troubling and consequential , even if it does not amount to a crime that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt . When Amash , a five-term Michigan congressman , became the first Republican legislator to make that point , the reaction revealed how determined his colleagues are to evade their responsibilities . Mitt Romney , the Utah senator and former Republican presidential nominee who a month ago said he was `` sickened at the extent and pervasiveness of dishonesty and misdirection '' detailed by Mueller , this week praised Amash 's `` courageous statement '' but added that he disagreed with his conclusion . Romney argued that `` you just do n't have the elements '' to `` make a case for obstruction of justice . '' The Mueller report actually makes a strong case that at least some of Trump 's attempts to interfere with the investigation of Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election involved the three elements of obstruction : an obstructive act , a nexus to an official proceeding , and a corrupt intent . When Trump tried to stop the FBI investigation of his former national security adviser , repeatedly demanded Mueller 's removal , pressed White House Counsel Donald McGahn to deny that Trump had tried to fire Mueller , urged his attorney general to take control of the Russia investigation and limit its scope , and discouraged witnesses from cooperating with it , he arguably met all three criteria . Mueller unambiguously rejected the view , advocated by Trump 's lawyers and Attorney General William Barr , that the president can not obstruct justice by exercising his otherwise lawful constitutional powers , which include control of the Justice Department . But even if you accept that theory , it does not cover Trump 's public and private attempts to influence the testimony of witnesses such as McGahn , his former lawyer Michael Cohen , and his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort . The fact that Trump 's frequently clumsy efforts to impede federal investigations were mostly unsuccessful ( mainly because of resistance by his underlings ) does not get him off the hook , since attempted obstruction is also a crime . Nor does it matter that Mueller ultimately found no evidence that anyone in the Trump campaign illegally conspired with Russian agents . Trump himself did not know the answer to that question in advance , and in any case he may have been motivated by a desire to prevent revelations that could prove embarrassing and politically damaging . More to the point , as Amash noted , the `` high crimes and misdemeanors '' that justify impeachment extend beyond provable statutory violations to abuses of power that betray the public trust . Trump 's own lawyer , Rudy Giuliani , last year conceded that it `` would just be unthinkable '' for Trump to pardon himself , which `` would lead to probably an immediate impeachment , '' even though the Constitution imposes no limits on the pardon power . Congress might reasonably conclude that a president who uses his powers to protect himself in a less dramatic way—say , by repeatedly interfering with an investigation of his own actions—is unfit for office . Perhaps the norm of avoiding even the appearance of such interference is worth preserving , whether or not it is legally required . Romney argues that impeachment would be unwise in terms of `` practicality and politics , '' since `` the American people just are n't there '' and the Republican-controlled Senate , which would conduct the trial that follows impeachment by the House , `` is certainly not there either . '' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , who is discouraging her fellow Democrats from pursuing impeachment , seems to have reached a similar conclusion . It is hard to argue with that political calculation . But members of both parties may come to regret the signal they are sending about the sort of presidential behavior Congress is willing to tolerate .

Justin Amash thinks Donald Trump is guilty of "impeachable conduct," and he is absolutely right. Impeachable conduct is whatever the House of Representatives decides it is, a point the president's defenders and some of his critics seem determined to obscure. The House impeached Bill Clinton for lying under oath about oral sex, and the conduct described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report is more troubling and consequential, even if it does not amount to a crime that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. When Amash, a five-term Michigan congressman, became the first Republican legislator to make that point, the reaction revealed how determined his colleagues are to evade their responsibilities. Mitt Romney, the Utah senator and former Republican presidential nominee who a month ago said he was "sickened at the extent and pervasiveness of dishonesty and misdirection" detailed by Mueller, this week praised Amash's "courageous statement" but added that he disagreed with his conclusion. Romney argued that "you just don't have the elements" to "make a case for obstruction of justice." The Mueller report actually makes a strong case that at least some of Trump's attempts to interfere with the investigation of Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election involved the three elements of obstruction: an obstructive act, a nexus to an official proceeding, and a corrupt intent. When Trump tried to stop the FBI investigation of his former national security adviser, repeatedly demanded Mueller's removal, pressed White House Counsel Donald McGahn to deny that Trump had tried to fire Mueller, urged his attorney general to take control of the Russia investigation and limit its scope, and discouraged witnesses from cooperating with it, he arguably met all three criteria. Mueller unambiguously rejected the view, advocated by Trump's lawyers and Attorney General William Barr, that the president cannot obstruct justice by exercising his otherwise lawful constitutional powers, which include control of the Justice Department. But even if you accept that theory, it does not cover Trump's public and private attempts to influence the testimony of witnesses such as McGahn, his former lawyer Michael Cohen, and his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort. The fact that Trump's frequently clumsy efforts to impede federal investigations were mostly unsuccessful (mainly because of resistance by his underlings) does not get him off the hook, since attempted obstruction is also a crime. Nor does it matter that Mueller ultimately found no evidence that anyone in the Trump campaign illegally conspired with Russian agents. Trump himself did not know the answer to that question in advance, and in any case he may have been motivated by a desire to prevent revelations that could prove embarrassing and politically damaging. More to the point, as Amash noted, the "high crimes and misdemeanors" that justify impeachment extend beyond provable statutory violations to abuses of power that betray the public trust. Trump's own lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, last year conceded that it "would just be unthinkable" for Trump to pardon himself, which "would lead to probably an immediate impeachment," even though the Constitution imposes no limits on the pardon power. Congress might reasonably conclude that a president who uses his powers to protect himself in a less dramatic way—say, by repeatedly interfering with an investigation of his own actions—is unfit for office. Perhaps the norm of avoiding even the appearance of such interference is worth preserving, whether or not it is legally required. Romney argues that impeachment would be unwise in terms of "practicality and politics," since "the American people just aren't there" and the Republican-controlled Senate, which would conduct the trial that follows impeachment by the House, "is certainly not there either." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is discouraging her fellow Democrats from pursuing impeachment, seems to have reached a similar conclusion. It is hard to argue with that political calculation. But members of both parties may come to regret the signal they are sending about the sort of presidential behavior Congress is willing to tolerate. © Copyright 2019 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

www.reason.com

right

xRoIN2SEWfv93897

test

NAkhiNd9aW6LRm08

politics

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/04/08/joe-biden-cant-wait-to-work-with-bernie-sanders-on-building-progressive-future/

Joe Biden: ‘Can’t Wait’ to Work with Bernie Sanders on Building ‘Progressive Future’

2020-04-08

Kyle Olson

Joe Biden signaled on Wednesday that he won ’ t be tacking to the middle as the socialist candidate , Bernie Sanders , exited the race for the Democrat nomination for president . After news broke that Sanders was suspending his campaign for president , Biden indicated he ’ ll be looking forward to working with Sanders to create a “ progressive future : ” I ’ ve had a chance to get to know Bernie over the years . We were in the Senate together before Barack and I took office , and of course , I had known him from his work in the House . What I liked about Bernie was that he said what he believed , no matter who was in the room . I admired his passion . I liked his convictions . I thought people who failed to take him seriously would prove to be sorely mistaken . And , as it turns out , I was right . Bernie suspended his campaign today , but while you can suspend a campaign , you can ’ t suspend a movement . Bernie and his supporters have taken issues which had been given little attention and brought them to the center of the conversation . Bernie gets a lot of credit for his passionate advocacy for the issues he cares about . But he doesn ’ t get enough credit for being a voice that forces us all to take a hard look in the mirror and ask if we ’ ve done enough . Jill and I can ’ t wait to work with him and Jane on building a more progressive future . “ I wish I could give you better news , but I think you know the truth , ” Sanders said in a video announcement . “ I have concluded that this battle for the Democratic nomination will not be successful and so today I am announcing the suspension of my campaign . ” “ While this campaign is coming to an end , our movement is not , ” he added . Bernie Sanders is OUT ! Thank you to Elizabeth Warren . If not for her , Bernie would have won almost every state on Super Tuesday ! This ended just like the Democrats & the DNC wanted , same as the Crooked Hillary fiasco . The Bernie people should come to the Republican Party , TRADE ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) April 8 , 2020 “ Bernie Sanders is OUT ! Thank you to Elizabeth Warren . If not for her , Bernie would have won almost every state on Super Tuesday ! ” the president tweeted . “ This ended just like the Democrats & the DNC wanted , same as the Crooked Hillary fiasco . The Bernie people should come to the Republican Party , TRADE ! ” Kyle Olson is a reporter for ███ . Follow him on Twitter and like him on Facebook .

Joe Biden signaled on Wednesday that he won’t be tacking to the middle as the socialist candidate, Bernie Sanders, exited the race for the Democrat nomination for president. After news broke that Sanders was suspending his campaign for president, Biden indicated he’ll be looking forward to working with Sanders to create a “progressive future:” I’ve had a chance to get to know Bernie over the years. We were in the Senate together before Barack and I took office, and of course, I had known him from his work in the House. What I liked about Bernie was that he said what he believed, no matter who was in the room. I admired his passion. I liked his convictions. I thought people who failed to take him seriously would prove to be sorely mistaken. And, as it turns out, I was right. Bernie suspended his campaign today, but while you can suspend a campaign, you can’t suspend a movement. Bernie and his supporters have taken issues which had been given little attention and brought them to the center of the conversation. Bernie gets a lot of credit for his passionate advocacy for the issues he cares about. But he doesn’t get enough credit for being a voice that forces us all to take a hard look in the mirror and ask if we’ve done enough. Jill and I can’t wait to work with him and Jane on building a more progressive future. “I wish I could give you better news, but I think you know the truth,” Sanders said in a video announcement. “I have concluded that this battle for the Democratic nomination will not be successful and so today I am announcing the suspension of my campaign.” “While this campaign is coming to an end, our movement is not,” he added. President Trump invited Sanders’ supporters to his campaign. Bernie Sanders is OUT! Thank you to Elizabeth Warren. If not for her, Bernie would have won almost every state on Super Tuesday! This ended just like the Democrats & the DNC wanted, same as the Crooked Hillary fiasco. The Bernie people should come to the Republican Party, TRADE! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 8, 2020 “Bernie Sanders is OUT! Thank you to Elizabeth Warren. If not for her, Bernie would have won almost every state on Super Tuesday!” the president tweeted. “This ended just like the Democrats & the DNC wanted, same as the Crooked Hillary fiasco. The Bernie people should come to the Republican Party, TRADE!” Kyle Olson is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter and like him on Facebook.

www.breitbart.com

right

NAkhiNd9aW6LRm08

test

bjDAYlKMHSjU7BFO

politics

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-labor-secretary-acosta-resigns-amid-controversy-epstein/story?id=64291111&cid=clicksource_4380645_null_hero_hed

Trump Labor Secretary Alex Acosta resigns amid controversy over Epstein plea deal

Labor Secretary Alex Acosta has resigned amid controversy over his role in a 2008 plea deal with accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein . Interested in Jeffrey Epstein Case ? Add Jeffrey Epstein Case as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Jeffrey Epstein Case news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest The resignation comes as ███ has learned that nearly a dozen new alleged Epstein victims have come forward . Attorneys representing other alleged victims in the Epstein case say they ’ ve been contacted by the women , ███ ' Tom Llamas reported . On Monday , the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York , Geoffrey Berman , who is overseeing the case against Epstein for alleged crimes in New York , made a public plea for any additional victims to contact his office . President Donald Trump said Friday that it was Acosta 's decision to resign and not his as he spoke to reporters as he left the White House for a trip to Wisconsin . Acosta was standing next to Trump as the president called him `` a great labor secretary , not a good one . '' Trump said it was very sad to see him go but said Acosta told him he did n't want to distract form the strong economy and the work the administration is doing . `` He does n't have to do this , '' Pres . Trump says as Labor Sec . Alex Acosta announces his resignation . `` He 's doing this not for himself , he 's doing this for the administration . '' https : //t.co/POm74sP319 pic.twitter.com/AKMqGw6x42 — ███ Politics ( @ ABCPolitics ) July 12 , 2019 Acosta said he did n't think it was fair to have Epstein as the focus rather than `` the incredible economy . '' `` I do not think it is right and fair for this administration 's Labor Department to have Epstein as the focus , rather than the incredible economy . '' https : //t.co/hOt6yqGhj6 pic.twitter.com/9mG54Acc0F — ███ Politics ( @ ABCPolitics ) July 12 , 2019 Trump repeated what he had said earlier this week about the financier he had called a `` terrific guy '' in a 2002 interview . `` I 'm not a fan of Jeffrey Epstein , '' Trump told reporters . When asked by ███ ' Kyra Philips whether he knew Epstein was molesting young girls , Trump said no . Just Wednesday , at a news conference he held to explain his role in the plea deal , Acosta had said he had an excellent relationship with Trump . After the news conference , which Trump had directed Acosta to hold , the first reviews were lukewarm , according to senior level administration sources . One source close to the president said Trump ’ s initial reaction was surprised that Acosta did not say more about Epstein ’ s victims , however multiple sources insist the president did not want Acosta to leave his position . Over the last few days , the president and Acosta had spoken routinely , sources said , and on Thursday the president and Acosta spoke and Acosta offered up the idea he resign because he felt the media coverage and calls for his resignation were causing a distraction . Friday morning , Acosta called Trump and told him it was time to go and the president did not push back and accepted his resignation , according to sources . Acosta then headed to the White House . It is unclear what if anything changed the circumstances overnight . President Trump ’ s senior staff had no idea any of this was happening until Trump and Acosta walked out of a meeting , Trump informed his team he accepted Acosta ’ s resignation and the two men walked out to cameras gathered on the South Lawn ahead of Trump ’ s departure . In that Wednesday news conference , Acosta defended his the deal with Epstein in a 2008 case in Florida that allowed him to serve a lesser sentence on state charges of prostitution . `` The goal here was straightforward , '' Acosta said . `` Put Epstein behind bars , ensure he registered as a sexual offender , provide victims with a means to seek restitution , and protect the public by putting them on notice that a sexual predator was within their midst . '' When asked by ███ ' Tom Llamas whether Epstein 's victims deserved an apology , Acosta responded by noting decisions the prosecutor in the case made to try to help victims secure financial restitution . He did not offer an apology . `` When it was finally clear that Epstein would comply with the agreement , she talks about how she made efforts to notify the victims , '' Acosta said . Acosta has faced growing calls from top Democrats that he resign over his role in the controversial plea deal in Florida involving Epstein , arrested over the weekend on federal charges of sex trafficking and conspiracy in New York . During his time heading the U.S. Attorney 's Office in Miami , Acosta negotiated a plea deal that allowed Epstein to serve a 13-month sentence on state prostitution charges , avoiding more serious federal sex trafficking charges calling for a much longer prison term . While serving out his sentence in a private wing of the Palm Beach County Jail , Epstein was allowed out for work release 12 hours a day , six days a week . The deal , now under review by the Justice Department ’ s Office of Professional Responsibility , also gave Epstein and any alleged co-conspirators immunity from further federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida . Acosta was asked Wednesday whether he would resign if the Office of Professional Responsibility found misconduct related to the case . Acosta said he would `` clearly submit for an interview '' but said he would refer to the office for further information the status of the review . During the press conference , Acosta said that Epstein served more time than he would have under charges initially brought by the state as a result of his intervention in the state case . A state grand jury brought a single charge against Epstein that would have resulted in no jail time . `` Simply put , the Palm Beach State Attorney 's Office was ready to let Epstein walk free , no jail time , nothing , '' Acosta said . `` Prosecutors in my former office found this to be completely unacceptable , and they became involved . '' But in a statement released Wednesday evening , former Palm Beach State Attorney Barry Krischer refuted Acosta 's account . Krischer wrote that after the state grand jury returned a single count against Epstein , Acosta 's office produced an indictment that was abandoned after `` secret negations '' between Epstein 's lawyers and Acosta , that the State Attorney 's Office was not a part of . Acosta , who said his resignation would be effective July 19 , was the only Hispanic member of Trump 's Cabinet and speaks Spanish fluently . He is the son of Cuban refugees , a native of Miami , and first-generation college graduate , according to his biography on the Department of Labor 's website . `` My parents left Cuba as refugees in search of freedom to make a better life in the greatest country in the world , the United States of America , '' he said in his resignation letter to Trump . `` They worked hard and wanted the best opportunities for their son and grandchildren , In one generation , their dreams were more than surpassed when you offered me the honor of a lifetime to serve as a member of your Cabinet , as Secretary of Labor , '' he said in the letter . '' He said Friday that he had n't met Trump before the president offered him the post after Trump 's previous nominee , Andrew Puzder , was forced to withdraw . Acosta received his undergraduate degree from Harvard University and his law degree from Harvard Law School . He later clerked for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito when Alito was an appeals court judge . He has practiced law at Kirkland & Ellis , served as a Republican member of the National Labor Relations Board , and has been dean of the Florida International University School of Law . In 2003 , he was appointed Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice , and from 2005 to 2009 he served as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida , according to the website , and was twice named as named one of the nation ’ s 50 most influential Hispanics by Hispanic Business magazine , the website biography reads .

Labor Secretary Alex Acosta has resigned amid controversy over his role in a 2008 plea deal with accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Interested in Jeffrey Epstein Case? Add Jeffrey Epstein Case as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Jeffrey Epstein Case news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest The resignation comes as ABC News has learned that nearly a dozen new alleged Epstein victims have come forward. Attorneys representing other alleged victims in the Epstein case say they’ve been contacted by the women, ABC News' Tom Llamas reported. On Monday, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Geoffrey Berman, who is overseeing the case against Epstein for alleged crimes in New York, made a public plea for any additional victims to contact his office. President Donald Trump said Friday that it was Acosta's decision to resign and not his as he spoke to reporters as he left the White House for a trip to Wisconsin. Acosta was standing next to Trump as the president called him "a great labor secretary, not a good one." Andrew Harnik/AP Trump said it was very sad to see him go but said Acosta told him he didn't want to distract form the strong economy and the work the administration is doing. "He doesn't have to do this," Pres. Trump says as Labor Sec. Alex Acosta announces his resignation. "He's doing this not for himself, he's doing this for the administration." https://t.co/POm74sP319 pic.twitter.com/AKMqGw6x42 — ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) July 12, 2019 Acosta said he didn't think it was fair to have Epstein as the focus rather than "the incredible economy." WATCH: Labor Sec. Alex Acosta announces his resignation amid scrutiny over his role in Epstein plea deal. "I do not think it is right and fair for this administration's Labor Department to have Epstein as the focus, rather than the incredible economy." https://t.co/hOt6yqGhj6 pic.twitter.com/9mG54Acc0F — ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) July 12, 2019 Trump repeated what he had said earlier this week about the financier he had called a "terrific guy" in a 2002 interview. "I'm not a fan of Jeffrey Epstein," Trump told reporters. When asked by ABC News' Kyra Philips whether he knew Epstein was molesting young girls, Trump said no. Just Wednesday, at a news conference he held to explain his role in the plea deal, Acosta had said he had an excellent relationship with Trump. After the news conference, which Trump had directed Acosta to hold, the first reviews were lukewarm, according to senior level administration sources. One source close to the president said Trump’s initial reaction was surprised that Acosta did not say more about Epstein’s victims, however multiple sources insist the president did not want Acosta to leave his position. Over the last few days, the president and Acosta had spoken routinely, sources said, and on Thursday the president and Acosta spoke and Acosta offered up the idea he resign because he felt the media coverage and calls for his resignation were causing a distraction. Friday morning, Acosta called Trump and told him it was time to go and the president did not push back and accepted his resignation, according to sources. Acosta then headed to the White House. It is unclear what if anything changed the circumstances overnight. President Trump’s senior staff had no idea any of this was happening until Trump and Acosta walked out of a meeting, Trump informed his team he accepted Acosta’s resignation and the two men walked out to cameras gathered on the South Lawn ahead of Trump’s departure. Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images In that Wednesday news conference, Acosta defended his the deal with Epstein in a 2008 case in Florida that allowed him to serve a lesser sentence on state charges of prostitution. "The goal here was straightforward," Acosta said. "Put Epstein behind bars, ensure he registered as a sexual offender, provide victims with a means to seek restitution, and protect the public by putting them on notice that a sexual predator was within their midst." Acosta added, "We believe we proceeded appropriately." When asked by ABC News' Tom Llamas whether Epstein's victims deserved an apology, Acosta responded by noting decisions the prosecutor in the case made to try to help victims secure financial restitution. He did not offer an apology. Alex Brandon/AP "When it was finally clear that Epstein would comply with the agreement, she talks about how she made efforts to notify the victims," Acosta said. Acosta has faced growing calls from top Democrats that he resign over his role in the controversial plea deal in Florida involving Epstein, arrested over the weekend on federal charges of sex trafficking and conspiracy in New York. During his time heading the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, Acosta negotiated a plea deal that allowed Epstein to serve a 13-month sentence on state prostitution charges, avoiding more serious federal sex trafficking charges calling for a much longer prison term. While serving out his sentence in a private wing of the Palm Beach County Jail, Epstein was allowed out for work release 12 hours a day, six days a week. The deal, now under review by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, also gave Epstein and any alleged co-conspirators immunity from further federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida. Florida Department of Law Enforcement via Getty Images, file Acosta was asked Wednesday whether he would resign if the Office of Professional Responsibility found misconduct related to the case. Acosta said he would "clearly submit for an interview" but said he would refer to the office for further information the status of the review. During the press conference, Acosta said that Epstein served more time than he would have under charges initially brought by the state as a result of his intervention in the state case. A state grand jury brought a single charge against Epstein that would have resulted in no jail time. "Simply put, the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office was ready to let Epstein walk free, no jail time, nothing," Acosta said. "Prosecutors in my former office found this to be completely unacceptable, and they became involved." But in a statement released Wednesday evening, former Palm Beach State Attorney Barry Krischer refuted Acosta's account. Krischer wrote that after the state grand jury returned a single count against Epstein, Acosta's office produced an indictment that was abandoned after "secret negations" between Epstein's lawyers and Acosta, that the State Attorney's Office was not a part of. Acosta, who said his resignation would be effective July 19, was the only Hispanic member of Trump's Cabinet and speaks Spanish fluently. He is the son of Cuban refugees, a native of Miami, and first-generation college graduate, according to his biography on the Department of Labor's website. "My parents left Cuba as refugees in search of freedom to make a better life in the greatest country in the world, the United States of America," he said in his resignation letter to Trump. "They worked hard and wanted the best opportunities for their son and grandchildren, In one generation, their dreams were more than surpassed when you offered me the honor of a lifetime to serve as a member of your Cabinet, as Secretary of Labor," he said in the letter." He said Friday that he hadn't met Trump before the president offered him the post after Trump's previous nominee, Andrew Puzder, was forced to withdraw. Acosta received his undergraduate degree from Harvard University and his law degree from Harvard Law School. He later clerked for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito when Alito was an appeals court judge. He has practiced law at Kirkland & Ellis, served as a Republican member of the National Labor Relations Board, and has been dean of the Florida International University School of Law. In 2003, he was appointed Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, and from 2005 to 2009 he served as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, according to the website, and was twice named as named one of the nation’s 50 most influential Hispanics by Hispanic Business magazine, the website biography reads. ABC News' John Santucci, Aaron Katersky, James Hill and Kaitlyn Folmer contributed to this report.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

bjDAYlKMHSjU7BFO

test

v1y3NQktTaDFDKaN

fbi

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/03/fbi-james-comey-hillary-clinton-emails

FBI's James Comey: concealing Clinton emails would have been 'catastrophic'

2017-05-03

Julian Borger, Ross Barkan

FBI director James Comey on Wednesday described Russia as “ the greatest threat ” to US democracy , but defended his decision to keep secret an investigation into the Trump campaign ’ s links to Moscow despite revealing details of an inquiry into Hillary Clinton ’ s handling of classified emails . Hillary Clinton : I 'm to blame for election loss but outside interference cost me Read more Giving evidence to a hearing of the Senate judiciary committee , Comey offered his most extensive explanation to date of the thinking behind his different approaches to the two investigations . Clinton claimed on Tuesday that Comey ’ s 28 October letter to leading members of Congress about new emails that had been found damaged voter perceptions of her and cost her the election . “ If the election had been on 27 October , I would be your president , ” the former Democratic presidential candidate said . The discovery of the emails ultimately made no difference to the FBI decision not to press charges over the use of the private server . Asked about Clinton ’ s claim that his letter could have swung the vote , Comey said : “ This was terrible . It makes me mildly nauseous to think we might have had some impact on the election . But honestly , I wouldn ’ t change the decision . ” The FBI director said that the discovery in October of a new batch classified emails put him in a near impossible dilemma . He said he had to make a choice between “ speak or conceal ” : to speak would have been “ really bad ” , he said ; to conceal would have been “ catastrophic ” . So he chose to speak out . “ One of my junior lawyers asked me : should you consider what you do might help elect Trump as president ? I said : not for a moment , ” Comey said , arguing that political considerations should never be a factor in such decisions . Trump responded to Clinton ’ s comments on Tuesday with a tweet claiming : “ FBI Director Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds ! ” – an apparent reference to the bureau ’ s finding that there was nothing to prosecute in the emails case . Asked about the criticism on Wednesday , the White House spokesman , Sean Spicer , told journalists : “ The president has confidence in the director . ” He was asked repeatedly about the contrast between his decision to break silence on the Clinton email case while concealing the existence of a counter-intelligence investigation into the Trump campaign ’ s contacts with Russian officials during the election . Comey said that when he first spoke about the Clinton case , in July 2016 , he did so because the investigation had been closed , no charges had been made , and he felt that if the Department of Justice in the Obama administration made the announcement it would lose credibility . The discovery of more emails in October might have changed that decision and represented an important development , he added . The Trump-Russia counter-intelligence investigation , he argued , was highly classified and was in its “ very early stages ” by the time of the election . UK was given details of alleged contacts between Trump campaign and Moscow Read more He confirmed that the inquiry was continuing , and agreed when asked whether it was “ fair to say that Russia is still involved in American politics ” . He went further , describing Russia as “ the greatest threat of any nation on earth , given their intention and their capability ” to US democracy . Asked about Comey ’ s claim that the Russian government is still involved in US politics , Spicer replied : “ I think that ’ s the view of the FBI . We rely on them and the rest of the intelligence community to provide the president with updates on what they ’ re learning . ” At his hearing , Comey was peppered with questions about leaks about FBI investigations , and repeatedly stated he could neither confirm or deny . He made one exception , however . Asked about contacts between FBI staff and Rudy Giuliani , a former New York mayor and current Trump aide , he said : “ I don ’ t know yet , but it ’ s a matter I ’ m very , very interested in . ” Comey described in detail the process of discovering Clinton ’ s emails on the laptop of Anthony Weiner , the estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin . He said that “ somehow ” Clinton ’ s emails “ were being forwarded to Anthony Weiner , including classified information , by her assistant Huma Abedin ” . Weiner was being investigated over an alleged online relationship with a teenage girl . Republican Chuck Grassley , the chairman of the committee , said that the public ’ s faith in the bureau had been tested lately . Grassley is pressing for answers about the FBI ’ s investigation into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia . Comey disclosed the existence of that investigation when he testified at a congressional hearing in March . Comey also mounted a strong defence of section 702 of the Fisa Amendments Act of 2008 , which allows the NSA to use the Prism program to collect internet communications . And he claimed that half the FBI ’ s work was now affected by encryption on users ’ phones or other devices .

FBI director James Comey on Wednesday described Russia as “the greatest threat” to US democracy, but defended his decision to keep secret an investigation into the Trump campaign’s links to Moscow despite revealing details of an inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified emails. Hillary Clinton: I'm to blame for election loss but outside interference cost me Read more Giving evidence to a hearing of the Senate judiciary committee, Comey offered his most extensive explanation to date of the thinking behind his different approaches to the two investigations. Clinton claimed on Tuesday that Comey’s 28 October letter to leading members of Congress about new emails that had been found damaged voter perceptions of her and cost her the election. “If the election had been on 27 October, I would be your president,” the former Democratic presidential candidate said. The discovery of the emails ultimately made no difference to the FBI decision not to press charges over the use of the private server. Asked about Clinton’s claim that his letter could have swung the vote, Comey said: “This was terrible. It makes me mildly nauseous to think we might have had some impact on the election. But honestly, I wouldn’t change the decision.” The FBI director said that the discovery in October of a new batch classified emails put him in a near impossible dilemma. He said he had to make a choice between “speak or conceal”: to speak would have been “really bad”, he said; to conceal would have been “catastrophic”. So he chose to speak out. “One of my junior lawyers asked me: should you consider what you do might help elect Trump as president? I said: not for a moment,” Comey said, arguing that political considerations should never be a factor in such decisions. Trump responded to Clinton’s comments on Tuesday with a tweet claiming: “FBI Director Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds!” – an apparent reference to the bureau’s finding that there was nothing to prosecute in the emails case. Asked about the criticism on Wednesday, the White House spokesman, Sean Spicer, told journalists: “The president has confidence in the director.” He was asked repeatedly about the contrast between his decision to break silence on the Clinton email case while concealing the existence of a counter-intelligence investigation into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russian officials during the election. Comey said that when he first spoke about the Clinton case, in July 2016, he did so because the investigation had been closed, no charges had been made, and he felt that if the Department of Justice in the Obama administration made the announcement it would lose credibility. The discovery of more emails in October might have changed that decision and represented an important development, he added. The Trump-Russia counter-intelligence investigation, he argued, was highly classified and was in its “very early stages” by the time of the election. UK was given details of alleged contacts between Trump campaign and Moscow Read more He confirmed that the inquiry was continuing, and agreed when asked whether it was “fair to say that Russia is still involved in American politics”. He went further, describing Russia as “the greatest threat of any nation on earth, given their intention and their capability” to US democracy. Asked about Comey’s claim that the Russian government is still involved in US politics, Spicer replied: “I think that’s the view of the FBI. We rely on them and the rest of the intelligence community to provide the president with updates on what they’re learning.” At his hearing, Comey was peppered with questions about leaks about FBI investigations, and repeatedly stated he could neither confirm or deny. He made one exception, however. Asked about contacts between FBI staff and Rudy Giuliani, a former New York mayor and current Trump aide, he said: “I don’t know yet, but it’s a matter I’m very, very interested in.” Comey described in detail the process of discovering Clinton’s emails on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. He said that “somehow” Clinton’s emails “were being forwarded to Anthony Weiner, including classified information, by her assistant Huma Abedin”. Weiner was being investigated over an alleged online relationship with a teenage girl. Republican Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the committee, said that the public’s faith in the bureau had been tested lately. Grassley is pressing for answers about the FBI’s investigation into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. Comey disclosed the existence of that investigation when he testified at a congressional hearing in March. Comey also mounted a strong defence of section 702 of the Fisa Amendments Act of 2008, which allows the NSA to use the Prism program to collect internet communications. And he claimed that half the FBI’s work was now affected by encryption on users’ phones or other devices.

www.theguardian.com

left

v1y3NQktTaDFDKaN

test

T1xGFrTCN7ZDThwg

national_defense

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2017/august/north-korea-threatens-to-strike-us-military-in-guam

North Korea Threatens to Strike US Military in Guam, Trump Vows 'Fire and Fury'

2017-08-09

North Korea 's military is `` examining the operational plan '' to strike areas around the U.S. territory of Guam with medium-to-long-range strategic ballistic missiles , state-run news said early Wednesday morning . Specifically , the statement mentioned a potential strike on Andersen Air Force Base designed `` to send a serious warning signal to the U.S. '' The base is one of two on the Pacific island , which are the closest bases on U.S. soil to North Korea and represent the westernmost tip of the country 's military might . North Korea 's comments were published after U.S. President Donald Trump warned Pyongyang that if it continued to threaten the U.S. , it would `` face fire and fury like the world has never seen . '' The governor of Guam issued an urgent video message overnight attempting to reassure constituents . `` I am working with Homeland Security , the rear admiral , and the United States to ensure our safety , '' Gov . Eddie Bazo Calvo said . Some nuclear experts doubt the North is actually capable of striking Guam . Still , world leaders are reacting swiftly , with the Japanese and South Korean governments standing with the United States , saying all options remain on the table . The escalating tensions were made all the more alarming amid new revelations about North Korea 's nuclear capability . ███ News confirmed with U.S. intelligence sources that North Korea can now produce a miniaturized nuclear warhead , one that can fit onto an intercontinental ballistic missile . Harry Kazianis heads up the Defense Studies at The Center for National Interest . He said North Korea had been preparing for this moment for years . `` It 's military might be old , but they have 1.1 million troops , 7.7 million in reserve , chemical weapons , biological weapons , '' Kazianis said . `` They have 10,000 artillery troops pointed at Seoul . The damage they could do would be catastrophic . '' The news comes days after North Korea test fired a long-range ballistic missile capable of hitting the U.S. mainland . U.S. intelligence now believes Kim Jong Un could have as many as 60 nuclear weapons . Many argue the U.S. should have done something to stop the North Korean nuclear program years ago .

North Korea's military is "examining the operational plan" to strike areas around the U.S. territory of Guam with medium-to-long-range strategic ballistic missiles, state-run news said early Wednesday morning. Specifically, the statement mentioned a potential strike on Andersen Air Force Base designed "to send a serious warning signal to the U.S." The base is one of two on the Pacific island, which are the closest bases on U.S. soil to North Korea and represent the westernmost tip of the country's military might. North Korea's comments were published after U.S. President Donald Trump warned Pyongyang that if it continued to threaten the U.S., it would "face fire and fury like the world has never seen." The governor of Guam issued an urgent video message overnight attempting to reassure constituents. "I am working with Homeland Security, the rear admiral, and the United States to ensure our safety," Gov. Eddie Bazo Calvo said. Some nuclear experts doubt the North is actually capable of striking Guam. Still, world leaders are reacting swiftly, with the Japanese and South Korean governments standing with the United States, saying all options remain on the table. The escalating tensions were made all the more alarming amid new revelations about North Korea's nuclear capability. CBN News confirmed with U.S. intelligence sources that North Korea can now produce a miniaturized nuclear warhead, one that can fit onto an intercontinental ballistic missile. Harry Kazianis heads up the Defense Studies at The Center for National Interest. He said North Korea had been preparing for this moment for years. "It's military might be old, but they have 1.1 million troops, 7.7 million in reserve, chemical weapons, biological weapons," Kazianis said. "They have 10,000 artillery troops pointed at Seoul. The damage they could do would be catastrophic." The news comes days after North Korea test fired a long-range ballistic missile capable of hitting the U.S. mainland. U.S. intelligence now believes Kim Jong Un could have as many as 60 nuclear weapons. Many argue the U.S. should have done something to stop the North Korean nuclear program years ago.

www1.cbn.com

right

T1xGFrTCN7ZDThwg

test

t1vAjkreZXvArdIL

supreme_court

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/f2f4546cda4c5e1a00e2f8194e4f3637

Supreme Court: Justices healthy and trying to stay that way

2020-03-20

Mark Sherman

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledges the crowd as she arrives to speak at a discussion on the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington , Monday , Feb. 10 , 2020 . ( AP Photo/Patrick Semansky ) U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledges the crowd as she arrives to speak at a discussion on the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington , Monday , Feb. 10 , 2020 . ( AP Photo/Patrick Semansky ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The Supreme Court reported Friday that the nine justices are healthy and trying to stay that way . To that end , when the court held its regularly scheduled private conference Friday morning , some of the justices participated remotely , and those who were in the building did not engage in the tradition of shaking hands , court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said . The court plans to issue opinions Monday in cases argued during the fall and winter without taking the bench , Arberg said . The last time that happened was when the court decided Bush v. Gore late in the evening of Dec. 12 , 2000 , essentially settling the disputed 2000 presidential election in favor of Republican George W. Bush . Arberg wouldn ’ t say who showed up in person Friday to the justices ’ conference room , adjacent to Chief Justice John Roberts ’ office . Six of the nine justices are 65 and older , at higher risk of getting very sick from the illness , according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg , who turned 87 on Sunday , and Stephen Breyer , 81 , are the oldest members of the court . Justice Brett Kavanaugh , 54 , flew on a commercial flight last week between Washington , D.C. , and Louisville , Kentucky , for a ceremony in honor of U.S. District Judge Justin Walker , a former law clerk whom President Donald Trump named to the federal bench last year . The court had previously postponed arguments that had been scheduled for the next two weeks , including a big fight over subpoenas for Trump ’ s financial records , and closed the Supreme Court to the public . The building remains open for official business , and the court has not announced any additional postponements .

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledges the crowd as she arrives to speak at a discussion on the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, Monday, Feb. 10, 2020. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledges the crowd as she arrives to speak at a discussion on the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, Monday, Feb. 10, 2020. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court reported Friday that the nine justices are healthy and trying to stay that way. To that end, when the court held its regularly scheduled private conference Friday morning, some of the justices participated remotely, and those who were in the building did not engage in the tradition of shaking hands, court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said. The court plans to issue opinions Monday in cases argued during the fall and winter without taking the bench, Arberg said. The last time that happened was when the court decided Bush v. Gore late in the evening of Dec. 12, 2000, essentially settling the disputed 2000 presidential election in favor of Republican George W. Bush. Arberg wouldn’t say who showed up in person Friday to the justices’ conference room, adjacent to Chief Justice John Roberts’ office. Six of the nine justices are 65 and older, at higher risk of getting very sick from the illness, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who turned 87 on Sunday, and Stephen Breyer, 81, are the oldest members of the court. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, 54, flew on a commercial flight last week between Washington, D.C., and Louisville, Kentucky, for a ceremony in honor of U.S. District Judge Justin Walker, a former law clerk whom President Donald Trump named to the federal bench last year. The court had previously postponed arguments that had been scheduled for the next two weeks, including a big fight over subpoenas for Trump’s financial records, and closed the Supreme Court to the public. The building remains open for official business, and the court has not announced any additional postponements.

www.apnews.com

center

t1vAjkreZXvArdIL

test

AGLAEBNtZya4cEhV

race_and_racism

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/07/01/want-to-reform-the-criminal-justice-system-end-the-drug-war/

Want to Reform the Criminal Justice System? End the Drug War.

2020-07-01

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

Courts are so jammed that innocent people plead guilty to avoid waiting years for a trial . Lawyers help rich people get special treatment . A jail stay is just as likely to teach you crime as it is to help you get a new start . Overcrowded prisons cost a fortune and increase suffering for both prisoners and guards . There 's one simple solution to most of these problems : End the war on drugs . Our government has spent trillions of dollars trying to stop drug use . It has n't worked . More people now use more drugs than before the `` war '' began . What drug prohibition did do is exactly what alcohol prohibition did a hundred years ago : increase conflict between police and citizens . `` It pitted police against the communities that they serve , '' says neuroscientist Carl Hart in my new video . Hart , former chair of Columbia University 's Psychology department , grew up in a tough Miami neighborhood where he watched crack cocaine wreck lives . When he started researching drugs , he assumed that research would confirm the damage drugs did . But `` one problem kept cropping up , '' he says in his soon-to-be-released book , Drug Use For Grown-Ups : Chasing Liberty in the Land of Fear , `` the evidence did not support the hypothesis . No one else 's evidence did either . '' After 20 years of research , he concluded , `` I was wrong . '' Now , he says , our drug laws do more harm than drugs . Because drug sales are illegal , profits from selling drugs are huge . Since sellers ca n't rely on law enforcement to protect their property , they buy guns and form gangs . Cigarettes harm people , too , but there are no violent cigarette gangs—no cigarette shootings—even though nicotine is more addictive than heroin , says our government . That 's because tobacco is legal . Likewise , there are no longer violent liquor gangs . They vanished when prohibition ended . But what about the opioid epidemic ? Lots of Americans die from overdoses ! Hart blames the drug war for that , too . Yes , opioids are legal , but their sale is tightly restricted . `` If drugs were over the counter , there would be fewer deaths ? '' I asked . `` Of course , '' he responds . `` People die from opioids because they get tainted opioids….That would go away if we did n't have this war on drugs . Imagine if the only subject of any conversation about driving automobiles was fatal car crashes….So it is with the opioid epidemic . '' Drugs do harm many people , but in real life , replies Hart , `` I know tons of people who do drugs ; they are public officials , captains of industry , and they 're doing well . Drugs , including nicotine and heroin , make people feel better . That 's why they are used . '' President Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex . America 's drug war funds a prison-industrial complex . Hart says his years inside the well-funded research side of that complex showed him that any research not in support of the `` tough-on-drugs '' ideology is routinely dismissed to `` keep outrage stoked '' and funds coming in . America locks up more than 2 million Americans . That 's a higher percentage of our citizens , disproportionately black citizens , than any other country in the world . `` In every country with a more permissive drug regime , all outcomes are better , '' says Hart . Countries like Switzerland and Portugal , where drugs are decriminalized , `` do n't have these problems that we have with drug overdoses . '' In 2001 , Portugal decriminalized all drug use . Instead of punishing drug users , they offer medical help . Deaths from overdoses dropped sharply . In 2017 , Portugal had only 4 deaths per million people . The United States had 217 per million . `` In a society , you will have people who misbehave , says Hart . `` But that does n't mean you should punish all of us because someone ca n't handle this activity . ''

Protesters say America's criminal justice system is unfair. It is. Courts are so jammed that innocent people plead guilty to avoid waiting years for a trial. Lawyers help rich people get special treatment. A jail stay is just as likely to teach you crime as it is to help you get a new start. Overcrowded prisons cost a fortune and increase suffering for both prisoners and guards. There's one simple solution to most of these problems: End the war on drugs. Our government has spent trillions of dollars trying to stop drug use. It hasn't worked. More people now use more drugs than before the "war" began. What drug prohibition did do is exactly what alcohol prohibition did a hundred years ago: increase conflict between police and citizens. "It pitted police against the communities that they serve," says neuroscientist Carl Hart in my new video. Hart, former chair of Columbia University's Psychology department, grew up in a tough Miami neighborhood where he watched crack cocaine wreck lives. When he started researching drugs, he assumed that research would confirm the damage drugs did. But "one problem kept cropping up," he says in his soon-to-be-released book, Drug Use For Grown-Ups: Chasing Liberty in the Land of Fear, "the evidence did not support the hypothesis. No one else's evidence did either." After 20 years of research, he concluded, "I was wrong." Now, he says, our drug laws do more harm than drugs. Because drug sales are illegal, profits from selling drugs are huge. Since sellers can't rely on law enforcement to protect their property, they buy guns and form gangs. Cigarettes harm people, too, but there are no violent cigarette gangs—no cigarette shootings—even though nicotine is more addictive than heroin, says our government. That's because tobacco is legal. Likewise, there are no longer violent liquor gangs. They vanished when prohibition ended. But what about the opioid epidemic? Lots of Americans die from overdoses! Hart blames the drug war for that, too. Yes, opioids are legal, but their sale is tightly restricted. "If drugs were over the counter, there would be fewer deaths?" I asked. "Of course," he responds. "People die from opioids because they get tainted opioids….That would go away if we didn't have this war on drugs. Imagine if the only subject of any conversation about driving automobiles was fatal car crashes….So it is with the opioid epidemic." Drugs do harm many people, but in real life, replies Hart, "I know tons of people who do drugs; they are public officials, captains of industry, and they're doing well. Drugs, including nicotine and heroin, make people feel better. That's why they are used." President Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex. America's drug war funds a prison-industrial complex. Hart says his years inside the well-funded research side of that complex showed him that any research not in support of the "tough-on-drugs" ideology is routinely dismissed to "keep outrage stoked" and funds coming in. America locks up more than 2 million Americans. That's a higher percentage of our citizens, disproportionately black citizens, than any other country in the world. "In every country with a more permissive drug regime, all outcomes are better," says Hart. Countries like Switzerland and Portugal, where drugs are decriminalized, "don't have these problems that we have with drug overdoses." In 2001, Portugal decriminalized all drug use. Instead of punishing drug users, they offer medical help. Deaths from overdoses dropped sharply. In 2017, Portugal had only 4 deaths per million people. The United States had 217 per million. "In a society, you will have people who misbehave, says Hart. "But that doesn't mean you should punish all of us because someone can't handle this activity." He's right. It's time to end the drug war. COPYRIGHT 2020 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

www.reason.com

right

AGLAEBNtZya4cEhV

test

WwtP2i54culgFlUx

cybersecurity

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/07/16/russia-coronavirus-vaccine-us-britain-canada/

REPORT: Russian Group That Hacked DNC Attempted To Steal COVID-19 Research From US, Allies

2020-07-16

A Russian government-backed hacking group reportedly attempted to steal research on coronavirus vaccines from the United States and its closest allies , according to a joint report from the U.S. , Britain , and Canada released Thursday . The report , published primarily through Britain ’ s National Cyber Security Center ( NCSC ) , alleges the group APT29 or ‘ Cozy Bear ’ was responsible for attempting to break into academic and pharmaceutical institutions for information on COVID-19 vaccines and treatments , according to Reuters . ‘ Cozy Bear ’ is reportedly the same hacking group widely accused of breaching the Democratic Party ahead of the 2016 presidential election . Russia is the second country the U.S. has accused of attempting to steal coronavirus research , having named China earlier this spring . “ While others pursue their selfish interests with reckless behavior , the U.K. and its allies are getting on with the hard work of finding a vaccine and protecting global health , ” British Foreign Minister Dominic Raab said in a statement . The U.S. has been wary of international adversaries stealing coronavirus research since May , when it accused Chinese state-backed hackers of attempting to steal information . ( RELATED : Republican Senators Want To Rename Chinese Embassy Street After Chinese COVID-19 Whistleblower ) “ The FBI is investigating the targeting and compromise of U.S. organizations conducting COVID-19-related research by PRC-affiliated cyber actors and non-traditional collectors , ” the FBI announced at the time . “ These actors have been observed attempting to identify and illicitly obtain valuable intellectual property ( IP ) and public health data related to vaccines , treatments , and testing from networks and personnel affiliated with COVID-19-related research . The potential theft of this information jeopardizes the delivery of secure , effective , and efficient treatment options . ” U.S. politicians have been highly critical of China since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic as it started within its borders in Wuhan and there is great evidence suggesting the Chinese Communist Party actively worked to spread misinformation about the virus on the global stage . “ Chairman Xi is an arsonist who wants to steal a firetruck and play the hero , ” Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse said in a statement to ███ at the time . “ The Chinese Communist Party will do whatever it takes to beat the United States to the vaccine , and it has nothing to do with saving lives and everything to do with selling propaganda . The Chinese Communist Party ’ s domestic legitimacy and international clout depend on telling a phony story where China is the hero . It ’ s the same reason they ’ re lying about numbers , promoting conspiracy theories , and disappearing whistleblowers . ”

A Russian government-backed hacking group reportedly attempted to steal research on coronavirus vaccines from the United States and its closest allies, according to a joint report from the U.S., Britain, and Canada released Thursday. The report, published primarily through Britain’s National Cyber Security Center (NCSC), alleges the group APT29 or ‘Cozy Bear’ was responsible for attempting to break into academic and pharmaceutical institutions for information on COVID-19 vaccines and treatments, according to Reuters. ‘Cozy Bear’ is reportedly the same hacking group widely accused of breaching the Democratic Party ahead of the 2016 presidential election. Russia is the second country the U.S. has accused of attempting to steal coronavirus research, having named China earlier this spring. “While others pursue their selfish interests with reckless behavior, the U.K. and its allies are getting on with the hard work of finding a vaccine and protecting global health,” British Foreign Minister Dominic Raab said in a statement. The U.S. has been wary of international adversaries stealing coronavirus research since May, when it accused Chinese state-backed hackers of attempting to steal information. (RELATED: Republican Senators Want To Rename Chinese Embassy Street After Chinese COVID-19 Whistleblower) “The FBI is investigating the targeting and compromise of U.S. organizations conducting COVID-19-related research by PRC-affiliated cyber actors and non-traditional collectors,” the FBI announced at the time. “These actors have been observed attempting to identify and illicitly obtain valuable intellectual property (IP) and public health data related to vaccines, treatments, and testing from networks and personnel affiliated with COVID-19-related research. The potential theft of this information jeopardizes the delivery of secure, effective, and efficient treatment options.” U.S. politicians have been highly critical of China since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic as it started within its borders in Wuhan and there is great evidence suggesting the Chinese Communist Party actively worked to spread misinformation about the virus on the global stage. “Chairman Xi is an arsonist who wants to steal a firetruck and play the hero,” Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse said in a statement to the Daily Caller at the time. “The Chinese Communist Party will do whatever it takes to beat the United States to the vaccine, and it has nothing to do with saving lives and everything to do with selling propaganda. The Chinese Communist Party’s domestic legitimacy and international clout depend on telling a phony story where China is the hero. It’s the same reason they’re lying about numbers, promoting conspiracy theories, and disappearing whistleblowers.”

www.dailycaller.com

right

WwtP2i54culgFlUx

test

RkZs8FOCatcFOXz7

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/12/trump-sexual-misconduct-women-democrats

Trump blames Democrats for 'fabricated stories' of sexual misconduct

2017-12-12

Sabrina Siddiqui, Amanda Holpuch

Donald Trump claimed on Tuesday that the harassment accusations against him were a Democratic conspiracy as he lashed out at a prominent female senator with what she quickly dubbed a “ sexist smear ” . The sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump – the full list Read more “ Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand , a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office ‘ begging ’ for campaign contributions not so long ago ( and would do anything for them ) , is now in the ring fighting against Trump , ” the president tweeted . Gillibrand – who along with three male Democratic senators has called on Trump to resign over the numerous sexual misconduct accusations against him – responded on Twitter minutes later . “ You can not silence me or the millions of women who have gotten off the sidelines to speak out about the unfitness and shame you have brought to the Oval Office , ” the New York senator wrote . Hours later , Gillibrand told reporters on Capitol Hill that Trump ’ s post was “ a sexist smear attempting to silence my voice . It ’ s part of the president ’ s effort at name-calling . ” She added : “ I will not be silenced on this issue . Neither will the women who stood up to the president yesterday , and neither will the millions of women who have been marching since the women ’ s march [ in January ] to stand up against policies they do not agree with . ” Trump singled out Gillibrand while ignoring the male senators who have also called on him to step down : the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders , the New Jersey senator Cory Booker and the Oregon senator Jeff Merkley . The White House press secretary , Sarah Sanders , denied there were any sexual implications behind Trump ’ s tweet , telling reporters : “ Only if your mind is in the gutter would you have read it that way . “ This is the same sentiment the president has expressed many times before when he has exposed corruption of the entire political system , ” Sanders said . “ This isn ’ t a new sentiment . This isn ’ t new terminology . “ He ’ s not alleging anything , ” she added . “ There ’ s no way that this is sexist at all . ” But the tweet drew swift condemnation from Democrats for its provocative innuendo , particularly against the backdrop of a national dialogue around sexual harassment against women . Elizabeth Warren , a Democratic senator from Massachusetts , accused Trump of trying to “ slut-shame ” Gillibrand . “ Are you really trying to bully , intimidate and slut-shame @ SenGillibrand ? ” Warren wrote on Twitter . “ Do you know who you ’ re picking a fight with ? Good luck with that , @ realDonaldTrump . ” Play Video 1:56 Women who accuse Trump of sexual misconduct call for Congress investigation – video Warren later characterized Trump ’ s tweet as “ disgusting ” , telling reporters on Capitol Hill : “ It was clear what he was getting at . He is disgusting . ” House minority leader Nancy Pelosi also condemned Trump ’ s attack , saying it was “ disgusting and disgraceful , and of course obviously not true ” . Trump ’ s comments came a day after three women who previously accused Trump of sexual harassment shared their stories in an interview on NBC and at a press conference in New York . While the White House has expressed a desire not to relitigate the accusations , the president ’ s outburst placed the conversation squarely back on his treatment of women . The women who retold their stories on Monday – Jessica Leeds , Samantha Holvey and Rachel Crooks – urged Congress to investigate Trump ’ s behavior . A fourth accuser , Melinda McGillivray , appeared on NBC Tuesday morning to speak about her own sexual misconduct allegation against Trump . McGillivray , who like the other women had initially shared her story during the 2016 campaign , accused Trump of groping her in 2003 at his Mar-a-Lago hotel in West Palm Beach , Florida . McGillivray said she was 23 at the time and photographing a concert at Trump ’ s property . “ The next thing I know , I feel a grab on my right side … to my surprise , it ’ s Donald , ” McGillivray said on Megyn Kelly Today . “ He ’ s standing a foot and a half away from me , so he had to reach out and touch me . I stand there and I ’ m stunned . I don ’ t even know what to do with myself in that moment . ” Donald Trump 's accusers demand Congress investigate sexual misconduct claims Read more At least 16 women have accused Trump of sexual assault . In many cases , the behavior they describe mirrors what Trump himself bragged about doing in a 2005 Access Hollywood tape leaked months before the November election . In the tape , Trump boasted of kissing and groping women without their consent . Trump dismissed the claims in a tweet on Tuesday morning , suggesting – without evidence – that they were part by of a coordinated effort by Democrats to undermine his presidency . But while Trump claimed not to know the women alleging misconduct , there was some photographic evidence to the contrary . Footage from the Apprentice shows Trump sitting across the table from Summer Zervos , a former contestant who said he groped her . Natasha Stoynoff , a former correspondent for People Magazine , was photographed with Trump at Mar-a-Lago on the same day she alleges he forcibly kissed her . Another photograph shows Trump and Jill Harth , who opened up to ███ last year about filing a lawsuit against him for “ attempted rape ” in 1997 . With the issue of sexual misconduct under a national spotlight , nearly 60 female lawmakers have formally requested a congressional investigation into Trump . In a letter , 56 female Democrats wrote to the House committee on oversight and government reform requesting an investigation . “ We can not ignore the multitude of women who have come forward with accusations against Mr Trump , ” the Democratic Women ’ s Working Group wrote . At a press conference Tuesday , the lawmakers lamented that while other powerful men from entertainment , media and politics had been held accountable for allegations of sexual misconduct , the complaints of Trump ’ s accusers had “ fallen on deaf ears ” . “ The # MeToo movement has arrived and sexual abuse will not be tolerated , whether it ’ s by a Hollywood producer , the chef of a restaurant , a member of Congress or the president of the United States , ” said Lois Frankel , a representative from Florida who is the head of the working group . Gillibrand ’ s office said she met with Trump once in 2010 and that his daughter , Ivanka , was also present for the meeting . According to federal records , Trump donated $ 7,950 to Gillibrand ’ s House and Senate campaigns between 2007 and 2010 . Ivanka Trump separately donated $ 2,000 to Gillibrand in 2014 .

This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Donald Trump claimed on Tuesday that the harassment accusations against him were a Democratic conspiracy as he lashed out at a prominent female senator with what she quickly dubbed a “sexist smear”. The sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump – the full list Read more “Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office ‘begging’ for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump,” the president tweeted. Gillibrand – who along with three male Democratic senators has called on Trump to resign over the numerous sexual misconduct accusations against him – responded on Twitter minutes later. “You cannot silence me or the millions of women who have gotten off the sidelines to speak out about the unfitness and shame you have brought to the Oval Office,” the New York senator wrote. Hours later, Gillibrand told reporters on Capitol Hill that Trump’s post was “a sexist smear attempting to silence my voice. It’s part of the president’s effort at name-calling.” She added: “I will not be silenced on this issue. Neither will the women who stood up to the president yesterday, and neither will the millions of women who have been marching since the women’s march [in January] to stand up against policies they do not agree with.” Trump singled out Gillibrand while ignoring the male senators who have also called on him to step down: the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, the New Jersey senator Cory Booker and the Oregon senator Jeff Merkley. The White House press secretary, Sarah Sanders, denied there were any sexual implications behind Trump’s tweet, telling reporters: “Only if your mind is in the gutter would you have read it that way. “This is the same sentiment the president has expressed many times before when he has exposed corruption of the entire political system,” Sanders said. “This isn’t a new sentiment. This isn’t new terminology. “He’s not alleging anything,” she added. “There’s no way that this is sexist at all.” But the tweet drew swift condemnation from Democrats for its provocative innuendo, particularly against the backdrop of a national dialogue around sexual harassment against women. Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, accused Trump of trying to “slut-shame” Gillibrand. “Are you really trying to bully, intimidate and slut-shame @SenGillibrand?” Warren wrote on Twitter. “Do you know who you’re picking a fight with? Good luck with that, @realDonaldTrump.” Play Video 1:56 Women who accuse Trump of sexual misconduct call for Congress investigation – video Warren later characterized Trump’s tweet as “disgusting”, telling reporters on Capitol Hill: “It was clear what he was getting at. He is disgusting.” House minority leader Nancy Pelosi also condemned Trump’s attack, saying it was “disgusting and disgraceful, and of course obviously not true”. Trump’s comments came a day after three women who previously accused Trump of sexual harassment shared their stories in an interview on NBC and at a press conference in New York. While the White House has expressed a desire not to relitigate the accusations, the president’s outburst placed the conversation squarely back on his treatment of women. The women who retold their stories on Monday – Jessica Leeds, Samantha Holvey and Rachel Crooks – urged Congress to investigate Trump’s behavior. A fourth accuser, Melinda McGillivray, appeared on NBC Tuesday morning to speak about her own sexual misconduct allegation against Trump. McGillivray, who like the other women had initially shared her story during the 2016 campaign, accused Trump of groping her in 2003 at his Mar-a-Lago hotel in West Palm Beach, Florida. McGillivray said she was 23 at the time and photographing a concert at Trump’s property. “The next thing I know, I feel a grab on my right side … to my surprise, it’s Donald,” McGillivray said on Megyn Kelly Today. “He’s standing a foot and a half away from me, so he had to reach out and touch me. I stand there and I’m stunned. I don’t even know what to do with myself in that moment.” Donald Trump's accusers demand Congress investigate sexual misconduct claims Read more At least 16 women have accused Trump of sexual assault. In many cases, the behavior they describe mirrors what Trump himself bragged about doing in a 2005 Access Hollywood tape leaked months before the November election. In the tape, Trump boasted of kissing and groping women without their consent. Trump dismissed the claims in a tweet on Tuesday morning, suggesting – without evidence – that they were part by of a coordinated effort by Democrats to undermine his presidency. But while Trump claimed not to know the women alleging misconduct, there was some photographic evidence to the contrary. Footage from the Apprentice shows Trump sitting across the table from Summer Zervos, a former contestant who said he groped her. Natasha Stoynoff, a former correspondent for People Magazine, was photographed with Trump at Mar-a-Lago on the same day she alleges he forcibly kissed her. Another photograph shows Trump and Jill Harth, who opened up to the Guardian last year about filing a lawsuit against him for “attempted rape” in 1997. With the issue of sexual misconduct under a national spotlight, nearly 60 female lawmakers have formally requested a congressional investigation into Trump. In a letter, 56 female Democrats wrote to the House committee on oversight and government reform requesting an investigation. “We cannot ignore the multitude of women who have come forward with accusations against Mr Trump,” the Democratic Women’s Working Group wrote. At a press conference Tuesday, the lawmakers lamented that while other powerful men from entertainment, media and politics had been held accountable for allegations of sexual misconduct, the complaints of Trump’s accusers had “fallen on deaf ears”. “The #MeToo movement has arrived and sexual abuse will not be tolerated, whether it’s by a Hollywood producer, the chef of a restaurant, a member of Congress or the president of the United States,” said Lois Frankel, a representative from Florida who is the head of the working group. Gillibrand’s office said she met with Trump once in 2010 and that his daughter, Ivanka, was also present for the meeting. According to federal records, Trump donated $7,950 to Gillibrand’s House and Senate campaigns between 2007 and 2010. Ivanka Trump separately donated $2,000 to Gillibrand in 2014.

www.theguardian.com

left

RkZs8FOCatcFOXz7

test

O16syAfqbdVbNUPc

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/2019/10/15/tulsi-gabbard-regime-change-democratic-debate/

Tulsi Gabbard Called Out Mainstream Media, Both Parties, Democratic Candidates for Supporting Disastrous Regime Change in the Middle East

2019-10-15

Christian Britschgi, Josh Blackman, Xander Peters, Cosmo Wenman, Joe Setyon, Zuri Davis

Tulsi Gabbard ( D–Hawaii ) had one question for rival Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D–Mass . ) and Mayor Pete Buttigieg : `` Will you end the regime change wars ? '' Both equivocated : Warren said that the U.S. should not have a military presence in the Middle East , but that our troops needed to be withdrawn slowly and carefully . Buttigieg asserted that quickly pulling out troops—as President Donald Trump has currently ordered—represents a betrayal of our Kurdish allies , and thus constitutes America breaking its word . ( The best way to protect the Kurds would actually be to let them come into this country , not commit the U.S. to an endless war on their behalf . ) Former Vice President Joe Biden later criticized Gabbard , saying that the U.S. 's involvement abroad was not just for the defense of the Kurds , but was intended to tie terrorists down and prevent them from hurting Americans at home . That he initially confused Iraq and Afghanistan did not make his remarks more persuasive . Indeed , Gabbard was the only candidate on the stage Tuesday night to advocate a unilateral , immediate end to the disastrous policy of intervening in every conflict in the Middle East with the goal of changing the regimes . As she wisely noted , such schemes have backfired in Iraq , Afghanistan , and Libya , and likely would have backfired in Syria if undertaken there as well . Refreshingly , Gabbard called out both parties and the mainstream media for their complicity in the U.S. 's foolish foreign policy interventionism . `` Just two days ago The New York Times said I was an Assad apologist , an asset of Russia , '' said Gabbard . `` Completely despicable . '' As ███ 's Christian Britschgi noted earlier this week , the Times ' lazy attack on Gabbard relied on `` a mix of thin evidence , guilt by association , and conspiratorial framing of actions that any single-issue-focused dark horse candidate is liable to do . '' Gabbard is a progressive Democratic on domestic policy , and supports many policies that are anathema to libertarians . But among the Democratic candidates , on the specific issue of regime change abroad—an issue on which the executive branch has gained nearly unlimited power , given Congress 's refusal to check any president 's military ambitions—Gabbard is very nearly the sole advocate of foreign policy that is realistic about the manifest failures of the U.S. 's approach to the Middle East since at least the turn of the century .

Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii) had one question for rival Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and Mayor Pete Buttigieg: "Will you end the regime change wars?" Both equivocated: Warren said that the U.S. should not have a military presence in the Middle East, but that our troops needed to be withdrawn slowly and carefully. Buttigieg asserted that quickly pulling out troops—as President Donald Trump has currently ordered—represents a betrayal of our Kurdish allies, and thus constitutes America breaking its word. (The best way to protect the Kurds would actually be to let them come into this country, not commit the U.S. to an endless war on their behalf.) Former Vice President Joe Biden later criticized Gabbard, saying that the U.S.'s involvement abroad was not just for the defense of the Kurds, but was intended to tie terrorists down and prevent them from hurting Americans at home. That he initially confused Iraq and Afghanistan did not make his remarks more persuasive. Indeed, Gabbard was the only candidate on the stage Tuesday night to advocate a unilateral, immediate end to the disastrous policy of intervening in every conflict in the Middle East with the goal of changing the regimes. As she wisely noted, such schemes have backfired in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, and likely would have backfired in Syria if undertaken there as well. Refreshingly, Gabbard called out both parties and the mainstream media for their complicity in the U.S.'s foolish foreign policy interventionism. "Just two days ago The New York Times said I was an Assad apologist, an asset of Russia," said Gabbard. "Completely despicable." As Reason's Christian Britschgi noted earlier this week, the Times' lazy attack on Gabbard relied on "a mix of thin evidence, guilt by association, and conspiratorial framing of actions that any single-issue-focused dark horse candidate is liable to do." Gabbard is a progressive Democratic on domestic policy, and supports many policies that are anathema to libertarians. But among the Democratic candidates, on the specific issue of regime change abroad—an issue on which the executive branch has gained nearly unlimited power, given Congress's refusal to check any president's military ambitions—Gabbard is very nearly the sole advocate of foreign policy that is realistic about the manifest failures of the U.S.'s approach to the Middle East since at least the turn of the century.

www.reason.com

right

O16syAfqbdVbNUPc

test

ER3TxDrR6zl28eOQ

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2017/08/03/oops-republicans-did-it-again

Oops, Republicans Did It Again

2017-08-03

Veronique De Rugy, Eugene Volokh, Zuri Davis, Christian Britschgi, Cosmo Wenman, Billy Binion

Despite a mountain of historical evidence that the Republican Party does n't seriously stand for smaller government and individual liberty , I maintained some hope that this time would be different . With the GOP 's retaking control of Congress and the White House , I actually thought Obamacare could be repealed and maybe even replaced with free market health care reforms . But though the night is still young in terms of the GOP 's latest return to power , Republicans have quickly demonstrated that I should have trusted my usual pessimism , because it 's clear that they 're not guided by any principled support for limited government . Though a few congressional Republicans sincerely believe in markets and freedom , the party is largely dominated by pretenders and outright statists . One need only look back to when Republicans last controlled Washington . Republicans and the George W. Bush administration massively increased spending and the federal debt . Military spending skyrocketed to pay for dubious wars . Corporate welfare , including farm subsidies , thrived . The federal government became more involved in what should be local matters , such as education . And civil liberties were trampled on under the guise of `` homeland security . '' The GOP not only failed to tackle unsustainable growth in federal entitlement programs but also expanded them by creating Medicare Part D . An amazing thing happened , though , when Barack Obama was elected and the Democrats regained control of Congress . Republicans suddenly remembered the horrors of federal overspending , mounting debt and the endless intrusion by the federal government into every aspect of our lives . Republicans lambasted the notion that Keynesian-style big-government spending would boost the economy . They decried Obamacare and the Democrats ' love for `` socialized medicine . '' They bemoaned continuous growth in federal debt and conveniently laid the problem at Obama 's feet . Then another amazing thing happened : Donald Trump was elected , and the GOP was once again in charge . Almost immediately , Republicans began touting increased military and infrastructure spending to create jobs and spur the economy—the very Keynesian-inspired policies they attacked when advocated by Democrats . Even the small number of federal program terminations proposed by the Trump administration were too much for congressional Republicans . Nope—when it comes to the federal budget and yet another looming brush-up against the federal debt ceiling , Republicans reveal that they 're content to maintain an untenable status quo , despite all the lip service paid to the dangers of big government over the years . Yes , as part of the failed attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare , the GOP did include Medicaid reforms intended to slow the spending growth for the federal/state entitlement program that provides health care for those with lower incomes . There are many problems with the program , which is in dire need of reform . But the same can be said about Medicare and Social Security , which congressional Republicans—and Trump , for that matter—have made clear they wo n't touch . ( Remember then-vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan 's emotional attack on President Obama for allegedly cutting Medicare during the 2012 campaign ? ) What about the GOP 's supposedly bread-and-butter issue of tax reform ? Regardless of how big or small the positive economic feedback to any tax cuts would be , the bottom line is that serious , permanent spending cuts must be part of the equation . But as we have repeatedly seen , Republicans are so unwilling to shrink the size of government that they already waved the white flag and are actively advocating a new source of revenue to `` pay for '' tax reform . Indeed , I fear that the recent fight over the inclusion of a border adjustment tax to generate revenues is only the beginning . At the rate we 're going , it may not be long until the GOP gets on board with a value-added tax or carbon tax ! For all of the GOP 's deriding of Democrats over the years for being `` tax-and-spenders , '' the sad reality is Republicans are on their way to earning the same label . We might only be six months into the return of Republican rule , but it 's already looking as if this second go-round of Republican control in Washington this century could end up being as disastrous—if not more—than the first one . But as the saying goes , fool me once , shame on you ; fool me twice , shame on me . I do n't intend to be fooled twice , and I hope I 'm not alone .

Despite a mountain of historical evidence that the Republican Party doesn't seriously stand for smaller government and individual liberty, I maintained some hope that this time would be different. With the GOP's retaking control of Congress and the White House, I actually thought Obamacare could be repealed and maybe even replaced with free market health care reforms. But though the night is still young in terms of the GOP's latest return to power, Republicans have quickly demonstrated that I should have trusted my usual pessimism, because it's clear that they're not guided by any principled support for limited government. Though a few congressional Republicans sincerely believe in markets and freedom, the party is largely dominated by pretenders and outright statists. One need only look back to when Republicans last controlled Washington. Republicans and the George W. Bush administration massively increased spending and the federal debt. Military spending skyrocketed to pay for dubious wars. Corporate welfare, including farm subsidies, thrived. The federal government became more involved in what should be local matters, such as education. And civil liberties were trampled on under the guise of "homeland security." The GOP not only failed to tackle unsustainable growth in federal entitlement programs but also expanded them by creating Medicare Part D. An amazing thing happened, though, when Barack Obama was elected and the Democrats regained control of Congress. Republicans suddenly remembered the horrors of federal overspending, mounting debt and the endless intrusion by the federal government into every aspect of our lives. Republicans lambasted the notion that Keynesian-style big-government spending would boost the economy. They decried Obamacare and the Democrats' love for "socialized medicine." They bemoaned continuous growth in federal debt and conveniently laid the problem at Obama's feet. Then another amazing thing happened: Donald Trump was elected, and the GOP was once again in charge. Almost immediately, Republicans began touting increased military and infrastructure spending to create jobs and spur the economy—the very Keynesian-inspired policies they attacked when advocated by Democrats. Even the small number of federal program terminations proposed by the Trump administration were too much for congressional Republicans. Nope—when it comes to the federal budget and yet another looming brush-up against the federal debt ceiling, Republicans reveal that they're content to maintain an untenable status quo, despite all the lip service paid to the dangers of big government over the years. Yes, as part of the failed attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare, the GOP did include Medicaid reforms intended to slow the spending growth for the federal/state entitlement program that provides health care for those with lower incomes. There are many problems with the program, which is in dire need of reform. But the same can be said about Medicare and Social Security, which congressional Republicans—and Trump, for that matter—have made clear they won't touch. (Remember then-vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan's emotional attack on President Obama for allegedly cutting Medicare during the 2012 campaign?) What about the GOP's supposedly bread-and-butter issue of tax reform? Regardless of how big or small the positive economic feedback to any tax cuts would be, the bottom line is that serious, permanent spending cuts must be part of the equation. But as we have repeatedly seen, Republicans are so unwilling to shrink the size of government that they already waved the white flag and are actively advocating a new source of revenue to "pay for" tax reform. Indeed, I fear that the recent fight over the inclusion of a border adjustment tax to generate revenues is only the beginning. At the rate we're going, it may not be long until the GOP gets on board with a value-added tax or carbon tax! For all of the GOP's deriding of Democrats over the years for being "tax-and-spenders," the sad reality is Republicans are on their way to earning the same label. We might only be six months into the return of Republican rule, but it's already looking as if this second go-round of Republican control in Washington this century could end up being as disastrous—if not more—than the first one. But as the saying goes, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I don't intend to be fooled twice, and I hope I'm not alone.

www.reason.com

right

ER3TxDrR6zl28eOQ

test

bd3BUBBZ1l8eeq2s

education

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/04/10/jerry-falwell-jr-has-a-free-speech-problem/

Jerry Falwell Jr. Has a Free Speech Problem

2020-04-10

Billy Binion, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Vittorio Nastasi, Josh Blackman, Ira Stoll, Charles Oliver, Jacob Sullum, Ronald Bailey

Jerry Falwell , Jr. , president of the evangelical Liberty University , has long positioned himself as a torch-bearer of free expression . `` Free speech and intellectual diversity are two of the most important pillars of a college education , '' he wrote last June . `` That 's why I urge every college and university in the country to encourage open political discourse on their own campuses—just as we do at Liberty University . '' Falwell is now demanding the arrest of two reporters he accuses of painting his school in a negative light . In an interview with radio host Todd Starnes , Falwell derided reporters at The New York Times and ProPublica for how they covered his decision to partially reopen Liberty amid the COVID-19 outbreak . Both pieces , he claimed , unfairly portrayed Liberty 's attitude toward the coronavirus as flippant and careless . He singled out , for example , Times journalist Elizabeth Williamson 's characterization of a conversation she had with local physician Thomas W. Eppes , Jr. : Williamson wrote that Eppes told her `` nearly a dozen Liberty students were sick with symptoms that suggested Covid-19 . '' Although one eventually tested positive , Falwell said the presumptive cases never numbered as high as 12—a depiction he cast as `` sensational click-bait . '' And so the university president secured arrest warrants for Times photographer Julia Rendleman and ProPublica reporter Alec MacGillis for trespassing , a Class 1 misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail . He told Starnes that an additional warrant is coming against someone affiliated with another `` big time liberal news organization . '' ( There is no warrant against Williamson because she did not take any photographs , so there 's no physical proof that she was on campus . ) Falwell also maintained that `` lawsuits will be filed '' against The New York Times if a retraction or Liberty-friendly correction is n't issued regarding the contagion numbers . It 's possible that Falwell is just trying to engage in some crisis PR . It 's also possible that Williamson misunderstood or mischaracterized Eppes ' comments . The veracity of the story is n't the point here . The point is Falwell 's attempt to arrest people associated with reports he feels are biased against him—not the recourse you 'd expect from someone who seriously sees his university as a bulwark of free expression . `` It is clear that Falwell is engaged in a campaign of petty retribution against journalists who write articles critical of the university , '' says Ari Cohn , a free speech lawyer and former director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education ( FIRE ) . `` But that 's actually completely in line with Liberty University 's faux concern for freedom of expression . Falwell 's idea of freedom of expression on campus includes only expression that he approves of . '' The trespassing charges are n't likely to hold up in court : The reporters involved were photographing a student who invited them to campus for an interview . But who really believes that the alleged trespassing is Falwell 's concern here ? He wants to intimidate people who criticize his school . That same browbeating culture is alive and well within the institution 's walls . Calum Best , the student interviewed by both The New York Times and ProPublica , described an angry phone call he received from Scott Lamb , the college 's senior vice president for university communications , after he wrote a Facebook post arguing for tuition refunds amid COVID-19 . Lamb included Best 's work-study boss on the call . `` I thought I was in deep trouble for some professional failure , '' Best wrote on Medium . `` But , as the call went on , I realized my boss had no need to be there , and had no connection to the matter at hand . '' That heavy-handedness tracks with how Falwell and his associates oversee Champion , Liberty University 's student paper . Will E. Young , the former editor-in-chief , wrote last year that Falwell actively got in the way of Trump-critical coverage , at one point removing a student op-ed lamenting Trump 's Access Hollywood tape . The author of that erstwhile column , Joel Schmieg , took to Facebook to air the grievance and was promptly contacted by a faculty adviser , who reprimanded him for doing so . Schmieg then resigned . As a private institution , Liberty University can set its own rules of conduct . But it 's the height of hypocrisy to muzzle student speech while making a show of opposing censorship . And the university president is n't just dealing with a newspaper on its own turf : With these warrants , Falwell is leveraging state power to try to stop speech by private actors whose only connection to his school is to write about it . It 's a bad approach for anyone to take , but especially someone who claims to support free expression and intellectual diversity .

Jerry Falwell, Jr., president of the evangelical Liberty University, has long positioned himself as a torch-bearer of free expression. "Free speech and intellectual diversity are two of the most important pillars of a college education," he wrote last June. "That's why I urge every college and university in the country to encourage open political discourse on their own campuses—just as we do at Liberty University." Falwell is now demanding the arrest of two reporters he accuses of painting his school in a negative light. In an interview with radio host Todd Starnes, Falwell derided reporters at The New York Times and ProPublica for how they covered his decision to partially reopen Liberty amid the COVID-19 outbreak. Both pieces, he claimed, unfairly portrayed Liberty's attitude toward the coronavirus as flippant and careless. He singled out, for example, Times journalist Elizabeth Williamson's characterization of a conversation she had with local physician Thomas W. Eppes, Jr.: Williamson wrote that Eppes told her "nearly a dozen Liberty students were sick with symptoms that suggested Covid-19." Although one eventually tested positive, Falwell said the presumptive cases never numbered as high as 12—a depiction he cast as "sensational click-bait." And so the university president secured arrest warrants for Times photographer Julia Rendleman and ProPublica reporter Alec MacGillis for trespassing, a Class 1 misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail. He told Starnes that an additional warrant is coming against someone affiliated with another "big time liberal news organization." (There is no warrant against Williamson because she did not take any photographs, so there's no physical proof that she was on campus.) Falwell also maintained that "lawsuits will be filed" against The New York Times if a retraction or Liberty-friendly correction isn't issued regarding the contagion numbers. It's possible that Falwell is just trying to engage in some crisis PR. It's also possible that Williamson misunderstood or mischaracterized Eppes' comments. The veracity of the story isn't the point here. The point is Falwell's attempt to arrest people associated with reports he feels are biased against him—not the recourse you'd expect from someone who seriously sees his university as a bulwark of free expression. "It is clear that Falwell is engaged in a campaign of petty retribution against journalists who write articles critical of the university," says Ari Cohn, a free speech lawyer and former director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). "But that's actually completely in line with Liberty University's faux concern for freedom of expression. Falwell's idea of freedom of expression on campus includes only expression that he approves of." The trespassing charges aren't likely to hold up in court: The reporters involved were photographing a student who invited them to campus for an interview. But who really believes that the alleged trespassing is Falwell's concern here? He wants to intimidate people who criticize his school. That same browbeating culture is alive and well within the institution's walls. Calum Best, the student interviewed by both The New York Times and ProPublica, described an angry phone call he received from Scott Lamb, the college's senior vice president for university communications, after he wrote a Facebook post arguing for tuition refunds amid COVID-19. Lamb included Best's work-study boss on the call. "I thought I was in deep trouble for some professional failure," Best wrote on Medium. "But, as the call went on, I realized my boss had no need to be there, and had no connection to the matter at hand." That heavy-handedness tracks with how Falwell and his associates oversee Champion, Liberty University's student paper. Will E. Young, the former editor-in-chief, wrote last year that Falwell actively got in the way of Trump-critical coverage, at one point removing a student op-ed lamenting Trump's Access Hollywood tape. The author of that erstwhile column, Joel Schmieg, took to Facebook to air the grievance and was promptly contacted by a faculty adviser, who reprimanded him for doing so. Schmieg then resigned. As a private institution, Liberty University can set its own rules of conduct. But it's the height of hypocrisy to muzzle student speech while making a show of opposing censorship. And the university president isn't just dealing with a newspaper on its own turf: With these warrants, Falwell is leveraging state power to try to stop speech by private actors whose only connection to his school is to write about it. It's a bad approach for anyone to take, but especially someone who claims to support free expression and intellectual diversity.

www.reason.com

right

bd3BUBBZ1l8eeq2s

test

Q5UjgUiMdGLUUbX1

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/02/22/do-israelis-deserve-netanyahu/

Small-Ball Politics May Drag Netanyahu Down

2015-02-22

Joel B. Pollak

On the eve of his historic , controversial , and critically-important address to Congress next week , Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces a small-ball political barrage in Israel . His party , the Likud , lost a challenge against a U.S.-funded left-wing group , V15 . The Prime Minister is being investigated for allegedly pocketing the deposits on beverages served at his residence , and his rivals are blaming him for rising housing prices in Israel , documented in a new report . It is all small-ball stuff ahead of the election , which is on Mar . 17 . Netanyahu is still likely to be re-elected , since the parties of the likely right-wing coalition are still polling well ahead of the parties of the parties of a likely left-wing coalition . But much depends on the actual result , and on who Israel ’ s ceremonial president , Reuven Rivlin , taps to make the first post-election effort at forming a government . Rivlin is conservative , but has also been critical of Netanyahu ’ s upcoming speech . An observer of Israeli politics is struck by how petty it all seems . With Iran encamping its soldiers on Israel ’ s borders , and preparing to become a borderline nuclear power–deal or no deal–plus the armies of ISIS menacing the region , it would seem obvious that national security should be paramount . That is where Netanyahu has focused his message , while his main opponents , Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni in their “ Zionist Union ” coalition , have downplayed national security issues . To judge from reports in the Israeli media , voters are reacting to the temptations of “ shiny object ” politics . And it is quite possible that small-ball–the trademark of Obama ’ s 2012 campaign–could bring Netanyahu down . It is fashionable among U.S. conservatives to compare Netanyahu to Winston Churchill . But Churchill made it through the war before being dumped . Bibi still has that high hurdle to clear . If he fails , Israel may be in unsteady hands . And then–God only knows . Senior Editor-at-Large Joel B. Pollak edits Breitbart California and is the author of the forthcoming ebook , Wacko Birds : The Fall ( and Rise ) of the Tea Party , available for Amazon Kindle .

On the eve of his historic, controversial, and critically-important address to Congress next week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces a small-ball political barrage in Israel. His party, the Likud, lost a challenge against a U.S.-funded left-wing group, V15. The Prime Minister is being investigated for allegedly pocketing the deposits on beverages served at his residence, and his rivals are blaming him for rising housing prices in Israel, documented in a new report. It is all small-ball stuff ahead of the election, which is on Mar. 17. Netanyahu is still likely to be re-elected, since the parties of the likely right-wing coalition are still polling well ahead of the parties of the parties of a likely left-wing coalition. But much depends on the actual result, and on who Israel’s ceremonial president, Reuven Rivlin, taps to make the first post-election effort at forming a government. Rivlin is conservative, but has also been critical of Netanyahu’s upcoming speech. An observer of Israeli politics is struck by how petty it all seems. With Iran encamping its soldiers on Israel’s borders, and preparing to become a borderline nuclear power–deal or no deal–plus the armies of ISIS menacing the region, it would seem obvious that national security should be paramount. That is where Netanyahu has focused his message, while his main opponents, Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni in their “Zionist Union” coalition, have downplayed national security issues. To judge from reports in the Israeli media, voters are reacting to the temptations of “shiny object” politics. And it is quite possible that small-ball–the trademark of Obama’s 2012 campaign–could bring Netanyahu down. It is fashionable among U.S. conservatives to compare Netanyahu to Winston Churchill. But Churchill made it through the war before being dumped. Bibi still has that high hurdle to clear. If he fails, Israel may be in unsteady hands. And then–God only knows. Senior Editor-at-Large Joel B. Pollak edits Breitbart California and is the author of the forthcoming ebook, Wacko Birds: The Fall (and Rise) of the Tea Party, available for Amazon Kindle. Follow Joel on Twitter: @joelpollak

www.breitbart.com

right

Q5UjgUiMdGLUUbX1

test

CBbBPRtiMkLu5rfR

fbi

Newsmax - News

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/text-messages-lisa-page-peter-strzok-inspector-general/2017/12/15/id/832123/

Report: DOJ Watchdog Denies Role in Release of Peter Strzok Texts

2017-12-15

Todd Beamon

Three Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee — Reps. Jerrold Nadler and Hakeem Jeffries , both of New York , and Jamie Raskin of Maryland — had requested more information about the release of the texts between Strzok and Lisa Page , a lawyer who had also been assigned to the Mueller probe . The texts — two anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton messages each — were exchanged during the 2016 presidential campaign . Horowitz 's contention that his office was not consulted in advance conflicted with the account of tweeted Friday by Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores , the Examiner reports . Flores tweeted that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told Congress Wednesday that `` after initial inquiries from Congress , the DAG consulted with the IG , and the IG determined that he had no objection to the department providing the material to the congressional committees that had requested it ( discussion w IG was only about Congress ) . '' But Flores then stressed that `` once we provided them to Congress , there was no legal or ethical obligation against sharing them w media . '' The Chairman & Ranking Members of the congressional committees were provided the opportunity to have copies of the texts delivered to their offices . This was completed before any member of the media was given access to view the same copy by the Dept 's Office of Public Affairs . — Sarah Isgur Flores ( @ SarahFloresDOJ ) December 15 , 2017 As the DAG said , after initial inquiries from Congress , the DAG consulted with the IG , and the IG determined that he had no objection to the Department providing the material to the Congressional committees that had requested it ( discussion w IG was only about Congress ) . — Sarah Isgur Flores ( @ SarahFloresDOJ ) December 15 , 2017 After that consultation , senior career ethics advisors determined that there were no legal or ethical concerns , including under the Privacy Act , that prohibited the release of the information to the public either by members of Congress or by the Department . — Sarah Isgur Flores ( @ SarahFloresDOJ ) December 15 , 2017 Here 's where confusion seems to be : It seems that other reporters may have had same copies of texts outside of this process . But , as should be clear , once we provided them to Congress , there was no legal or ethical obligation against sharing them w media . — Sarah Isgur Flores ( @ SarahFloresDOJ ) December 15 , 2017 So timeline in short : ( 1 ) Copies delivered to Congress , ( 2 ) Some media outlets are in possession of copies of texts ( 3 ) Department shows copies of texts to reporters working in the building . — Sarah Isgur Flores ( @ SarahFloresDOJ ) December 15 , 2017 After Horowitz 's letter was released , Flores tweeted that it was consistent with what she had said previously . The letter released by the IG tonight is entirely consistent w my earlier tweets & DAG 's testimony . IG had no objection to release to Congress . We then consulted senior career legal/ethics experts to determine there were no issues w releasing texts to either Congress or press . — Sarah Isgur Flores ( @ SarahFloresDOJ ) December 16 , 2017 Strzok was removed from Mueller 's team in August and moved to a human resources position after disclosures that he and Page had `` exchanged text messages during the Clinton investigation and campaign season in which they expressed anti-Trump sentiments and other comments that appeared to favor Clinton , '' the Examiner reports . Strzok also served as a lead investigator in the probe of Clinton 's private email server use .

Three Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee — Reps. Jerrold Nadler and Hakeem Jeffries, both of New York, and Jamie Raskin of Maryland — had requested more information about the release of the texts between Strzok and Lisa Page, a lawyer who had also been assigned to the Mueller probe. The texts — two anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton messages each — were exchanged during the 2016 presidential campaign. They were disclosed to news organizations on Tuesday. Horowitz's contention that his office was not consulted in advance conflicted with the account of tweeted Friday by Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores, the Examiner reports. Flores tweeted that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told Congress Wednesday that "after initial inquiries from Congress, the DAG consulted with the IG, and the IG determined that he had no objection to the department providing the material to the congressional committees that had requested it (discussion w IG was only about Congress)." But Flores then stressed that "once we provided them to Congress, there was no legal or ethical obligation against sharing them w media." The Chairman & Ranking Members of the congressional committees were provided the opportunity to have copies of the texts delivered to their offices. This was completed before any member of the media was given access to view the same copy by the Dept's Office of Public Affairs. — Sarah Isgur Flores (@SarahFloresDOJ) December 15, 2017 As the DAG said, after initial inquiries from Congress, the DAG consulted with the IG, and the IG determined that he had no objection to the Department providing the material to the Congressional committees that had requested it (discussion w IG was only about Congress). — Sarah Isgur Flores (@SarahFloresDOJ) December 15, 2017 After that consultation, senior career ethics advisors determined that there were no legal or ethical concerns, including under the Privacy Act, that prohibited the release of the information to the public either by members of Congress or by the Department. — Sarah Isgur Flores (@SarahFloresDOJ) December 15, 2017 Here's where confusion seems to be: It seems that other reporters may have had same copies of texts outside of this process. But, as should be clear, once we provided them to Congress, there was no legal or ethical obligation against sharing them w media. — Sarah Isgur Flores (@SarahFloresDOJ) December 15, 2017 So timeline in short: (1) Copies delivered to Congress, (2) Some media outlets are in possession of copies of texts (3) Department shows copies of texts to reporters working in the building. — Sarah Isgur Flores (@SarahFloresDOJ) December 15, 2017 After Horowitz's letter was released, Flores tweeted that it was consistent with what she had said previously. The letter released by the IG tonight is entirely consistent w my earlier tweets & DAG's testimony. IG had no objection to release to Congress. We then consulted senior career legal/ethics experts to determine there were no issues w releasing texts to either Congress or press. — Sarah Isgur Flores (@SarahFloresDOJ) December 16, 2017 Strzok was removed from Mueller's team in August and moved to a human resources position after disclosures that he and Page had "exchanged text messages during the Clinton investigation and campaign season in which they expressed anti-Trump sentiments and other comments that appeared to favor Clinton," the Examiner reports. Strzok also served as a lead investigator in the probe of Clinton's private email server use.

www.newsmax.com

right

CBbBPRtiMkLu5rfR

test

fwVVL5aVG2FtIh91

us_military

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/08/political-chatter-kerry-defends-prisoner-transfer-but-lawmakers-remain-skeptical/?hpt=po_t1

Kerry defends prisoner transfer, but lawmakers remain skeptical

2014-06-08

In an interview that aired Sunday on CNN , Secretary of State John Kerry defended the transfer of five Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay , Cuba , in exchange for U.S. Army Sgt . Bowe Bergdahl , but even a leading Democratic senator raised questions about the administration ’ s handling of the case . Nearly five years after he disappeared in Afghanistan , Bergdahl has ignited a political controversy , with some members of Congress in an uproar over the terms of his release by the Taliban and the secrecy surrounding it . We ’ ll get you up to speed on the latest in Washington with a roundup of all things political : Kerry responds : In an interview with CNN ’ s Elise Labott from a seaside French village near Normandy , Kerry stood by the release of the five members of the Taliban , which some lawmakers say puts Americans overseas at risk and legitimizes the group . Kerry said the United States has received assurances that the released detainees , who are staying in Qatar and have been given a one-year travel ban , will be closely monitored . The United States will have the “ ability to be able to do things ” to ensure the former Guantanamo Bay prisoners are kept at bay , said Kerry , not elaborating on what those options may be . But his assurances weren ’ t enough to placate senior members of the House and Senate intelligence committees . Lawmakers appear doubtful : “ We ’ ll see ” was Sen. Dianne Feinstein ’ s skeptical response to Kerry on CBS News ’ “ Face the Nation . ” “ You can ’ t help but worry about them in Doha , ” said the California Democrat , who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee . Kerry insisted that the United States would act if the freed Taliban members attempted to endanger American lives . “ I ’ m not telling you that they don ’ t have some ability at some point to go back and get involved ( in fighting ) , but they also have an ability to get killed doing that , ” he said , adding that the former detainees put themselves at “ enormous risk ” should they rejoin the battlefield . When asked if the United States would kill them , Kerry deflected , saying simply , “ No one should doubt the capacity of America to protect Americans . ” McCain : ‘ At what cost : ’ Sen. John McCain , a former prisoner of war in Vietnam , agreed the United States has an “ obligation ” to bring captured soldiers home . “ But the question is at what cost , ” the Arizona Republican said on CNN ’ s “ State of the Union . ” McCain said the Obama administration should have released different detainees . “ What we ’ re doing here is reconstituting the Taliban government , the same guys that are mass murderers , ” he said . Feinstein said she is also worried about the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan , especially as the U.S. presence winds down and the country undergoes a transfer of power with President Hamid Karzai stepping down . “ Some of us worry very much that when we pull out , the Taliban finds its way back into power , and that would be tragic , ” she said . Rep. Mike Rogers , chairman of the House Intelligence Committee , said that after the one-year travel ban expires for former detainees , he is “ absolutely convinced ” that at least four of the five Taliban will “ join the fight against what Americans are left in Afghanistan . ” Kerry dismissed that concern , saying that the U.S. combat mission is coming to an end and pronouncements by the Taliban vowing to rejoin the fight are nothing but “ propaganda . ” “ This was the wrong message at the wrong time , and we are going to pay for this decision for years , ” the Alabama Republican said on ABC ’ s “ This Week . ” Left in the dark ? : Some lawmakers are miffed that they weren ’ t consulted or notified about the prisoner exchange . Legislators from both parties accuse the administration of failing to provide 30 days ' advance notice to Congress of a transfer of Guantanamo detainees . In response to Kerry ’ s remarks that the released detainees will be monitored , Feinstein said , “ It ’ s hard to be comfortable when you really haven ’ t been briefed on the intricacies of carrying out this agreement . ” “ I think this whole sort of deal has been one that the administration has kept very close , and in the eyes of many of us , too close , ” she said . The administration originally said time was of the essence with Bergdahl ’ s health quickly deteriorating , but the latest reason for sidestepping Congress is concern that details would be leaked . Also on “ Face the Nation , ” Sen. Saxby Chambliss , vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee , called the administration ’ s fear of leaks odd . He said he and Feinstein were briefed for months about the mission on Osama bin Laden . “ Those types of things are briefed to us on a regular basis , ” said Chambliss , a Georgia Republican . “ This administration has acted very strangely about this , ” he said . Also Sunday , Rogers pointed to Hillary Clinton , citing her briefing to Congress in 2011 about a possible prisoner swap on Bergdahl : “ The Secretary of State at that time , Hillary Clinton , said that if all of our conditions are n't met , then none of them will be met . ” In book , Clinton raised concern about any Taliban talks for Bergdahl Clinton 's hard choice : Meanwhile , Clinton ’ s book “ Hard Choices ” is officially set to be released this week - even though some members of the media have already obtained copies – and she has begun a round of interviews in which she will inevitably face questions about whether she has made up her mind about a presidential run in 2016 . ABC ’ s Diane Sawyer asked Clinton several different ways if she will jump in the race . “ I ’ m going to decide when it feels right for me to decide , ” Clinton said in an excerpt that aired on ABC ’ s “ This Week . ” “ I just want to kind of get through this year , travel around the country , sign books , help in the midterm elections in the fall and then take a deep breath and kind of go through my pluses and minuses about what I will and will not be thinking about as I make the decision , ” Clinton said . Republicans have raised questions about Clinton ’ s health and age should she be a presidential candidate . Clinton called her concussion in late 2012 “ serious ” but insists she is in good health and would release her medical records as “ other candidates have done ” should she chose to run in 2016 . Clinton was noncommittal about appearing before a special House committee on the 2012 attacks in Benghazi , Libya , if she asked , saying it depends on “ how they conduct themselves . ”

5 years ago In an interview that aired Sunday on CNN, Secretary of State John Kerry defended the transfer of five Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in exchange for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, but even a leading Democratic senator raised questions about the administration’s handling of the case. Nearly five years after he disappeared in Afghanistan, Bergdahl has ignited a political controversy, with some members of Congress in an uproar over the terms of his release by the Taliban and the secrecy surrounding it. We’ll get you up to speed on the latest in Washington with a roundup of all things political: Follow @politicalticker Follow @LACaldwellDC Kerry responds: In an interview with CNN’s Elise Labott from a seaside French village near Normandy, Kerry stood by the release of the five members of the Taliban, which some lawmakers say puts Americans overseas at risk and legitimizes the group. Kerry said the United States has received assurances that the released detainees, who are staying in Qatar and have been given a one-year travel ban, will be closely monitored. CNN’s Flipboard Magazine on everything Bergdahl The United States will have the “ability to be able to do things” to ensure the former Guantanamo Bay prisoners are kept at bay, said Kerry, not elaborating on what those options may be. But his assurances weren’t enough to placate senior members of the House and Senate intelligence committees. Lawmakers appear doubtful: “We’ll see” was Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s skeptical response to Kerry on CBS News’ “Face the Nation.” “You can’t help but worry about them in Doha,” said the California Democrat, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee. Kerry insisted that the United States would act if the freed Taliban members attempted to endanger American lives. “I’m not telling you that they don’t have some ability at some point to go back and get involved (in fighting), but they also have an ability to get killed doing that,” he said, adding that the former detainees put themselves at “enormous risk” should they rejoin the battlefield. When asked if the United States would kill them, Kerry deflected, saying simply, “No one should doubt the capacity of America to protect Americans.” McCain: ‘At what cost:’ Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, agreed the United States has an “obligation” to bring captured soldiers home. “But the question is at what cost,” the Arizona Republican said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” McCain said the Obama administration should have released different detainees. “What we’re doing here is reconstituting the Taliban government, the same guys that are mass murderers,” he said. Feinstein said she is also worried about the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, especially as the U.S. presence winds down and the country undergoes a transfer of power with President Hamid Karzai stepping down. “Some of us worry very much that when we pull out, the Taliban finds its way back into power, and that would be tragic,” she said. Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said that after the one-year travel ban expires for former detainees, he is “absolutely convinced” that at least four of the five Taliban will “join the fight against what Americans are left in Afghanistan.” Kerry dismissed that concern, saying that the U.S. combat mission is coming to an end and pronouncements by the Taliban vowing to rejoin the fight are nothing but “propaganda.” But Rogers said that “hostilities haven’t stopped.” “This was the wrong message at the wrong time, and we are going to pay for this decision for years,” the Alabama Republican said on ABC’s “This Week.” Obama: 'I make absolutely no apologies' for Bergdahl swap Left in the dark?: Some lawmakers are miffed that they weren’t consulted or notified about the prisoner exchange. Legislators from both parties accuse the administration of failing to provide 30 days' advance notice to Congress of a transfer of Guantanamo detainees. In response to Kerry’s remarks that the released detainees will be monitored, Feinstein said, “It’s hard to be comfortable when you really haven’t been briefed on the intricacies of carrying out this agreement.” “I think this whole sort of deal has been one that the administration has kept very close, and in the eyes of many of us, too close,” she said. The administration originally said time was of the essence with Bergdahl’s health quickly deteriorating, but the latest reason for sidestepping Congress is concern that details would be leaked. Celebrated at first, Bergdahl's release raises questions Also on “Face the Nation,” Sen. Saxby Chambliss, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, called the administration’s fear of leaks odd. He said he and Feinstein were briefed for months about the mission on Osama bin Laden. “Those types of things are briefed to us on a regular basis,” said Chambliss, a Georgia Republican. “This administration has acted very strangely about this,” he said. Also Sunday, Rogers pointed to Hillary Clinton, citing her briefing to Congress in 2011 about a possible prisoner swap on Bergdahl: “The Secretary of State at that time, Hillary Clinton, said that if all of our conditions aren't met, then none of them will be met.” In book, Clinton raised concern about any Taliban talks for Bergdahl “We got none of that,” Rogers said. Clinton's hard choice: Meanwhile, Clinton’s book “Hard Choices” is officially set to be released this week - even though some members of the media have already obtained copies – and she has begun a round of interviews in which she will inevitably face questions about whether she has made up her mind about a presidential run in 2016. ABC’s Diane Sawyer asked Clinton several different ways if she will jump in the race. “I’m going to decide when it feels right for me to decide,” Clinton said in an excerpt that aired on ABC’s “This Week.” What Clinton’s book may tell us about 2016 “I just want to kind of get through this year, travel around the country, sign books, help in the midterm elections in the fall and then take a deep breath and kind of go through my pluses and minuses about what I will and will not be thinking about as I make the decision,” Clinton said. Republicans have raised questions about Clinton’s health and age should she be a presidential candidate. Clinton called her concussion in late 2012 “serious” but insists she is in good health and would release her medical records as “other candidates have done” should she chose to run in 2016. Clinton was noncommittal about appearing before a special House committee on the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, if she asked, saying it depends on “how they conduct themselves.” CNN’s Jason Seher contributed to this report.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

fwVVL5aVG2FtIh91

test

G9HrFN3t83qtzcjI

politics

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obama-invigorates-progressives-term-begins/story?id=18286781

Obama Invigorates Progressives as Second Term Begins

Devin Dwyer

A presidential campaign that was largely about jobs and the economy gave way during Monday 's inaugural ceremonies to a sweeping affirmation of progressivism and call for `` collective action . '' Now , liberal allies of President Obama say they 're closely watching to see whether the second-term president follows through on issues with which he has struggled before . Obama 's groundbreaking references to climate change and gay rights in his second inaugural address particularly surprised many progressive interest groups , which said their first-term frustrations have been replaced by a new sense of optimism . `` We are hopeful that the president 's progressive speech signals a major strategy shift for the Obama administration , '' said Adam Green , co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee . Green 's group and other liberal Democrats have openly expressed disappointment in Obama since 2009 , saying his agenda has fallen short . Many have cited his failure to advance an assault-weapons ban , as promised , enact climate change legislation or overhaul the nation 's immigration system . Other progressives have chafed at Obama 's extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy in 2010 and move last month to make some of the cuts permanent , while putting changes to Social Security and Medicare on the table as part of a deficit-reduction deal . During the election campaign , Obama ran no paid TV advertising that mentioned gays or gay rights , or the term `` climate change , '' for example . Only four of his ads mentioned environmental issues , and two explicitly portrayed Obama as a defender of the coal industry , something anathema to many environmentalists . `` If the president 's inaugural words and action on guns are the template for his governing strategy in a second term , that will allow the president to win big victories and secure a legacy of bold progressive change , '' Green said , responding to Obama 's inaugural address . In interviews with ███ , advocates stressed that success on many liberal priorities remains a big `` if , '' with a politically divided Congress and a record of failure by the White House to bridge the divide . On the environment , activists say they are most closely watching the president 's upcoming decision on the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline project , which would carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast . Obama delayed a decision on the project in January 2012 , ordering a new environmental-impact study . But with that study nearing completion , he will be forced to weigh in on an issue that has pitted a need for jobs and cheaper energy with environmental and health concerns . `` The decision on the Keystone XL pipeline will be the first indicator about how seriously he 's taking climate change over the next four years , '' said Erich Pica , president of Friends of the Earth , an environmental advocacy group opposed to the pipeline . `` We 'll know in the next month and a half to two months whether he does . '' Bill McKibben , an author and leading environmentalist , said in a blog post that he is not holding his breath . `` With words like that , it 's easy to let ourselves dream that something major might be about to happen to fix the biggest problem the world has ever faced , '' he wrote . `` And given the record of the last four years , we know that too often rhetoric has yielded little in the way of results . '' McKibben is organizing a major environmental rally in Washington on Feb. 17 . White House officials sought to downplay emphasis on any particular agenda or policy proposals in Obama 's second inaugural , saying the president 's commitment to liberal ideals on the environment , gay rights and social safety-net programs is not new . `` I would reject the idea that this was an 'ism ' speech , '' Obama spokesman Jay Carney said , responding to questions about the speech and raised expectations for a new strategy toward progressive policy priorities . `` This was in fact the opposite of that , and that 's why it is tied , I think , very clearly to the speech that the president , then a Senate candidate , gave in 2004 in Boston , and is linked to so many other major addresses that he 's given , which is that he focuses on the fact that we are Americans first , '' Carney said . `` I hardly think that pursuit of equal rights , pursuit of comprehensive immigration reform , pursuit of sensible policies that deal with climate change and enhance our energy independence , are , you know , ideological , '' he added . `` The only 'ism ' that was a part of that speech was his rejection of absolutism . '' Administration officials have declined to say specifically how much effort Obama plans to give to pushing climate change legislation , a speedier drawdown in Afghanistan , or advocate for a universal right to same-sex marriage . He is expected to detail his 2013 agenda in the State of the Union address Feb. 12 . As Obama noted Monday , one of the keys to success on any part of his agenda will be the broad engagement of his supporters in lobbying Congress for action . Read Some of the Highlights for ABC 's Inauguration Live Blog Here

A presidential campaign that was largely about jobs and the economy gave way during Monday's inaugural ceremonies to a sweeping affirmation of progressivism and call for "collective action." Now, liberal allies of President Obama say they're closely watching to see whether the second-term president follows through on issues with which he has struggled before. Obama's groundbreaking references to climate change and gay rights in his second inaugural address particularly surprised many progressive interest groups, which said their first-term frustrations have been replaced by a new sense of optimism. "We are hopeful that the president's progressive speech signals a major strategy shift for the Obama administration," said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. Green's group and other liberal Democrats have openly expressed disappointment in Obama since 2009, saying his agenda has fallen short. Many have cited his failure to advance an assault-weapons ban, as promised, enact climate change legislation or overhaul the nation's immigration system. Get more pure politics at ABCNews.com/Politics. Other progressives have chafed at Obama's extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy in 2010 and move last month to make some of the cuts permanent, while putting changes to Social Security and Medicare on the table as part of a deficit-reduction deal. During the election campaign, Obama ran no paid TV advertising that mentioned gays or gay rights, or the term "climate change," for example. Only four of his ads mentioned environmental issues, and two explicitly portrayed Obama as a defender of the coal industry, something anathema to many environmentalists. "If the president's inaugural words and action on guns are the template for his governing strategy in a second term, that will allow the president to win big victories and secure a legacy of bold progressive change," Green said, responding to Obama's inaugural address. In interviews with ABC News, advocates stressed that success on many liberal priorities remains a big "if," with a politically divided Congress and a record of failure by the White House to bridge the divide. On the environment, activists say they are most closely watching the president's upcoming decision on the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline project, which would carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast. Obama delayed a decision on the project in January 2012, ordering a new environmental-impact study. But with that study nearing completion, he will be forced to weigh in on an issue that has pitted a need for jobs and cheaper energy with environmental and health concerns. "The decision on the Keystone XL pipeline will be the first indicator about how seriously he's taking climate change over the next four years," said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, an environmental advocacy group opposed to the pipeline. "We'll know in the next month and a half to two months whether he does." Bill McKibben, an author and leading environmentalist, said in a blog post that he is not holding his breath. "With words like that, it's easy to let ourselves dream that something major might be about to happen to fix the biggest problem the world has ever faced," he wrote. "And given the record of the last four years, we know that too often rhetoric has yielded little in the way of results." McKibben is organizing a major environmental rally in Washington on Feb. 17. White House officials sought to downplay emphasis on any particular agenda or policy proposals in Obama's second inaugural, saying the president's commitment to liberal ideals on the environment, gay rights and social safety-net programs is not new. "I would reject the idea that this was an 'ism' speech," Obama spokesman Jay Carney said, responding to questions about the speech and raised expectations for a new strategy toward progressive policy priorities. "This was in fact the opposite of that, and that's why it is tied, I think, very clearly to the speech that the president, then a Senate candidate, gave in 2004 in Boston, and is linked to so many other major addresses that he's given, which is that he focuses on the fact that we are Americans first," Carney said. "I hardly think that pursuit of equal rights, pursuit of comprehensive immigration reform, pursuit of sensible policies that deal with climate change and enhance our energy independence, are, you know, ideological," he added. "The only 'ism' that was a part of that speech was his rejection of absolutism." Administration officials have declined to say specifically how much effort Obama plans to give to pushing climate change legislation, a speedier drawdown in Afghanistan, or advocate for a universal right to same-sex marriage. He is expected to detail his 2013 agenda in the State of the Union address Feb. 12. As Obama noted Monday, one of the keys to success on any part of his agenda will be the broad engagement of his supporters in lobbying Congress for action. Read Some of the Highlights for ABC's Inauguration Live Blog Here

www.abcnews.go.com

left

G9HrFN3t83qtzcjI

test

iUOU8WFvQHYXoVgK

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/30/trump-adviser-may-have-been-wearing-a-wire-in-conversations-with-campaign-associates/

Trump Adviser May Have Been Wearing A Wire In Conversations With Campaign Associates

2017-10-30

The former Trump campaign adviser who accepted a plea deal for lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russians is a “ proactive cooperator ” with federal investigators , according to court documents unveiled on Monday . The term , which refers to George Papadopoulos , generated speculation that the 30-year-old energy consultant has worn a wire to help prosecutors in the Office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller , who is investigating Russian interference in the presidential campaign . The reference to Papadopoulos ’ status is found in a court filing submitted by prosecutors asking a federal judge to seal court filings in the case on the basis that “ premature disclosure ” of his arrest “ would significantly undermine his ability to serve as a proactive cooperator . ” The website Hot Air explored the meaning of the term , and pointed to a 2001 federal court case which explained that “ proactive cooperation is generally understood to mean that the defendant will engage in some type of undercover work on behalf of the Government , such as wearing a wire and/or meeting face to face with persons suspected of involvement in criminal activity . ” At a plea hearing held on Oct. 5 , Aaron Zelinsky , a prosecutor in the Office of the Special Counsel , shed light on Papadopoulos ’ cooperation . Zelinsky said that at Papadopoulos ’ sentencing , prosecutors would make note of his “ efforts to cooperate with the Government ” as long as he continued “ to meet with and provide information to the Government on request . ” Papadopoulos was arrested on July 27 on charges that he lied to FBI agents during a Jan. 27 interview . Agents met with Papadopoulos as part of the bureau ’ s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government . As part of his plea deal , Papadopoulos acknowledged that he lied to agents during that meeting about his interactions with three Russian nationals . Papadopoulos initially claimed that he knew the Russians prior to joining the Trump campaign on March 6 , 2016 . But investigators obtained Papadopoulos ’ emails and social media exchanges , which showed that he was lying . Papadopoulos discussed arranging meetings between Russian government officials and the Trump campaign . One of Papadopoulos ’ contacts , a London-based professor , also told him in April that the Russian government had obtained “ thousands ” of Hillary Clinton ’ s emails . The White House on Monday downplayed the revelations , saying that Papadopoulos played a small part on the campaign and that the Trump team did not collude with the Russian government . Papadopoulos ’ Oct. 5 plea deal and his earlier arrest remained a closely held secret until Monday , just hours after Mueller ’ s office unsealed an indictment against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his business associate , Rick Gates . Manafort and Gates are charged with money laundering and conspiracy . The indictment provides no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government . The revelation that Papadopoulos was serving as a “ proactive cooperator ” touched off widespread speculation about how much he had done to help the Mueller team . Ron Hosko , a former assistant director of the FBI ’ s criminal division , says that it is possible that Papadopoulos wore a wire as part of his cooperation agreement . “ I think it ’ s a fair assessment that it means Mueller and Co. might have been working with [ Papadopoulos ] to engage other subjects in conversation along the lines suggested in the article , ” said Hosko , referring to the Hot Air article which discussed the possibility of Papadopoulos wearing a wire . Recordings of Papadopoulos ’ conversations could have then been used to approach additional subjects . On CNN , legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that the government ’ s disclosure strongly suggests that Papadopoulos was wearing a wire or recording conversations with Trump associates . “ What this says to me is that Papadopoulos between July and October was wearing a wire . He was recording conversations secretly with people who are subjects and targets of this investigation , ” he said , adding that “ that ’ s the only reasonable explanation of what ’ s in those court papers . ” “ If he was wearing a wire , this summer and fall , think about that , just weeks ago , that is a whole new chapter of possibilities in this investigation and potentially a very , very big deal . ”

The former Trump campaign adviser who accepted a plea deal for lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russians is a “proactive cooperator” with federal investigators, according to court documents unveiled on Monday. The term, which refers to George Papadopoulos, generated speculation that the 30-year-old energy consultant has worn a wire to help prosecutors in the Office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating Russian interference in the presidential campaign. The reference to Papadopoulos’ status is found in a court filing submitted by prosecutors asking a federal judge to seal court filings in the case on the basis that “premature disclosure” of his arrest “would significantly undermine his ability to serve as a proactive cooperator.” The website Hot Air explored the meaning of the term, and pointed to a 2001 federal court case which explained that “proactive cooperation is generally understood to mean that the defendant will engage in some type of undercover work on behalf of the Government, such as wearing a wire and/or meeting face to face with persons suspected of involvement in criminal activity.” At a plea hearing held on Oct. 5, Aaron Zelinsky, a prosecutor in the Office of the Special Counsel, shed light on Papadopoulos’ cooperation. Zelinsky said that at Papadopoulos’ sentencing, prosecutors would make note of his “efforts to cooperate with the Government” as long as he continued “to meet with and provide information to the Government on request.” Papadopoulos was arrested on July 27 on charges that he lied to FBI agents during a Jan. 27 interview. Agents met with Papadopoulos as part of the bureau’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government. As part of his plea deal, Papadopoulos acknowledged that he lied to agents during that meeting about his interactions with three Russian nationals. Papadopoulos initially claimed that he knew the Russians prior to joining the Trump campaign on March 6, 2016. But investigators obtained Papadopoulos’ emails and social media exchanges, which showed that he was lying. Papadopoulos discussed arranging meetings between Russian government officials and the Trump campaign. One of Papadopoulos’ contacts, a London-based professor, also told him in April that the Russian government had obtained “thousands” of Hillary Clinton’s emails. The White House on Monday downplayed the revelations, saying that Papadopoulos played a small part on the campaign and that the Trump team did not collude with the Russian government. Papadopoulos’ Oct. 5 plea deal and his earlier arrest remained a closely held secret until Monday, just hours after Mueller’s office unsealed an indictment against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his business associate, Rick Gates. Manafort and Gates are charged with money laundering and conspiracy. The indictment provides no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government. The revelation that Papadopoulos was serving as a “proactive cooperator” touched off widespread speculation about how much he had done to help the Mueller team. Ron Hosko, a former assistant director of the FBI’s criminal division, says that it is possible that Papadopoulos wore a wire as part of his cooperation agreement. “I think it’s a fair assessment that it means Mueller and Co. might have been working with [Papadopoulos] to engage other subjects in conversation along the lines suggested in the article,” said Hosko, referring to the Hot Air article which discussed the possibility of Papadopoulos wearing a wire. Recordings of Papadopoulos’ conversations could have then been used to approach additional subjects. On CNN, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that the government’s disclosure strongly suggests that Papadopoulos was wearing a wire or recording conversations with Trump associates. “What this says to me is that Papadopoulos between July and October was wearing a wire. He was recording conversations secretly with people who are subjects and targets of this investigation,” he said, adding that “that’s the only reasonable explanation of what’s in those court papers.” “If he was wearing a wire, this summer and fall, think about that, just weeks ago, that is a whole new chapter of possibilities in this investigation and potentially a very, very big deal.” Follow Chuck on Twitter

www.dailycaller.com

right

iUOU8WFvQHYXoVgK

test

iZq8aeewHMEduJSi

politics

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/US/south-carolina-house-approves-bill-removing-confederate-flag/story?id=32319323

South Carolina House Approves Bill to Remove Confederate Flag

The South Carolina House has approved a bill to remove the Confederate flag from the statehouse grounds , and the flag will be taken down Friday . The vote early this morning came after more than 13 hours of debate . The House approved the Senate bill by more than a two-thirds margin . Republican Gov . Nikki Haley will sign the bill at 4 p.m. today and the flag will come down at 10 a.m. Friday , the governor 's office confirmed today . “ Today , as the Senate did before them , the House of Representatives has served the State of South Carolina and her people with great dignity , ” Haley said in a statement after the House vote . “ I 'm grateful for their service and their compassion . It is a new day in South Carolina , a day we can all be proud of , a day that truly brings us all together as we continue to heal , as one people and one state . ” Efforts to have the flag removed intensified amid a June 17 shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal church in Charleston in which nine people died . Republican Rep. Jenny Horne scolded fellow members of her party for stalling the debate with dozens of amendments , recalling the Rev . Clementa Pinckney , the pastor of Emanuel AME and a former house member who died in the shooting . `` For the widow of Sen. Pinckney and his two young daughters , [ keeping the flag ] would be adding insult to injury and I will not be a part of it , '' she screamed into a microphone . The flag has been flying at the statehouse since the early 1960s , serving , for many , as a reminder of a racist past . Others have argued that the flag reflects Southern pride . The vote marks a stunning reversal in a state that was the first to leave the Union in 1860 and raised the flag again at its statehouse more than 50 years ago to protest the civil rights movement .

The South Carolina House has approved a bill to remove the Confederate flag from the statehouse grounds, and the flag will be taken down Friday. The vote early this morning came after more than 13 hours of debate. The House approved the Senate bill by more than a two-thirds margin. Republican Gov. Nikki Haley will sign the bill at 4 p.m. today and the flag will come down at 10 a.m. Friday, the governor's office confirmed today. “Today, as the Senate did before them, the House of Representatives has served the State of South Carolina and her people with great dignity,” Haley said in a statement after the House vote. “I'm grateful for their service and their compassion. It is a new day in South Carolina, a day we can all be proud of, a day that truly brings us all together as we continue to heal, as one people and one state.” Efforts to have the flag removed intensified amid a June 17 shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal church in Charleston in which nine people died. Republican Rep. Jenny Horne scolded fellow members of her party for stalling the debate with dozens of amendments, recalling the Rev. Clementa Pinckney, the pastor of Emanuel AME and a former house member who died in the shooting. "For the widow of Sen. Pinckney and his two young daughters, [keeping the flag] would be adding insult to injury and I will not be a part of it," she screamed into a microphone. The flag has been flying at the statehouse since the early 1960s, serving, for many, as a reminder of a racist past. Others have argued that the flag reflects Southern pride. The vote marks a stunning reversal in a state that was the first to leave the Union in 1860 and raised the flag again at its statehouse more than 50 years ago to protest the civil rights movement. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

iZq8aeewHMEduJSi

test

BzWZ7EVOtpsUs7Im

media_bias

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/03/11/media-ignore-bernie-sanders-imam-comments/

Major Publications Appear To Ignore Pro-Bernie Imam’s ‘Offensive And Toxic’ Remarks

2020-03-11

Many major networks appeared to ignore the news that an Islamic cleric who spoke at Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s rally March 7 claimed the terrorist group ISIS is “ somehow connected to Israel . ” Michigan-based Imam Sayed Hassan Qazwini spoke at Sanders ’ s rally and announced that America needs someone who won ’ t “ promote ” anti-Semitism , Islamophobia or white supremacy . He added that the country needs “ someone like Bernie Sanders , who loves all and supports all . ” Despite his comments Saturday , Qazwini has previously claimed that ISIS works with Israel to harm how the Imam is viewed . He also referred to Sanders as an “ honorable man , even though he is a Jew ” and called homosexuality “ a form of disorder . ” Outlets such as CNN , ABC News and NBC News and the Associated Press appeared to ignore this news . The publications also appeared to ignore the follow-up where the Sanders campaign denounced Qazwini . None of the publications responded to a request for comment from ███ . Many of these outlets have previously failed to cover breaking news regarding politicians . Some of these publications also ignored the August 2019 news surrounding Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar ’ s alleged use of campaign funds to pursue an affair with a married man . Fox News , the Washington Examiner , Mediaite and some other publications did cover the controversial Imam . ( RELATED : Outlets That Ripped Apart Bristol Palin ’ s 2008 Teen Pregnancy Gloss Over Hunter Biden ’ s Alleged New Kid ) Detroit-Based Shiite Imam Hassan Qazwini : ISIS Run by Israel , Zionists In Order to Kill Muslims , Defame Islam ; Israel Benefits from ISIS More than Anyone ( Archival ) pic.twitter.com/3Y2d0sIJk4 — MEMRI ( @ MEMRIReports ) May 2 , 2019 “ The campaign has been made aware of offensive and toxic past statements by Imam Qazwini , ” Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir said according to Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin . “ These statements are dangerous , hateful , and violate the principles of our movement , which is based on values of equality and dignity for all people . ”

Many major networks appeared to ignore the news that an Islamic cleric who spoke at Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders’s rally March 7 claimed the terrorist group ISIS is “somehow connected to Israel.” Michigan-based Imam Sayed Hassan Qazwini spoke at Sanders’s rally and announced that America needs someone who won’t “promote” anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or white supremacy. He added that the country needs “someone like Bernie Sanders, who loves all and supports all.” Despite his comments Saturday, Qazwini has previously claimed that ISIS works with Israel to harm how the Imam is viewed. He also referred to Sanders as an “honorable man, even though he is a Jew” and called homosexuality “a form of disorder.” Outlets such as CNN, ABC News and NBC News and the Associated Press appeared to ignore this news. The publications also appeared to ignore the follow-up where the Sanders campaign denounced Qazwini. None of the publications responded to a request for comment from the Daily Caller. Many of these outlets have previously failed to cover breaking news regarding politicians. Some of these publications also ignored the August 2019 news surrounding Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar’s alleged use of campaign funds to pursue an affair with a married man. Fox News, the Washington Examiner, Mediaite and some other publications did cover the controversial Imam. (RELATED: Outlets That Ripped Apart Bristol Palin’s 2008 Teen Pregnancy Gloss Over Hunter Biden’s Alleged New Kid) WATCH: Detroit-Based Shiite Imam Hassan Qazwini: ISIS Run by Israel, Zionists In Order to Kill Muslims, Defame Islam; Israel Benefits from ISIS More than Anyone (Archival) pic.twitter.com/3Y2d0sIJk4 — MEMRI (@MEMRIReports) May 2, 2019 “The campaign has been made aware of offensive and toxic past statements by Imam Qazwini,” Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir said according to Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin. “These statements are dangerous, hateful, and violate the principles of our movement, which is based on values of equality and dignity for all people.”

www.dailycaller.com

right

BzWZ7EVOtpsUs7Im

test

iRHNHs247y5YdUgf

politics

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41729586

Bob Corker says Trump 'utterly untruthful president'

Influential Republican Senator Bob Corker has unleashed a blistering attack on US President Donald Trump , calling him `` utterly untruthful '' . In a series of television interviews , Mr Corker accused the president of lying , adding that he debased the US and weakened its global standing . Mr Trump fired back on Twitter , calling the Tennessee senator a `` lightweight '' who `` could n't get re-elected '' . The pair met at a Senate lunch on Tuesday to discuss tax reform . `` He is purposely breaking down relationships we have around the world that had been useful to our nation , '' Mr Corker said on CNN after the Republican president criticised him on Twitter . `` I think the debasement of our nation is what he 'll be remembered most for , '' he said . The Foreign Relations Committee chairman , who was an early supporter of Mr Trump , added that the president has `` great difficulty with truth '' . The good news for Donald Trump is he 's managed to push his feud with a grieving war widow out of the headlines . The bad news is he 's done it by pushing a stake through Republican unity at a time when the party needs to come together to pass big-ticket tax reform through Congress . The latest blistering exchange between Republican Senator Bob Corker and the president has all the hallmarks of one of Mr Trump 's classic intra-party campaign spats . There 's the quick Twitter trigger finger , the derogatory nicknames ( `` liddle '' Bob Corker ) , the over-the-top hyperbole ( `` he could n't get elected dog catcher '' ) . Republicans - including those who bore the brunt of Mr Trump 's vitriolic attacks - largely shrugged off those earlier rows as primary-season posturing and unified behind their unlikely standard-bearer in the autumn general election . Mr Corker , on the verge of Senate retirement , is n't backing down , however . And the president is once again raising the voltage . The party is learning the hard way that there 's only one Donald Trump - whether he 's a real-estate mogul , a reality TV star , a candidate or a president . If you question his leadership , his views or his attitude , he 'll unleash the whirlwind , no matter the consequences . When asked if he regretted supporting Mr Trump during the 2016 election , the senator said : `` Let 's just put it this way , I would not do that again . '' His comments came after Mr Trump lashed out at the Republican in a series of tweets . Last month Mr Corker announced that he would not seek re-election at next year 's mid-term elections . Mr Corker had voted against the 2015 agreement to curb Iran 's development of nuclear weapons , calling it `` flawed '' , but later said Mr Trump should not `` tear up '' the pact . Mr Trump 's tweets on Tuesday appeared to be in response to Mr Corker 's comments on ABC News ' Good Morning America , in which he suggested the president should stop interfering in the debate on tax legislation . The president went to Capitol Hill on Tuesday in an attempt to rally Senate Republicans around a White House-backed tax reform plan . A protester was detained by police after he hurled Russian flags at Mr Trump as he walked through the building with top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell . `` Trump is treason ! '' shouted the demonstrator , who identified himself as Ryan Clayton from Americans Take Action , a campaign group calling for Mr Trump 's impeachment . `` This president conspired with agents of the Russian government to steal an election ! '' he cried . `` We should be talking about treason in congress , not about tax cuts ! '' Mr Corker 's support for the tax plan could be crucial as Republicans seek to pass the legislation in the upper chamber . The lawmaker also raised concern with the president 's behaviour toward North Korea , saying Mr Trump `` continues to kneecap his diplomatic representative , the secretary of state '' . He added that when it comes to diplomacy with Pyongyang , Mr Trump should `` leave it to the professionals for a while '' . Following Mr Trump 's attack , Mr Corker fired back on Twitter . The spat reignites an ongoing feud between the two men , which blew up earlier this month when Mr Corker responded to an attack from Mr Trump saying : `` It 's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Lashing out: What Bob Corker really thinks of President Trump Influential Republican Senator Bob Corker has unleashed a blistering attack on US President Donald Trump, calling him "utterly untruthful". In a series of television interviews, Mr Corker accused the president of lying, adding that he debased the US and weakened its global standing. Mr Trump fired back on Twitter, calling the Tennessee senator a "lightweight" who "couldn't get re-elected". The pair met at a Senate lunch on Tuesday to discuss tax reform. "He is purposely breaking down relationships we have around the world that had been useful to our nation," Mr Corker said on CNN after the Republican president criticised him on Twitter. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption "Trump is treason!" shouted a protester who threw Russian flags at the president as he arrived at Capitol Hill "I think the debasement of our nation is what he'll be remembered most for," he said. The Foreign Relations Committee chairman, who was an early supporter of Mr Trump, added that the president has "great difficulty with truth". Raising the voltage - Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington The good news for Donald Trump is he's managed to push his feud with a grieving war widow out of the headlines. The bad news is he's done it by pushing a stake through Republican unity at a time when the party needs to come together to pass big-ticket tax reform through Congress. The latest blistering exchange between Republican Senator Bob Corker and the president has all the hallmarks of one of Mr Trump's classic intra-party campaign spats. There's the quick Twitter trigger finger, the derogatory nicknames ("liddle" Bob Corker), the over-the-top hyperbole ("he couldn't get elected dog catcher"). Republicans - including those who bore the brunt of Mr Trump's vitriolic attacks - largely shrugged off those earlier rows as primary-season posturing and unified behind their unlikely standard-bearer in the autumn general election. Mr Corker, on the verge of Senate retirement, isn't backing down, however. And the president is once again raising the voltage. The party is learning the hard way that there's only one Donald Trump - whether he's a real-estate mogul, a reality TV star, a candidate or a president. If you question his leadership, his views or his attitude, he'll unleash the whirlwind, no matter the consequences. When asked if he regretted supporting Mr Trump during the 2016 election, the senator said: "Let's just put it this way, I would not do that again." His comments came after Mr Trump lashed out at the Republican in a series of tweets. Last month Mr Corker announced that he would not seek re-election at next year's mid-term elections. Mr Corker had voted against the 2015 agreement to curb Iran's development of nuclear weapons, calling it "flawed", but later said Mr Trump should not "tear up" the pact. Mr Trump's tweets on Tuesday appeared to be in response to Mr Corker's comments on ABC News' Good Morning America, in which he suggested the president should stop interfering in the debate on tax legislation. The president went to Capitol Hill on Tuesday in an attempt to rally Senate Republicans around a White House-backed tax reform plan. A protester was detained by police after he hurled Russian flags at Mr Trump as he walked through the building with top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell. "Trump is treason!" shouted the demonstrator, who identified himself as Ryan Clayton from Americans Take Action, a campaign group calling for Mr Trump's impeachment. "This president conspired with agents of the Russian government to steal an election!" he cried. "We should be talking about treason in congress, not about tax cuts!" Mr Corker's support for the tax plan could be crucial as Republicans seek to pass the legislation in the upper chamber. The lawmaker also raised concern with the president's behaviour toward North Korea, saying Mr Trump "continues to kneecap his diplomatic representative, the secretary of state". Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption How one phone call has sparked uproar He added that when it comes to diplomacy with Pyongyang, Mr Trump should "leave it to the professionals for a while". Following Mr Trump's attack, Mr Corker fired back on Twitter. The spat reignites an ongoing feud between the two men, which blew up earlier this month when Mr Corker responded to an attack from Mr Trump saying: "It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. "Someone obviously missed their shift this morning."

www.bbc.com

center

iRHNHs247y5YdUgf

test

eInW0pYw0lWTmfUc

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/08/after-the-midterms-trumpism-is-the-domin

After the Midterms, Trumpism Is the Dominant Force in the GOP

2018-11-08

Eric Boehm, Zuri Davis, Christian Britschgi, Josh Blackman, Cosmo Wenman, Joe Setyon

`` Mia Love gave me no love . And she lost , '' President Donald Trump said Wednesday , delivering a stunning post-mortem of Republican electoral losses in the East Room of the White House . He did n't sound very sorry . But the only thing more stunning than hearing a sitting president dancing on the political grave of a member of his own party—something Trump did on several occasions during his 90-minute news conference Wednesday—was the fact that Rep. Mia Love ( R–Utah ) had not yet officially conceded her election when he tore into her for insufficiently embracing Trumpism . Indeed , by Wednesday night the race was still not called , though Love trailed Democratic challenger Ben McAdams by about 5,000 votes with 30 percent of precincts still outstanding . The day after midterm elections lend themselves to sitting presidents delivering frank assessments of poor performances by their parties . George W. Bush described his party 's losses in 2006 as `` a thumpin ' '' and Barack Obama in 2010 said Democrats were handed a `` shellacking . '' Trump 's remarks shared his predecessors ' candor but none of their humility . Instead , he rattled off a list of candidates who won after he 'd campaigned on their behalf , then mocked some of his fellow Republicans who `` did n't want the embrace '' from him so close to the election . `` I 'm not sure if I should be happy or sad , '' Trump said of the losses suffered by Republican candidates who distanced themselves from his unpopular presidency . `` I think I feel just fine about it . '' That 's insane—no president has ever benefited from watching the other party take control of Congress . But it reveals once again that Trump really feels no allegiance to the Republican Party , its voters , or its candidates . In the party of Trump , loyalty is a one-way street . And in the aftermath of Tuesday 's midterm elections , the Republican Party is increasingly exclusively the party of Trump . In an election where literally hundreds of Republicans were elected to Congress , it is of course not true that those who showed the greatest fealty to Trump were always victorious while those who shunned him were always defeated . There will be plenty of both groups present when the 116th Congress begins in January . Still , Trump 's broad assessment of the GOP 's performance on Tuesday has more than merely a ring of truth to it—something that 's been widely acknowledged in the days after the election by commentators and analysts like The Federalist 's Ben Domenech , The Washington Examiner 's David Drucker , and The Atlantic 's McKay Coppins , among others . The specifics of their arguments differ , but the central thesis is the same . The Republican Party is now `` decidedly more Trumpian , '' writes Domenech , `` having seen the elimination of its most moderate and Trump-critical members , and the support of those who embraced Trump emphatically on the campaign trail and in policy preferences . '' The effect may be more pronounced in the Senate , due mostly to the simple fact that the Republicans no longer control the agenda in the House ( where the GOP conference was already more pro-Trump even before the election ) . Several GOP senators who were at times thorns in Trump 's side are now gone . That includes the late John McCain ( R–Ariz . ) , of course , but also Jeff Flake ( R–Ariz . ) and Bob Corker ( R–Tenn . ) , both of whom are retiring . Marsha Blackburn , who was elected Tuesday to replace Corker , made Trump 's endorsement a centerpiece of her campaign—a fitting analogy for the transformation of the GOP on the national stage . Beyond the specifics of who comprises the Senate Republican conference , Tuesday 's outcome also boosts Trump by widening the Senate 's Republican majority . With a 54-seat majority ( which seems the most likely outcome , though a few races remain undecided ) , the moderates that remain will have less power to bend the chamber 's will . Senators like Susan Collins ( R–Maine ) or Ben Sasse ( R–Neb . ) will have fewer opportunities to fill the swing-vote role that McCain did on the Obamacare repeal or Flake did on Kavanaugh 's confirmation . That means that the only obviously Trump-skeptical Republican to win a statewide race on Tuesday—the newly elected senator-to-be from Utah , Mitt Romney—may not have much leverage either . Trump is despised in Utah , so selectively opposing the president 's agenda should not carry a high political price for Romney , but he also does n't seem like the likely leader of a Senate GOP opposition movement . When I went back and re-watched Trump 's press conference , I was struck by how deliberate the president 's shots at other Republicans were . The `` sorry , Mia '' might have been typical Trumpian ad-libbing , but the rest was decidedly not . Trump was reading from a card most of the time , including the moment when he helpfully laid out exactly what it means to `` embrace '' Trumpism . This was not Trump talking off the cuff . The White House was deliberately conveying a specific message to Republicans : Trump is now the center of conservatism . It 's telling that one of the strongest rebukes of Trump 's comments about Love and other Republicans who lost on Tuesday came from Rep. Ryan Costello ( R–Penn . ) , who said on Twitter that he was `` disgusted '' by the performance . To deal w harassment & filth spewed at GOP MOC 's in tough seats every day for 2 yrs , bc of POTUS ; to bite ur lip more times you 'd care to ; to disagree & separate from POTUS on principle & civility in ur campaign ; to lose bc of POTUS & have him piss on u. Angers me to my core . — Ryan Costello ( @ RyanCostello ) November 7 , 2018 During an appearance on CNN later in the day , Costello stood by his tweet and clarified that he believed many moderate Republicans had made the right choice to distance themselves from Trump , who is deeply unpopular in some parts of the country . The president 's unpopularity , Costello said , was a deciding factor in some of the races Republicans could have won but lost instead . Trump may not care much . Like so many other non-Trumpist Republicans , Costello is leaving Congress at the end of the year . He did n't seek re-election .

"Mia Love gave me no love. And she lost," President Donald Trump said Wednesday, delivering a stunning post-mortem of Republican electoral losses in the East Room of the White House. "Too bad," he continued. "Sorry about that, Mia." He didn't sound very sorry. But the only thing more stunning than hearing a sitting president dancing on the political grave of a member of his own party—something Trump did on several occasions during his 90-minute news conference Wednesday—was the fact that Rep. Mia Love (R–Utah) had not yet officially conceded her election when he tore into her for insufficiently embracing Trumpism. Indeed, by Wednesday night the race was still not called, though Love trailed Democratic challenger Ben McAdams by about 5,000 votes with 30 percent of precincts still outstanding. The day after midterm elections lend themselves to sitting presidents delivering frank assessments of poor performances by their parties. George W. Bush described his party's losses in 2006 as " a thumpin'" and Barack Obama in 2010 said Democrats were handed a "shellacking." Trump's remarks shared his predecessors' candor but none of their humility. Instead, he rattled off a list of candidates who won after he'd campaigned on their behalf, then mocked some of his fellow Republicans who "didn't want the embrace" from him so close to the election. "I'm not sure if I should be happy or sad," Trump said of the losses suffered by Republican candidates who distanced themselves from his unpopular presidency. "I think I feel just fine about it." That's insane—no president has ever benefited from watching the other party take control of Congress. But it reveals once again that Trump really feels no allegiance to the Republican Party, its voters, or its candidates. In the party of Trump, loyalty is a one-way street. And in the aftermath of Tuesday's midterm elections, the Republican Party is increasingly exclusively the party of Trump. In an election where literally hundreds of Republicans were elected to Congress, it is of course not true that those who showed the greatest fealty to Trump were always victorious while those who shunned him were always defeated. There will be plenty of both groups present when the 116th Congress begins in January. Still, Trump's broad assessment of the GOP's performance on Tuesday has more than merely a ring of truth to it—something that's been widely acknowledged in the days after the election by commentators and analysts like The Federalist's Ben Domenech, The Washington Examiner's David Drucker, and The Atlantic's McKay Coppins, among others. The specifics of their arguments differ, but the central thesis is the same. The Republican Party is now "decidedly more Trumpian," writes Domenech, "having seen the elimination of its most moderate and Trump-critical members, and the support of those who embraced Trump emphatically on the campaign trail and in policy preferences." The effect may be more pronounced in the Senate, due mostly to the simple fact that the Republicans no longer control the agenda in the House (where the GOP conference was already more pro-Trump even before the election). Several GOP senators who were at times thorns in Trump's side are now gone. That includes the late John McCain (R–Ariz.), of course, but also Jeff Flake (R–Ariz.) and Bob Corker (R–Tenn.), both of whom are retiring. Marsha Blackburn, who was elected Tuesday to replace Corker, made Trump's endorsement a centerpiece of her campaign—a fitting analogy for the transformation of the GOP on the national stage. Beyond the specifics of who comprises the Senate Republican conference, Tuesday's outcome also boosts Trump by widening the Senate's Republican majority. With a 54-seat majority (which seems the most likely outcome, though a few races remain undecided), the moderates that remain will have less power to bend the chamber's will. Senators like Susan Collins (R–Maine) or Ben Sasse (R–Neb.) will have fewer opportunities to fill the swing-vote role that McCain did on the Obamacare repeal or Flake did on Kavanaugh's confirmation. That means that the only obviously Trump-skeptical Republican to win a statewide race on Tuesday—the newly elected senator-to-be from Utah, Mitt Romney—may not have much leverage either. Trump is despised in Utah, so selectively opposing the president's agenda should not carry a high political price for Romney, but he also doesn't seem like the likely leader of a Senate GOP opposition movement. When I went back and re-watched Trump's press conference, I was struck by how deliberate the president's shots at other Republicans were. The "sorry, Mia" might have been typical Trumpian ad-libbing, but the rest was decidedly not. Trump was reading from a card most of the time, including the moment when he helpfully laid out exactly what it means to "embrace" Trumpism. This was not Trump talking off the cuff. The White House was deliberately conveying a specific message to Republicans: Trump is now the center of conservatism. It's telling that one of the strongest rebukes of Trump's comments about Love and other Republicans who lost on Tuesday came from Rep. Ryan Costello (R–Penn.), who said on Twitter that he was "disgusted" by the performance. To deal w harassment & filth spewed at GOP MOC's in tough seats every day for 2 yrs, bc of POTUS; to bite ur lip more times you'd care to; to disagree & separate from POTUS on principle & civility in ur campaign; to lose bc of POTUS & have him piss on u. Angers me to my core. — Ryan Costello (@RyanCostello) November 7, 2018 During an appearance on CNN later in the day, Costello stood by his tweet and clarified that he believed many moderate Republicans had made the right choice to distance themselves from Trump, who is deeply unpopular in some parts of the country. The president's unpopularity, Costello said, was a deciding factor in some of the races Republicans could have won but lost instead. Trump may not care much. Like so many other non-Trumpist Republicans, Costello is leaving Congress at the end of the year. He didn't seek re-election.

www.reason.com

right

eInW0pYw0lWTmfUc

test

bm5sMWxoFNOgllch

supreme_court

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/fcee565b9fed5b001e9b3fce9ed00c24

Supreme Court rejects EPA’s narrow view of Clean Water Act

2020-04-23

Mark Sherman

FILE - In this March 16 , 2020 , file photo , a tree blooms outside the Supreme Court in Washington . The Supreme Court ruled Thursday , April 23 , that sewage plants and other industries can not avoid environmental requirements under landmark clean-water protections when they send dirty water on an indirect route to rivers , oceans and other navigable waterways . ( AP Photo/Patrick Semansky , File ) FILE - In this March 16 , 2020 , file photo , a tree blooms outside the Supreme Court in Washington . The Supreme Court ruled Thursday , April 23 , that sewage plants and other industries can not avoid environmental requirements under landmark clean-water protections when they send dirty water on an indirect route to rivers , oceans and other navigable waterways . ( AP Photo/Patrick Semansky , File ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that sewage plants and other industries can not avoid environmental requirements under landmark clean-water protections when they send dirty water on an indirect route to rivers , oceans and other navigable waterways . Rejecting the Trump administration ’ s views , the justices held by a 6-3 vote that the discharge of polluted water into the ground , rather than directly into nearby waterways , does not relieve an industry of complying with the Clean Water Act . “ We hold that the statute requires a permit when there is a direct discharge from a point source into navigable waters or when there is the functional equivalent of a direct discharge , ” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court . The decision came in a closely watched case from Hawaii about whether a sewage treatment plant needs a federal permit when it sends wastewater deep underground , instead of discharging the treated flow directly into the Pacific Ocean . Studies have found the wastewater soon reaches the ocean and has damaged a coral reef near a Maui beach . The Environmental Protection Agency under President Donald Trump reversed the agency ’ s position that Breyer noted has appeared to work well for more than 30 years . That ’ s among many actions the administration has taken to change course on environmental regulations , including making official just days ago a sweeping rollback of the Clean Water Act that would end federal protection for many of the nation ’ s millions of miles of streams , arroyos and wetlands . Public health and environmental groups and some Western states , among other opponents , say the rollback would leave the waterways more vulnerable to pollution from development , industry and farms , and they have promised court fights . In the Hawaii case , Justices Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented . “ Based on the statutory text and structure , I would hold that a permit is required only when a point source discharges pollutants directly into navigable waters , ” Thomas wrote . David Henkin , a lawyer for the environmental group Earthjustice who argued the case in the high court , said , “ This is unquestionably a win for people who are concerned about protecting clean water in the United States . ” Sewage plants and other polluters must get a permit under the Clean Water Act when pollutants go through a pipe from their source to a body of water . The question in this case was whether a permit is needed when the pollutant first passes through the soil or groundwater . Maui injects 3 million to 5 million gallons a day of treated wastewater into wells beneath the Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility , which sits about a half-mile from the Pacific shoreline . Environmental groups in Hawaii sued Maui after studies using dyes to trace the flow showed more than half the discharge from two wells was entering the ocean in a narrow area . They won a ruling from the federal appeals court based in San Francisco . Breyer raised concerns during arguments in November that a ruling for Maui would provide a “ road map ” for polluters to evade federal permit requirements . Still , the court did not go as far as the federal appeals court , which adopted a standard that would have brought even more groundwater discharges under the clean water law .

FILE - In this March 16, 2020, file photo, a tree blooms outside the Supreme Court in Washington. The Supreme Court ruled Thursday, April 23, that sewage plants and other industries cannot avoid environmental requirements under landmark clean-water protections when they send dirty water on an indirect route to rivers, oceans and other navigable waterways. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File) FILE - In this March 16, 2020, file photo, a tree blooms outside the Supreme Court in Washington. The Supreme Court ruled Thursday, April 23, that sewage plants and other industries cannot avoid environmental requirements under landmark clean-water protections when they send dirty water on an indirect route to rivers, oceans and other navigable waterways. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that sewage plants and other industries cannot avoid environmental requirements under landmark clean-water protections when they send dirty water on an indirect route to rivers, oceans and other navigable waterways. Rejecting the Trump administration’s views, the justices held by a 6-3 vote that the discharge of polluted water into the ground, rather than directly into nearby waterways, does not relieve an industry of complying with the Clean Water Act . “We hold that the statute requires a permit when there is a direct discharge from a point source into navigable waters or when there is the functional equivalent of a direct discharge,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court. The decision came in a closely watched case from Hawaii about whether a sewage treatment plant needs a federal permit when it sends wastewater deep underground, instead of discharging the treated flow directly into the Pacific Ocean. Studies have found the wastewater soon reaches the ocean and has damaged a coral reef near a Maui beach. The Environmental Protection Agency under President Donald Trump reversed the agency’s position that Breyer noted has appeared to work well for more than 30 years. That’s among many actions the administration has taken to change course on environmental regulations, including making official just days ago a sweeping rollback of the Clean Water Act that would end federal protection for many of the nation’s millions of miles of streams, arroyos and wetlands. Public health and environmental groups and some Western states, among other opponents, say the rollback would leave the waterways more vulnerable to pollution from development, industry and farms, and they have promised court fights. In the Hawaii case, Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented. “Based on the statutory text and structure, I would hold that a permit is required only when a point source discharges pollutants directly into navigable waters,” Thomas wrote. David Henkin, a lawyer for the environmental group Earthjustice who argued the case in the high court, said, “This is unquestionably a win for people who are concerned about protecting clean water in the United States.” Sewage plants and other polluters must get a permit under the Clean Water Act when pollutants go through a pipe from their source to a body of water. The question in this case was whether a permit is needed when the pollutant first passes through the soil or groundwater. Maui injects 3 million to 5 million gallons a day of treated wastewater into wells beneath the Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility, which sits about a half-mile from the Pacific shoreline. Environmental groups in Hawaii sued Maui after studies using dyes to trace the flow showed more than half the discharge from two wells was entering the ocean in a narrow area. They won a ruling from the federal appeals court based in San Francisco. Breyer raised concerns during arguments in November that a ruling for Maui would provide a “road map” for polluters to evade federal permit requirements. Still, the court did not go as far as the federal appeals court, which adopted a standard that would have brought even more groundwater discharges under the clean water law. ___ Associated Press writer Ellen Knickmeyer contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

bm5sMWxoFNOgllch

test

Cfci6TersHDbLywq

cybersecurity

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/4912baca0c4cbc6cb7a3580f4f3c9b96

Intel officials say Russia boosting Trump candidacy

2020-02-20

Mary Clare Jalonick, Michael Balsamo

FILE - In this June 28 , 2019 , file photo , President Donald Trump , right , shakes hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin , left , during a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Osaka , Japan . Intelligence officials say Russia is interfering with the 2020 election to try to help Trump get reelected , The New York Times reported Thursday , Feb. 20 , 2020 . ( AP Photo/Susan Walsh , File ) FILE - In this June 28 , 2019 , file photo , President Donald Trump , right , shakes hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin , left , during a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Osaka , Japan . Intelligence officials say Russia is interfering with the 2020 election to try to help Trump get reelected , The New York Times reported Thursday , Feb. 20 , 2020 . ( AP Photo/Susan Walsh , File ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — Intelligence officials have warned lawmakers that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election campaign to help President Donald Trump get reelected , according to three officials familiar with the closed-door briefing . Trump pushed back Friday accusing Democrats of launching a disinformation campaign . “ Another misinformation campaign is being launched by Democrats in Congress saying that Russia prefers me to any of the Do Nothing Democrat candidates who still have been unable to , after two weeks , count their votes in Iowa . Hoax number 7 ! ” Trump tweeted . The officials , who asked for anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence , said Thursday that the briefing last week focused on Russia ’ s efforts to influence the 2020 election and sow discord in the American electorate . The intelligence warning was first reported by The New York Times and The Washington Post . A senior administration official told The ███ that the news infuriated Trump , who complained that Democrats would use the information against him . Over the course of his presidency , Trump has dismissed the intelligence community ’ s assessment of Russia ’ s 2016 election interference as a conspiracy to undermine his victory . The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private meeting . A day after the Feb. 13 briefing to the House committee , Trump berated the then-director of national intelligence , Joseph Maguire , and he announced this week that Maguire would be replaced by Richard Grenell , a Trump loyalist . Moscow denied any meddling . Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Friday that the allegations are “ paranoid reports that , unfortunately , there will be more and more of as we get closer to the elections ( in the U.S. ) . Of course , they have nothing to do with the truth . ” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tweeted that , “ American voters should decide American elections — not Vladimir Putin. ” She added that all members of Congress “ should condemn the President ’ s reported efforts to dismiss threats to the integrity of our democracy & to politicize our intel community . ” Rep. Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , the chairman of the House intelligence committee , tweeted : “ We count on the intelligence community to inform Congress of any threat of foreign interference in our elections . If reports are true and the President is interfering with that , he is again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling . Exactly as we warned he would do . ” U.S. intelligence agencies say Russia interfered in the 2016 election through social media campaigns and stealing and distributing emails from Democratic accounts . They say Russia was trying to boost Trump ’ s campaign and add chaos to the American political process . Special counsel Robert Mueller concluded that Russian interference was “ sweeping and systematic , ” but he did not find a criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign . Republican lawmakers who were in last week ’ s briefing by the DNI ’ s chief election official , Shelby Pierson , pushed back by noting that Trump has been tough on Russia , one of the officials said . While Trump has imposed severe economic sanctions on Russia , he also has spoken warmly of Russian leader Vladimir Putin and withdrawn troops from areas , like Syria , where Moscow could fill the vacuum . He delayed military aid last year to Ukraine , a Russian adversary — a decision that was at the core of his impeachment proceedings . The Times said Trump was angry that the House briefing was made before Schiff , the panel ’ s chairman , who led the impeachment proceedings . Trump on Thursday formally appointed Grenell , the U.S. ambassador to Germany , to replace Maguire as the new acting director of national intelligence . Maguire was required to step down soon under federal law governing acting appointments . The Times cited two administration officials as saying the timing , after the intelligence briefing , was coincidental . Grenell ’ s background is primarily in politics and media affairs . He lacks the extensive national security and military experience of Maguire , as well as previous holders of the position overseeing the nation ’ s 17 intelligence agencies . His appointment does little to heal the president ’ s fraught relations with the intelligence community , which Trump has derided as part of a “ deep state ” of entrenched bureaucrats that seek to undermine his agenda . The administration has most notably feuded with the intelligence community over the Russian interference and the events surrounding Trump ’ s impeachment . Pierson told NPR in an interview that aired last month that the Russians “ are already engaging in influence operations relative to candidates going into 2020 . But we do not have evidence at this time that our adversaries are directly looking at interfering with vote counts or the vote tallies . ” Pierson , appointed in July 2019 by then-Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats , works with intelligence agencies like the CIA , the FBI , the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security to identify anyone seeking to interfere with U.S. elections . Pierson told NPR that the U.S. doesn ’ t know exactly what the Russians are planning , but she said it ’ s not just a Russia problem . “ We ’ re still also concerned about China , Iran , non-state actors , hacktivists and frankly — certainly for DHS and FBI - even Americans that might be looking to undermine confidence in the elections . ” At an open hearing this month , FBI Director Christopher Wray told the House Judiciary Committee that Russia was engaged in “ information warfare ” heading into the November election , but that law enforcement had not seen efforts to target America ’ s infrastructure . He said Russia is relying on a covert social media campaign to divide the American public .

FILE - In this June 28, 2019, file photo, President Donald Trump, right, shakes hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, during a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan. Intelligence officials say Russia is interfering with the 2020 election to try to help Trump get reelected, The New York Times reported Thursday, Feb. 20, 2020. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File) FILE - In this June 28, 2019, file photo, President Donald Trump, right, shakes hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, during a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan. Intelligence officials say Russia is interfering with the 2020 election to try to help Trump get reelected, The New York Times reported Thursday, Feb. 20, 2020. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — Intelligence officials have warned lawmakers that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election campaign to help President Donald Trump get reelected, according to three officials familiar with the closed-door briefing. Trump pushed back Friday accusing Democrats of launching a disinformation campaign. “Another misinformation campaign is being launched by Democrats in Congress saying that Russia prefers me to any of the Do Nothing Democrat candidates who still have been unable to, after two weeks, count their votes in Iowa. Hoax number 7!” Trump tweeted. The officials, who asked for anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence, said Thursday that the briefing last week focused on Russia’s efforts to influence the 2020 election and sow discord in the American electorate. The intelligence warning was first reported by The New York Times and The Washington Post. A senior administration official told The Associated Press that the news infuriated Trump, who complained that Democrats would use the information against him. Over the course of his presidency, Trump has dismissed the intelligence community’s assessment of Russia’s 2016 election interference as a conspiracy to undermine his victory. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private meeting. A day after the Feb. 13 briefing to the House committee, Trump berated the then-director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, and he announced this week that Maguire would be replaced by Richard Grenell, a Trump loyalist. Moscow denied any meddling. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Friday that the allegations are “paranoid reports that, unfortunately, there will be more and more of as we get closer to the elections (in the U.S.). Of course, they have nothing to do with the truth.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tweeted that, “American voters should decide American elections — not Vladimir Putin.” She added that all members of Congress “should condemn the President’s reported efforts to dismiss threats to the integrity of our democracy & to politicize our intel community.” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chairman of the House intelligence committee, tweeted: “We count on the intelligence community to inform Congress of any threat of foreign interference in our elections. If reports are true and the President is interfering with that, he is again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling. Exactly as we warned he would do.” U.S. intelligence agencies say Russia interfered in the 2016 election through social media campaigns and stealing and distributing emails from Democratic accounts. They say Russia was trying to boost Trump’s campaign and add chaos to the American political process. Special counsel Robert Mueller concluded that Russian interference was “sweeping and systematic,” but he did not find a criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign. Republican lawmakers who were in last week’s briefing by the DNI’s chief election official, Shelby Pierson, pushed back by noting that Trump has been tough on Russia, one of the officials said. While Trump has imposed severe economic sanctions on Russia, he also has spoken warmly of Russian leader Vladimir Putin and withdrawn troops from areas, like Syria, where Moscow could fill the vacuum. He delayed military aid last year to Ukraine, a Russian adversary — a decision that was at the core of his impeachment proceedings. The Times said Trump was angry that the House briefing was made before Schiff, the panel’s chairman, who led the impeachment proceedings. Trump on Thursday formally appointed Grenell, the U.S. ambassador to Germany, to replace Maguire as the new acting director of national intelligence. Maguire was required to step down soon under federal law governing acting appointments. The Times cited two administration officials as saying the timing, after the intelligence briefing, was coincidental. Grenell’s background is primarily in politics and media affairs. He lacks the extensive national security and military experience of Maguire, as well as previous holders of the position overseeing the nation’s 17 intelligence agencies. His appointment does little to heal the president’s fraught relations with the intelligence community, which Trump has derided as part of a “deep state” of entrenched bureaucrats that seek to undermine his agenda. The administration has most notably feuded with the intelligence community over the Russian interference and the events surrounding Trump’s impeachment. Pierson told NPR in an interview that aired last month that the Russians “are already engaging in influence operations relative to candidates going into 2020. But we do not have evidence at this time that our adversaries are directly looking at interfering with vote counts or the vote tallies.” Pierson, appointed in July 2019 by then-Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, works with intelligence agencies like the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security to identify anyone seeking to interfere with U.S. elections. Pierson told NPR that the U.S. doesn’t know exactly what the Russians are planning, but she said it’s not just a Russia problem. “We’re still also concerned about China, Iran, non-state actors, hacktivists and frankly — certainly for DHS and FBI - even Americans that might be looking to undermine confidence in the elections.” At an open hearing this month, FBI Director Christopher Wray told the House Judiciary Committee that Russia was engaged in “information warfare” heading into the November election, but that law enforcement had not seen efforts to target America’s infrastructure. He said Russia is relying on a covert social media campaign to divide the American public. ___ Associated Press writers Aamer Madhani, Deb Riechmann and Eric Tucker in Washington, Zeke Miller in Las Vegas and Daria Litvinova contributed from Moscow contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

Cfci6TersHDbLywq

test

cQkEo1nQXhW8Ui1a

justice_department

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/16/holder-seeks-fast-and-furious-appeal/?hpt=po_c2

Holder seeks Fast and Furious appeal

2013-11-16

Washington ( CNN ) - Attorney General Eric Holder is seeking an appeal to a judge 's ruling that allows the House of Representatives to proceed with contempt charges over the notorious Justice Department program Operation Fast and Furious . Holder is being held in contempt by the House for refusing to turn over documents about the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives ' gun-tracking program that allowed thousands of weapons to flow to Mexican drug cartels . The Obama administration invoked executive privilege to keep sealed some records over their response to Fast and Furious . The House Government Oversight and Reform Committee , chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa , R-California , subsequently voted to hold Holder in contempt last year . The Justice Department filed the motion late Friday evening , asking the U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson to send the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C . Circuit . In September , Judge Jackson , an Obama appointee , allowed the case against Holder to proceed despite the administration 's request to dismiss the suit . The motion argues that because Jackson 's ruling has `` potentially great significance '' in its ability to alter to the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches , the `` Defendant respectfully requests that this Court certify its decision for interlocutory appeal and stay further proceedings pending the disposition of that appeal . '' In plainer language , they are arguing a higher court needs to weigh in on the case before it can proceed because the issue involved could affect the separation of powers in a `` momentous , '' and in their opinion , harmful way . `` The very experience of participating in such proceedings will cause harm–to the Defendant , the Executive Branch , and the separation of powers–that can not be reversed if the D.C . Circuit ultimately rules in Defendant 's favor on the threshold questions presented , '' the motion says . `` In light of the harm to the separation of powers that such an adjudication would entail , including the impact of such proceedings on the negotiation process between the political Branches–a process that has generally proceeded without judicial involvement since the inception of congressional oversight–Defendant 's jurisdictional objections should be resolved by the Circuit before this Court takes such a momentous step . '' Judge Jackson has yet to rule on whether it was legal for the administration to use executive privilege in the first place .

6 years ago Washington (CNN) - Attorney General Eric Holder is seeking an appeal to a judge's ruling that allows the House of Representatives to proceed with contempt charges over the notorious Justice Department program Operation Fast and Furious. Holder is being held in contempt by the House for refusing to turn over documents about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' gun-tracking program that allowed thousands of weapons to flow to Mexican drug cartels. The Obama administration invoked executive privilege to keep sealed some records over their response to Fast and Furious. The House Government Oversight and Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, subsequently voted to hold Holder in contempt last year. Follow @politicalticker The Justice Department filed the motion late Friday evening, asking the U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson to send the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In September, Judge Jackson, an Obama appointee, allowed the case against Holder to proceed despite the administration's request to dismiss the suit. The motion argues that because Jackson's ruling has "potentially great significance" in its ability to alter to the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches, the "Defendant respectfully requests that this Court certify its decision for interlocutory appeal and stay further proceedings pending the disposition of that appeal." In plainer language, they are arguing a higher court needs to weigh in on the case before it can proceed because the issue involved could affect the separation of powers in a "momentous," and in their opinion, harmful way. "The very experience of participating in such proceedings will cause harm–to the Defendant, the Executive Branch, and the separation of powers–that cannot be reversed if the D.C. Circuit ultimately rules in Defendant's favor on the threshold questions presented," the motion says. "In light of the harm to the separation of powers that such an adjudication would entail, including the impact of such proceedings on the negotiation process between the political Branches–a process that has generally proceeded without judicial involvement since the inception of congressional oversight–Defendant's jurisdictional objections should be resolved by the Circuit before this Court takes such a momentous step." Judge Jackson has yet to rule on whether it was legal for the administration to use executive privilege in the first place.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

cQkEo1nQXhW8Ui1a

test

JVOvXUafJ50a11mH

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/the-beginnings-of-obamas-shadow-government/

The Beginnings of Obama’s Shadow Government

George Neumayr, Jeffrey Lord, Brandon J. Weichert, Veronique De Rugy, Sam Westrop, Dov Fischer

In the New York Post on Wednesday , a political cartoon appeared mocking Obama ’ s lawyerly denial of his administration ’ s investigation of Trump-Russia ties . The cartoon has Obama saying : “ Nobody in the White House ever ordered a wiretap of the individual named Donald Trump by my specific direction during daylight hours via a normal surveillance request that I actually signed by hand with an official presidential pen . ” The cartoon captures the public ’ s skepticism of Obama and its capacity for understanding the upshot of Trump ’ s tweets . It is no wonder that Obama this week planted stories in the press to the effect that he is “ livid ” at Trump . He is livid because Trump is exposing the soft coup that he had set in motion before leaving office . As Rush Limbaugh put it , Trump is picking up the grenades Obama tossed and throwing them back at him . One of those Obama-planted grenades blew up Michael Flynn , but the real target was Trump . Like Congressman John Lewis , the Obamas do not view Trump as a legitimate president . Shortly after Lewis made that comment , Michele Obama tweeted out praise of Lewis as a civil rights hero . It was a remarkably subversive tweet , designed to telegraph support for his attack on Trump under the guise of praising Lewis ’ s “ legacy. ” She wrote that the example of “ great leaders ” like Lewis should be “ our call to action . ” In an equally subversive tweet , Barack Obama expressed support for the anti-Trump protests , pronouncing himself “ heartened ” by them . He , of course , didn ’ t mention that his political network , Organizing for Action ( which grew out of Obama for America ) , had helped organize those protests . As Paul Sperry reports , “ Obama has an army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000 — who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency . And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House . ” He ’ s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action . Normally you ’ d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office , but not Obama ’ s OFA . Rather , it ’ s gearing up for battle , with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country… Run by old Obama aides and campaign workers , federal tax records show “ nonpartisan ” OFA marshals 32,525 volunteers nationwide . Registered as a 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) , it doesn ’ t have to disclose its donors , but they ’ ve been generous . OFA has raised more than $ 40 million in contributions and grants since evolving from Obama ’ s campaign organization Obama for America in 2013 . OFA , in IRS filings , says it trains young activists to develop “ organizing skills. ” Armed with Obama ’ s 2012 campaign database , OFA plans to get out the vote for Democratic candidates it ’ s grooming to win back Congress and erect a wall of resistance to Trump at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue . Another arm of his shadow government is the Obama Foundation , reports Sperry : It will be aided in that effort by the Obama Foundation , run by Obama ’ s former political director , and the National Democratic Redistricting Committee , launched last month by Obama pal Eric Holder to end what he and Obama call GOP “ gerrymandering ” of congressional districts . Obama will be overseeing it all from a shadow White House located within two miles of Trump . It features a mansion , which he ’ s fortifying with construction of a tall brick perimeter , and a nearby taxpayer-funded office with his own chief of staff and press secretary . Michelle Obama will also open an office there , along with the Obama Foundation . According to the Huffington Post ’ s Sam Stein , Obama has “ dispatched his team ― more than a dozen strong , working out of an office in the West End neighborhood of Washington ― to keep tabs on the unreported stories [ about Trump ] . There is a regular conference call for ‘ the Obama network , ’ a meeting the ex-president attended with former aides a few weeks back , and ad hoc calls to Senate and House Democrats , state-based groups and grassroots organizations . ” All of this sets Obama up to war against Trump from both inside and outside the government . His operatives salted throughout the government and intelligence agencies will plant phony controversies ; his army of agitators outside of it will protest over them . This is what Obama meant when he said that he would devote part of his post-presidency to rekindling his roots as a community organizer . Yes , he is organizing a community of sorts , but to conduct a coup . If anyone has a right to be livid , it is Trump .

In the New York Post on Wednesday, a political cartoon appeared mocking Obama’s lawyerly denial of his administration’s investigation of Trump-Russia ties. The cartoon has Obama saying: “Nobody in the White House ever ordered a wiretap of the individual named Donald Trump by my specific direction during daylight hours via a normal surveillance request that I actually signed by hand with an official presidential pen.” The cartoon captures the public’s skepticism of Obama and its capacity for understanding the upshot of Trump’s tweets. It is no wonder that Obama this week planted stories in the press to the effect that he is “livid” at Trump. He is livid because Trump is exposing the soft coup that he had set in motion before leaving office. As Rush Limbaugh put it, Trump is picking up the grenades Obama tossed and throwing them back at him. One of those Obama-planted grenades blew up Michael Flynn, but the real target was Trump. Like Congressman John Lewis, the Obamas do not view Trump as a legitimate president. Shortly after Lewis made that comment, Michele Obama tweeted out praise of Lewis as a civil rights hero. It was a remarkably subversive tweet, designed to telegraph support for his attack on Trump under the guise of praising Lewis’s “legacy.” She wrote that the example of “great leaders” like Lewis should be “our call to action.” In an equally subversive tweet, Barack Obama expressed support for the anti-Trump protests, pronouncing himself “heartened” by them. He, of course, didn’t mention that his political network, Organizing for Action (which grew out of Obama for America), had helped organize those protests. As Paul Sperry reports, “Obama has an army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000 — who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.” Sperry continues: He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country… Run by old Obama aides and campaign workers, federal tax records show “nonpartisan” OFA marshals 32,525 volunteers nationwide. Registered as a 501(c)(4), it doesn’t have to disclose its donors, but they’ve been generous. OFA has raised more than $40 million in contributions and grants since evolving from Obama’s campaign organization Obama for America in 2013. OFA, in IRS filings, says it trains young activists to develop “organizing skills.” Armed with Obama’s 2012 campaign database, OFA plans to get out the vote for Democratic candidates it’s grooming to win back Congress and erect a wall of resistance to Trump at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Another arm of his shadow government is the Obama Foundation, reports Sperry: It will be aided in that effort by the Obama Foundation, run by Obama’s former political director, and the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, launched last month by Obama pal Eric Holder to end what he and Obama call GOP “gerrymandering” of congressional districts. Obama will be overseeing it all from a shadow White House located within two miles of Trump. It features a mansion, which he’s fortifying with construction of a tall brick perimeter, and a nearby taxpayer-funded office with his own chief of staff and press secretary. Michelle Obama will also open an office there, along with the Obama Foundation. According to the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein, Obama has “dispatched his team ― more than a dozen strong, working out of an office in the West End neighborhood of Washington ― to keep tabs on the unreported stories [about Trump]. There is a regular conference call for ‘the Obama network,’ a meeting the ex-president attended with former aides a few weeks back, and ad hoc calls to Senate and House Democrats, state-based groups and grassroots organizations.” All of this sets Obama up to war against Trump from both inside and outside the government. His operatives salted throughout the government and intelligence agencies will plant phony controversies; his army of agitators outside of it will protest over them. This is what Obama meant when he said that he would devote part of his post-presidency to rekindling his roots as a community organizer. Yes, he is organizing a community of sorts, but to conduct a coup. If anyone has a right to be livid, it is Trump.

www.spectator.org

right

JVOvXUafJ50a11mH

test

lqOS0l3NhpSFyN1V

media_bias

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/02/27/msnbc-moving-away-from-left-wing-tv-is-awful-terrible-no-good-news/

MSNBC Moving Away From Left-Wing TV is Awful, Terrible, No Good News

2015-02-27

John Nolte

With the axing of shows hosted by open-leftists Ronan Farrow and Joy Reid , coupled with rampant rumors about the imminent firing of Al Sharpton , the overall news is that MSNBC ’ s apparent goal is to “ move away from left-wing TV. ” For the ideal of journalism and most especially for conservatives , this is awful news Right now MSNBC is openly left-wing , and that ’ s a good thing . Actually , it is a great thing and something I ’ ve frequently and publicly commended . You need not agree with someone to respect something about them , and I ’ ve always respected the fact that MSNBC put its biases upfront . MSNBC puts on the uniform , steps in the arena , looks you in the eye , and admits its left-wing biases . CNN pushes those exact same left-wing biases while cowering behind a phony shield of objectivity . Even if it ’ s a cable news network , there is absolutely nothing wrong with leftists having their own platform from which to scream their beliefs . Debate , argument , and disagreement is good for our democracy . It is healthy for conservatives to have our beliefs constantly challenged and questioned , even if those questions and challenges come from a network that mass produces smug , anti-science metrosexual leftists in horn-rimmed glasses . CNN is a cowardly , sniveling spy in the arena of public discourse . And now MSNBC is going to become CNN 2 — a second left-wing cable news outlet that will hide behind a phony shield of objectivity . This tactical move will make MSNBC much more lethal and capable of doing damage to the conservative movement , especially now that we are headed into 2016 . The only change MSNBC is going to make is into camouflage , and that is a bad thing , not a victory .

With the axing of shows hosted by open-leftists Ronan Farrow and Joy Reid, coupled with rampant rumors about the imminent firing of Al Sharpton, the overall news is that MSNBC’s apparent goal is to “move away from left-wing TV.” For the ideal of journalism and most especially for conservatives, this is awful news Right now MSNBC is openly left-wing, and that’s a good thing. Actually, it is a great thing and something I’ve frequently and publicly commended. You need not agree with someone to respect something about them, and I’ve always respected the fact that MSNBC put its biases upfront. MSNBC is wrong about almost everything. CNN is wrong about almost everything. MSNBC lies a lot. CNN lies a lot. MSNBC puts on the uniform, steps in the arena, looks you in the eye, and admits its left-wing biases. CNN pushes those exact same left-wing biases while cowering behind a phony shield of objectivity. Even if it’s a cable news network, there is absolutely nothing wrong with leftists having their own platform from which to scream their beliefs. Debate, argument, and disagreement is good for our democracy. It is healthy for conservatives to have our beliefs constantly challenged and questioned, even if those questions and challenges come from a network that mass produces smug, anti-science metrosexual leftists in horn-rimmed glasses. CNN is a cancer on truth. CNN is toxic for our democracy. CNN is a cowardly, sniveling spy in the arena of public discourse. And now MSNBC is going to become CNN 2 — a second left-wing cable news outlet that will hide behind a phony shield of objectivity. This tactical move will make MSNBC much more lethal and capable of doing damage to the conservative movement, especially now that we are headed into 2016. The only change MSNBC is going to make is into camouflage, and that is a bad thing, not a victory. Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC

www.breitbart.com

right

lqOS0l3NhpSFyN1V

test

9rkAmiW0lNS0TTSa

lgbt_rights

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/18/we_thought_wed_be_safe_islan_nettles_the_new_jersey_4_and_the_illusion_of_security_for_lgbtq_people_of_color/

“We thought we’d be safe”: Islan Nettles, the New Jersey 4 and the illusion of security for LGBTQ people of color

2014-08-18

`` I wanted to go to the Village 'cuz it 's nothing but gay people , '' said Renata Hill in the new documentary `` Out in the Night . '' `` We thought we would n't have a problem if we went to New York . We could just be ourselves , '' she recalled . `` That 's not true , '' interjected her friend Terrain Dandridge . `` That 's where it happened to us . '' `` Well , '' Renata said , amending her comment , `` that 's where we thought we 'd be safe . '' The West Village has historically been known as a safe haven for LGBTQ people . People travel from various parts of New York and New Jersey to be in the neighborhood , walk around without feeling judged or to worry that their sexual orientation or gender identity will lead to an attack . But , eight years ago , seven young women learned that safety , even in a haven like the West Village , is never guaranteed . On August 18 , 2006 , Renata Hill , Terrain Dandridge and five of their friends decided to go to the Village . All were young , black and lesbian . Outside the Independent Film Center ( IFC ) , a small theater showing independent films , they were harassed by a man named Duane Buckle . When they told him they were gay , he threatened them with rape and physically attacked them . He threw his lit cigarette at them , ripped the hair from one woman 's head and choked another woman . The seven women defended themselves and , at some point during the four-minute fight , were assisted by two unknown men . As Buckle attempted to choke Renata , her friend Patreese Johnson stabbed him with a pen knife . By the time the police arrived , the men who had jumped to the women 's defense had left the scene . Buckle was taken to the hospital , where he stated that men had attacked him , and released a few days later . The women were arrested , taken to the precinct and charged with gang assault , assault and attempted murder . None of the women had prior records or histories of police involvement . Nevertheless , they were held without bail at Rikers Island while awaiting trial . Facing the possibility of twenty-five year sentences , three women accepted plea bargains and served six months . The remaining four -- Venice Brown , Terrain Dandridge , Renata Hill and Patreese Johnson -- pled not guilty and became known as the New Jersey Four . They were convicted and received sentences ranging from three-and-a-half to eleven years in prison . None had ever been involved in a gang , yet they charged with and convicted of gang assault . Their claims of self-defense were ignored . Out in the Night , a film by blair dorosh-walther released by the Fire This Time The Film LLC , examines how race , sexual orientation and gender violence affect ideas about safety and self-defense , and how each shaped the fates of the New Jersey Four . What happens when women refuse to accept street harassment or homophobic violence ? What happens when these women happen to be black women ? The documentary places the case of the New Jersey Four in a larger pattern of violence against black people and the legal system 's treatment of their claims to self-defense . It draws parallels between the case of the New Jersey Four with more recent cases involving attacks on black people , such as Trayvon Martin , CeCe McDonald and Marissa Alexander . All three were attacked , all three fought back , and all three were treated as if they were the aggressors by the police and court systems . Although Trayvon Martin was the person killed , the media and legal system treated him as if he 'd been the assailant , subjecting his body to drug testing and speculating about his recent school suspension and cellphone photos as if these justified his killing . McDonald and Alexander 's claims of self-defense were likewise rejected by the courts , and they were both demonized in the media . Similarly , when the seven women were initially arrested in 2006 , news headlines labeled them a `` lesbian wolf pack '' and `` killer lesbians . '' Meanwhile , The New York Times stated that `` Man is Stabbed in Attack After Admiring a Stranger . '' Evening news segments added more fuel with reports of lesbian gangs ( alternately labeled Gays Taking Over and Dykes Taking Over ) raping young girls . Attorneys of the New Jersey Four note that the fear-mongering around the case had even reached the courtroom . `` The district attorney made certain decisions , like the charges and holding them without bail , '' noted Susan Tipograph , one of the two trial attorneys for Hill . Those charges influence perceptions even before evidence can be presented , agreed Lori Cohen , Tipograph 's co-counsel . `` There are some charges that , when you hear them , it 's really hard to get below them to what actually happened . '' The charges scared at least one juror who , Tipograph remembered , sent his wife out of town during the course of the trial . `` Out in the Night '' also challenges viewers to think about the constant threats ( and realities of ) harassment and violence against LGBTQ people , particularly LGBTQ people of color . The film recounts the 2003 murder of Sakia Gunn , a fifteen-year-old high school student and black lesbian . Gunn and her friends had been returning from New York City 's West Village . As they waited for the bus in downtown Newark , they were propositioned by two black men . When the women told them that they were lesbians , the men attacked . One of the men stabbed Gunn in the chest . Her friends flagged down a taxi and took her to the hospital , where she died . The night they were attacked three years later , Patreese recalled , she remembered Gunn and wondered if the same thing would happen to her . Gunn 's death is neither an anomaly nor is it a relic of the ( not-too-distant ) past . In 2011 , CeCe McDonald , a twenty-three-year-old black woman , faced the same scenario . Walking down a Minneapolis street with her friends , McDonald was first verbally harassed and then physically attacked by people standing outside a bar . One woman smashed glass into McDonald 's face , slicing into her cheek . The man who had instigated the harassment was stabbed during the attack . He was taken to the hospital , where he later died . McDonald was arrested and charged with second-degree murder . The woman who smashed glass into her face was neither arrested nor charged . During pre-trial motions , the judge ruled against McDonald 's ability to introduce evidence showing that the attack against her was motivated by her race and gender identity : Both Schmitz 's swastika and his three previous convictions for violent assault were ruled inadmissible . The judge also refused to allow an expert witness to testify about the pervasive and systemic violence faced by trans people on a daily basis . Facing the possibility of twenty to forty years in prison and a hostile court , McDonald pled guilty to second-degree manslaughter due to negligence and was sentenced to forty-one months in prison . She was released this past January . In August 2013 twenty-one-year-old Islan Nettles died after being attacked on a New York City street . While accounts vary as to whether she was flirting with or had been catcalled by 20-year-old Paris Wilson , all agree that , after realizing that she was trans , Wilson beat her unconscious . She died four days later at the hospital . Wilson was originally charged with three counts of misdemeanor assault and released on $ 2000 bail . A few months later , when another man claimed that he had attacked Nettles but was too drunk to remember what had happened , the district attorney dropped the charge altogether , declining to prosecute either . Why did the legal system treat the death of a young trans woman less seriously than a non-fatal stabbing with a pen knife ? What does this say about the value placed on the lives of black people , particularly LGBTQ black people ? The attacks on Gunn , McDonald , Nettles and the New Jersey Four are only a few examples of the systemic violence faced by LGBTQ people , particularly LGBTQ people of color . A recent report by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs found 2,001 reported incidents of anti-LGBTQ violence . Of the violence that ended in homicides , ninety percent of the victims were people of color ; seventy-eight percent were Black and African-American . Undocumented people , trans people and people of color were among those at risk for the most severe forms of anti-gay and anti-trans violence . Patreese Johnson , who is four foot eleven inches , recounted that her brother Anthony had originally urged her to carry a pen knife for protection . Doing so had provided her with a sense of safety and security . But , after that August night and nearly eight years behind bars , she realizes that that sense of safety was an illusion . `` I do n't feel safe in here , '' she said during an interview from prison . One month before her release , she was reminded that safety outside prison walls is just as elusive -- Anthony was shot and killed outside his own home . After her release in 2013 , Patreese no longer carries a knife . She 's still looking to find safety in some other way .

"I wanted to go to the Village 'cuz it's nothing but gay people," said Renata Hill in the new documentary "Out in the Night." "We thought we wouldn't have a problem if we went to New York. We could just be ourselves," she recalled. "That's not true," interjected her friend Terrain Dandridge. "That's where it happened to us." Advertisement: "Well," Renata said, amending her comment, "that's where we thought we'd be safe." The West Village has historically been known as a safe haven for LGBTQ people. People travel from various parts of New York and New Jersey to be in the neighborhood, walk around without feeling judged or to worry that their sexual orientation or gender identity will lead to an attack. But, eight years ago, seven young women learned that safety, even in a haven like the West Village, is never guaranteed. On August 18, 2006, Renata Hill, Terrain Dandridge and five of their friends decided to go to the Village. All were young, black and lesbian. Outside the Independent Film Center (IFC), a small theater showing independent films, they were harassed by a man named Duane Buckle. When they told him they were gay, he threatened them with rape and physically attacked them. He threw his lit cigarette at them, ripped the hair from one woman's head and choked another woman. The seven women defended themselves and, at some point during the four-minute fight, were assisted by two unknown men. As Buckle attempted to choke Renata, her friend Patreese Johnson stabbed him with a pen knife. By the time the police arrived, the men who had jumped to the women's defense had left the scene. Buckle was taken to the hospital, where he stated that men had attacked him, and released a few days later. The women were arrested, taken to the precinct and charged with gang assault, assault and attempted murder. None of the women had prior records or histories of police involvement. Nevertheless, they were held without bail at Rikers Island while awaiting trial. Facing the possibility of twenty-five year sentences, three women accepted plea bargains and served six months. The remaining four -- Venice Brown, Terrain Dandridge, Renata Hill and Patreese Johnson -- pled not guilty and became known as the New Jersey Four. They were convicted and received sentences ranging from three-and-a-half to eleven years in prison. None had ever been involved in a gang, yet they charged with and convicted of gang assault. Their claims of self-defense were ignored. Advertisement: Out in the Night, a film by blair dorosh-walther released by the Fire This Time The Film LLC, examines how race, sexual orientation and gender violence affect ideas about safety and self-defense, and how each shaped the fates of the New Jersey Four. What happens when women refuse to accept street harassment or homophobic violence? What happens when these women happen to be black women? The documentary places the case of the New Jersey Four in a larger pattern of violence against black people and the legal system's treatment of their claims to self-defense. It draws parallels between the case of the New Jersey Four with more recent cases involving attacks on black people, such as Trayvon Martin, CeCe McDonald and Marissa Alexander. All three were attacked, all three fought back, and all three were treated as if they were the aggressors by the police and court systems. Although Trayvon Martin was the person killed, the media and legal system treated him as if he'd been the assailant, subjecting his body to drug testing and speculating about his recent school suspension and cellphone photos as if these justified his killing. McDonald and Alexander's claims of self-defense were likewise rejected by the courts, and they were both demonized in the media. Similarly, when the seven women were initially arrested in 2006, news headlines labeled them a "lesbian wolf pack" and "killer lesbians." Meanwhile, The New York Times stated that "Man is Stabbed in Attack After Admiring a Stranger." Evening news segments added more fuel with reports of lesbian gangs (alternately labeled Gays Taking Over and Dykes Taking Over) raping young girls. Attorneys of the New Jersey Four note that the fear-mongering around the case had even reached the courtroom. "The district attorney made certain decisions, like the charges and holding them without bail," noted Susan Tipograph, one of the two trial attorneys for Hill. Those charges influence perceptions even before evidence can be presented, agreed Lori Cohen, Tipograph's co-counsel. "There are some charges that, when you hear them, it's really hard to get below them to what actually happened." The charges scared at least one juror who, Tipograph remembered, sent his wife out of town during the course of the trial. Advertisement: "Out in the Night" also challenges viewers to think about the constant threats (and realities of) harassment and violence against LGBTQ people, particularly LGBTQ people of color. The film recounts the 2003 murder of Sakia Gunn, a fifteen-year-old high school student and black lesbian. Gunn and her friends had been returning from New York City's West Village. As they waited for the bus in downtown Newark, they were propositioned by two black men. When the women told them that they were lesbians, the men attacked. One of the men stabbed Gunn in the chest. Her friends flagged down a taxi and took her to the hospital, where she died. The night they were attacked three years later, Patreese recalled, she remembered Gunn and wondered if the same thing would happen to her. Gunn's death is neither an anomaly nor is it a relic of the (not-too-distant) past. In 2011, CeCe McDonald, a twenty-three-year-old black woman, faced the same scenario. Walking down a Minneapolis street with her friends, McDonald was first verbally harassed and then physically attacked by people standing outside a bar. One woman smashed glass into McDonald's face, slicing into her cheek. The man who had instigated the harassment was stabbed during the attack. He was taken to the hospital, where he later died. McDonald was arrested and charged with second-degree murder. The woman who smashed glass into her face was neither arrested nor charged. During pre-trial motions, the judge ruled against McDonald's ability to introduce evidence showing that the attack against her was motivated by her race and gender identity: Both Schmitz's swastika and his three previous convictions for violent assault were ruled inadmissible. The judge also refused to allow an expert witness to testify about the pervasive and systemic violence faced by trans people on a daily basis. Facing the possibility of twenty to forty years in prison and a hostile court, McDonald pled guilty to second-degree manslaughter due to negligence and was sentenced to forty-one months in prison. She was released this past January. Advertisement: In August 2013 twenty-one-year-old Islan Nettles died after being attacked on a New York City street. While accounts vary as to whether she was flirting with or had been catcalled by 20-year-old Paris Wilson, all agree that, after realizing that she was trans, Wilson beat her unconscious. She died four days later at the hospital. Wilson was originally charged with three counts of misdemeanor assault and released on $2000 bail. A few months later, when another man claimed that he had attacked Nettles but was too drunk to remember what had happened, the district attorney dropped the charge altogether, declining to prosecute either. Why did the legal system treat the death of a young trans woman less seriously than a non-fatal stabbing with a pen knife? What does this say about the value placed on the lives of black people, particularly LGBTQ black people? The attacks on Gunn, McDonald, Nettles and the New Jersey Four are only a few examples of the systemic violence faced by LGBTQ people, particularly LGBTQ people of color. A recent report by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs found 2,001 reported incidents of anti-LGBTQ violence. Of the violence that ended in homicides, ninety percent of the victims were people of color; seventy-eight percent were Black and African-American. Undocumented people, trans people and people of color were among those at risk for the most severe forms of anti-gay and anti-trans violence. Patreese Johnson, who is four foot eleven inches, recounted that her brother Anthony had originally urged her to carry a pen knife for protection. Doing so had provided her with a sense of safety and security. But, after that August night and nearly eight years behind bars, she realizes that that sense of safety was an illusion. "I don't feel safe in here," she said during an interview from prison. One month before her release, she was reminded that safety outside prison walls is just as elusive -- Anthony was shot and killed outside his own home. After her release in 2013, Patreese no longer carries a knife. She's still looking to find safety in some other way.

www.salon.com

left

9rkAmiW0lNS0TTSa

test

BYXif5zzugxHtZmg

justice_department

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-worried-murder-trial-close/story?id=19636641#.Ud7B2G2ZZd4

George Zimmerman Worried as Murder Trial Comes to Close

Seni Tienabeso, Matt Gutman

George Zimmerman stared straight ahead for most of the afternoon as a prosecutor told the Florida jury that Zimmerman is a `` liar '' who should be convicted of second degree murder for shooting Trayvon Martin . `` A teenager is dead and he is dead through no fault of his own . He is dead because another man made assumptions , '' said prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda . De la Rionda told the all-female jury that Zimmerman , a former neighborhood watch captain , was an aspiring police officer who assumed incorrectly that Martin , 17 , was a criminal . Catch up on all the details from the George Zimmerman murder trial . `` What was his crime ? '' de la Rionda asked the jury about Martin . `` He bought Skittles ? '' Zimmerman , 29 , faces second degree murder and manslaughter charges . If convicted of the top charge he could face up to life in prison . The Charges George Zimmerman Faces The racially charged case began on Feb. 26 , 2012 when Zimmerman called police to report what he said was a suspicious person in his neighborhood on a rainy night . He got out of his car to follow Martin , but claims he stopped when police asked him not to follow , but wanted to get an address for police . Zimmerman told police that Martin confronted him , knocked him down and banged his head on the sidewalk and then started to reach for Zimmerman 's gun . Zimmerman grabbed the gun and shot Martin in self defense , he said . The prosecutor attacked Zimmerman 's credibility and his version of the confrontation , repeatedly saying Zimmerman had lied and scoffing at his claim of self-defense . He said that Zimmerman `` profiled '' Martin and concluded he was a criminal . De la Rionda said Zimmerman `` lied '' when he told law enforcement that he got out of his car to find an address to give police . The prosecutor pointed out that a visible address was right in front of where Zimmerman would have parked his car . De la Rionda also questioned Zimmerman 's version of being able to quickly pulled out his gun while allegedly pinned to the ground on his back . He noted that Zimmerman had told police his gun was behind his hip . `` The defense is going to argue that this is self defense…but you ca n't take that in a vacuum , '' said de la Rionda . `` It 's not like this defendant was walking home and somebody just started beating him up . '' Jurors looked away at times as the prosecutor showed autopsy photos of Martin . De la Rionda recounted the stories of several witnesses including Rachel Jeantel , a woman of Haitian descent whose testimony was laced with some street slang . Jeantel , one of the prosecution 's key witnesses , was on the phone with Martin up to the moments before he died and she told the court that Martin was scared by a man who was following him . She told the court she heard Martin yell , `` Get off '' before the phone cut off . `` I had a dream that today a witness would be judged not on the color of her personality but the content of her testimony , '' said de la Rionda . `` On the content of her testimony . Just because she 's got a colorful personality…that does n't mean that her story , her statements are n't accurate . '' In a moment of theatrics de la Rionda skipped across the courtroom imitating Zimmerman 's claim to Fox 's Sean Hannity that Martin was not running -- as he told a police dispatcher -- but was skipping away . Zimmerman turned his head in disapproval . The parents of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman both watched as de la Rionda urged the jurors to convict Zimmerman . Zimmerman is worried as his murder trial draws to a close , fearing that he could spend the rest of his life in prison if found guilty or in hiding if acquitted , his lawyer said . Zimmerman has spent the last few days huddling with family , ███ has learned . Lead defense attorney Mark O'Mara says Zimmerman is concerned that even if he is acquitted , he would spend the rest of his life locked in the confines of his security regimen – hiding from the public and concealing his identity . `` He 's very worried about his safety , personal safety going forward , '' said lead Zimmerman defense attorney Mark O'Mara . `` Because those same people who portended the fear and hatred leading up to this trial probably are not going to accept an acquittal . '' If Zimmerman is found guilty he will immediately be remanded into custody and escorted into Seminole County Jail . O'Mara says any conviction would be met with an appeal , and hinted he could decide to use a Stand Your Ground immunity hearing during an appeal . Zimmerman 's defense team elected not to apply Zimmerman 's right to a stand your ground hearing during the trial because the immunity hearing can only be invoked once .

George Zimmerman stared straight ahead for most of the afternoon as a prosecutor told the Florida jury that Zimmerman is a "liar" who should be convicted of second degree murder for shooting Trayvon Martin. "A teenager is dead and he is dead through no fault of his own. He is dead because another man made assumptions," said prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda. De la Rionda told the all-female jury that Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch captain, was an aspiring police officer who assumed incorrectly that Martin, 17, was a criminal. Catch up on all the details from the George Zimmerman murder trial. "What was his crime?" de la Rionda asked the jury about Martin. "He bought Skittles?" Zimmerman, 29, faces second degree murder and manslaughter charges. If convicted of the top charge he could face up to life in prison. The Charges George Zimmerman Faces The racially charged case began on Feb. 26, 2012 when Zimmerman called police to report what he said was a suspicious person in his neighborhood on a rainy night. He got out of his car to follow Martin, but claims he stopped when police asked him not to follow, but wanted to get an address for police. Zimmerman told police that Martin confronted him, knocked him down and banged his head on the sidewalk and then started to reach for Zimmerman's gun. Zimmerman grabbed the gun and shot Martin in self defense, he said. The prosecutor attacked Zimmerman's credibility and his version of the confrontation, repeatedly saying Zimmerman had lied and scoffing at his claim of self-defense. He said that Zimmerman "profiled" Martin and concluded he was a criminal. De la Rionda said Zimmerman "lied" when he told law enforcement that he got out of his car to find an address to give police. The prosecutor pointed out that a visible address was right in front of where Zimmerman would have parked his car. The George Zimmerman Case in Pictures De la Rionda also questioned Zimmerman's version of being able to quickly pulled out his gun while allegedly pinned to the ground on his back. He noted that Zimmerman had told police his gun was behind his hip. The prosecutor said Zimmerman also exaggerated his injuries. "The defense is going to argue that this is self defense…but you can't take that in a vacuum," said de la Rionda. "It's not like this defendant was walking home and somebody just started beating him up." Jurors looked away at times as the prosecutor showed autopsy photos of Martin. De la Rionda recounted the stories of several witnesses including Rachel Jeantel, a woman of Haitian descent whose testimony was laced with some street slang. Jeantel, one of the prosecution's key witnesses, was on the phone with Martin up to the moments before he died and she told the court that Martin was scared by a man who was following him. She told the court she heard Martin yell, "Get off" before the phone cut off. "I had a dream that today a witness would be judged not on the color of her personality but the content of her testimony," said de la Rionda. "On the content of her testimony. Just because she's got a colorful personality…that doesn't mean that her story, her statements aren't accurate." In a moment of theatrics de la Rionda skipped across the courtroom imitating Zimmerman's claim to Fox's Sean Hannity that Martin was not running -- as he told a police dispatcher -- but was skipping away. Zimmerman turned his head in disapproval. The parents of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman both watched as de la Rionda urged the jurors to convict Zimmerman. Zimmerman is worried as his murder trial draws to a close, fearing that he could spend the rest of his life in prison if found guilty or in hiding if acquitted, his lawyer said. Zimmerman has spent the last few days huddling with family, ABC News has learned. Lead defense attorney Mark O'Mara says Zimmerman is concerned that even if he is acquitted, he would spend the rest of his life locked in the confines of his security regimen – hiding from the public and concealing his identity. "He's very worried about his safety, personal safety going forward," said lead Zimmerman defense attorney Mark O'Mara. "Because those same people who portended the fear and hatred leading up to this trial probably are not going to accept an acquittal." If Zimmerman is found guilty he will immediately be remanded into custody and escorted into Seminole County Jail. O'Mara says any conviction would be met with an appeal, and hinted he could decide to use a Stand Your Ground immunity hearing during an appeal. Zimmerman's defense team elected not to apply Zimmerman's right to a stand your ground hearing during the trial because the immunity hearing can only be invoked once. If exonerated he will be immediately released. Jurors are expected to begin deliberating Friday afternoon.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

BYXif5zzugxHtZmg

test

yXH99jOReCrYOkCY

nuclear_weapons

Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-usa/haley-says-u-s-to-stay-in-iran-nuclear-deal-right-now-idUSKBN1CK0KX

Haley says U.S. to stay in Iran nuclear deal 'right now'

2017-10-15

Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - Senior Trump administration officials said on Sunday that the United States was committed to remaining part of the Iran nuclear accord for now , despite President Donald Trump ’ s criticisms of the deal and his warnings that he might pull out . Nikki Haley , U.S. ambassador to the United Nations , said that Tehran is complying with the 2015 nuclear accord intended to increase Iran ’ s accountability in return for the lifting of some economic sanctions . “ I think right now , you ’ re going to see us stay in the deal , ” Haley told NBC ’ s “ Meet the Press . ” In a speech on Friday , Trump laid out an aggressive approach on Iran and said he would not certify it is complying with the nuclear accord , despite a determination by the United Nations ’ nuclear watchdog that Tehran is meeting its terms . The Republican president threw the issue to the U.S. Congress , which has 60 days to decide whether to reinstate U.S. sanctions . He warned that if “ we are not able to reach a solution working with Congress and our allies , then the agreement will be terminated . ” So far , none of the other signatories to the deal - Britain , France , Germany , Russia , China , Iran and the European Union - have cited serious concerns , leaving the United States isolated . In her “ Meet the Press ” interview , Haley said the United States was not saying that Iran was in breach of the agreement , but she raised concerns about its activities that are not covered by the pact , including weapons sales and sponsorship of militant groups such as Hezbollah . Haley said that other countries were “ turning a blind eye ” to these Iranian activities in order to “ protect ” the nuclear agreement . She said the United States needed to weigh a “ proportionate ” response to Tehran ’ s actions on the world stage . “ The goal at the end of the day is to hold Iran accountable , ” Haley said in the interview , which mainly focused on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action , as the nuclear deal is formally known . Haley and U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson hammered away at the need to address what they see as shortcomings in the two-year-old international accord while simultaneously placing pressure to rein in Iranian activities outside the scope of that deal . Tillerson , alluding to other signatory countries ’ opposition to reopening the Iran pact , raised the possibility of “ a second agreement ” to run parallel to the existing one . Among the “ areas of concern ” he mentioned were its sunset provisions and Tehran ’ s ballistic missile program . Haley also said the reason the United States was looking closely at the Iran nuclear deal is because of escalating tensions over North Korea ’ s nuclear weapons development . “ What we ’ re saying now with Iran is don ’ t let it become the next North Korea . ” On Friday , Trump also said he was authorizing the U.S. Treasury to sanction Iran ’ s Revolutionary Guards , and on Sunday Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he was planning to move ahead . Mnuchin , interviewed on Fox News ’ “ Sunday Morning Futures , ” said he has spoken about Iran with his counterparts attending World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings in recent days . U.S . Senator Susan Collins , appearing on ABC ’ s “ This Week , ” noted that Trump could have taken a more extreme step by withdrawing from the agreement . U.S . Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley delivers remarks at a security council meeting at U.N. headquarters during the United Nations General Assembly in New York City , U.S. September 21 , 2017 . ███/Stephanie Keith But in words of support for Trump , the moderate Republican lawmaker said , “ Instead , he put a spotlight on two troubling deficiencies in the agreement , ” referring to a lack of limitations on Iran ’ s tests of ballistic missiles and a “ pathway to developing a nuclear weapon ” down the road . While many U.S. allies strongly criticized Trump ’ s decision not to recertify the Iran deal , Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the move , saying the current terms of the Iran nuclear accord would allow it to have a nuclear stockpile within a decade . “ We can not allow this rogue regime 30 times the size of North Korea ’ s economy to have a nuclear arsenal , ” Netanyahu said on CBS ’ “ Face the Nation . ”

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senior Trump administration officials said on Sunday that the United States was committed to remaining part of the Iran nuclear accord for now, despite President Donald Trump’s criticisms of the deal and his warnings that he might pull out. Nikki Haley, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said that Tehran is complying with the 2015 nuclear accord intended to increase Iran’s accountability in return for the lifting of some economic sanctions. “I think right now, you’re going to see us stay in the deal,” Haley told NBC’s “Meet the Press.” In a speech on Friday, Trump laid out an aggressive approach on Iran and said he would not certify it is complying with the nuclear accord, despite a determination by the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog that Tehran is meeting its terms. The Republican president threw the issue to the U.S. Congress, which has 60 days to decide whether to reinstate U.S. sanctions. He warned that if “we are not able to reach a solution working with Congress and our allies, then the agreement will be terminated.” So far, none of the other signatories to the deal - Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, Iran and the European Union - have cited serious concerns, leaving the United States isolated. In her “Meet the Press” interview, Haley said the United States was not saying that Iran was in breach of the agreement, but she raised concerns about its activities that are not covered by the pact, including weapons sales and sponsorship of militant groups such as Hezbollah. Haley said that other countries were “turning a blind eye” to these Iranian activities in order to “protect” the nuclear agreement. She said the United States needed to weigh a “proportionate” response to Tehran’s actions on the world stage. “The goal at the end of the day is to hold Iran accountable,” Haley said in the interview, which mainly focused on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the nuclear deal is formally known. Haley and U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson hammered away at the need to address what they see as shortcomings in the two-year-old international accord while simultaneously placing pressure to rein in Iranian activities outside the scope of that deal. A SECOND PACT? Tillerson, alluding to other signatory countries’ opposition to reopening the Iran pact, raised the possibility of “a second agreement” to run parallel to the existing one. Among the “areas of concern” he mentioned were its sunset provisions and Tehran’s ballistic missile program. Haley also said the reason the United States was looking closely at the Iran nuclear deal is because of escalating tensions over North Korea’s nuclear weapons development. “What we’re saying now with Iran is don’t let it become the next North Korea.” On Friday, Trump also said he was authorizing the U.S. Treasury to sanction Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, and on Sunday Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he was planning to move ahead. Mnuchin, interviewed on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” said he has spoken about Iran with his counterparts attending World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings in recent days. He did not provide any details on possible sanctions. U.S. Senator Susan Collins, appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” noted that Trump could have taken a more extreme step by withdrawing from the agreement. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley delivers remarks at a security council meeting at U.N. headquarters during the United Nations General Assembly in New York City, U.S. September 21, 2017. REUTERS/Stephanie Keith But in words of support for Trump, the moderate Republican lawmaker said, “Instead, he put a spotlight on two troubling deficiencies in the agreement,” referring to a lack of limitations on Iran’s tests of ballistic missiles and a “pathway to developing a nuclear weapon” down the road. While many U.S. allies strongly criticized Trump’s decision not to recertify the Iran deal, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the move, saying the current terms of the Iran nuclear accord would allow it to have a nuclear stockpile within a decade. “We cannot allow this rogue regime 30 times the size of North Korea’s economy to have a nuclear arsenal,” Netanyahu said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

www.reuters.com

center

yXH99jOReCrYOkCY

test

W0hE6i2UDXDVNaBL

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/bank-sped-up-manafort-loan-approval-as-ceo-sought-trump-cabinet-job-witness-idUSKBN1KV10C

Bank sped up Manafort loan approval as CEO sought Trump cabinet job: witness

2018-08-11

Nathan Layne

ALEXANDRIA , Virginia ( ███ ) - The head of a small Chicago bank was directly involved in approving $ 16 million in loans to former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort while seeking Manafort ’ s help securing a post in the new administration , a witness testified on Friday in Manafort ’ s fraud trial . Dennis Raico , a former Federal Savings Bank executive testifying under immunity , said the bank ’ s chief executive , Steve Calk , expressed interest in such posts as Treasury secretary or Housing and Urban Development secretary . Calk took a “ personal interest ” in Manafort ’ s loan applications and expedited them , Raico said . One loan was approved a day after a July 27 , 2016 , call in which Calk let it be known to Manafort he wanted a role in the administration . Manafort later asked the incoming administration to consider tapping Calk for secretary of the Army , according to testimony earlier in the week . Calk , a retired Army officer and helicopter pilot , did not get any post in the administration , although he was named to a Trump campaign advisory panel in August 2016 . A spokeswoman for Federal Savings did not respond to requests for comment . Calk declined to comment . Raico was one of just three witnesses called to the stand on Friday as the trial resumed after an unexpected recess that lasted into the midafternoon . The delay derailed the prosecution ’ s plans to wrap up its case by the end of the week . Greg Andres , a prosecutor on U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s team , said he would call James Brennan , a vice president at Federal Savings Bank who was also granted immunity , and two other witnesses on Monday before resting their case . It was not clear if Manafort , who has pleaded not guilty to 18 felony counts of bank fraud , tax fraud and failing to disclose about 30 foreign bank accounts , will call any witnesses . So far Manafort ’ s lawyers have focused their defense on attacking Rick Gates , Manafort ’ s former right-hand man who cut a plea deal and is cooperating with Mueller ’ s probe . Raico testified that Gates had nothing to do with the two Federal Savings loans in question - a $ 9.5 million mortgage on Manafort ’ s estate in the Hamptons and a $ 6.5 million loan on a brownstone in Brooklyn . Prosecutors say Manafort lied about his income and provided other false information to get the loans . Raico said Calk asked him to call Manafort shortly after the Nov. 8 , 2016 , election , to see if he could be a candidate for the Treasury or HUD posts . Raico said the involvement of Calk in the Manafort loans was unusual and made him uncomfortable . He said had never seen loans approved so quickly at the bank . On cross-examination , defense attorney Richard Westling sought to show that the loans to Manafort were justified . Westling pointed out that the Hamptons property had been appraised at $ 13 million , well above the $ 9.5 million borrowed , and that Federal ’ s credit committee had approved the loans . Raico said that a letter from Gates indicating that he , not Manafort , would be paying for Yankees season tickets in 2016 lowered his debts , helping him qualify for the Federal loans . In the letter Gates said he had borrowed Manafort ’ s American Express card to pay for the tickets , which cost more than $ 200,000 a year . Gates testified this week the letter was false and a “ favor ” to Manafort to help him get the loans . Irfan Kirimca , senior director of ticket operations at the Yankees , testified on Friday that Manafort had purchased four season tickets since at least 2010 and that Gates never had an account with the Yankees . Kirimca said Manafort paid for the Legends Suite package , which includes food service and cushioned seats . Kirimca testified about one email exchange in which Manafort instructed a Yankees employee to send the tickets to his Trump Tower address . Andres also on Friday briefly questioned Andrew Chojnowski , chief operating officer of home lending at Federal , asking him whether Manafort had signed various documents warning that he could be prosecuted for giving false information to the bank . Chojnowski read one disclaimer which noted that mortgage fraud was punishable by up to 30 years in prison . Andres said he plans to call James Brennan , a Federal Savings executive who like Raico was granted immunity , on Monday . He then wants to recall Paula Liss , a special agent for the Treasury Department ’ s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network , who testified earlier this week . Manafort ’ s lawyers have opposed Liss taking the stand again , a matter on which T.S . Ellis , the judge overseeing the case , has yet to rule . Ellis said the recess on Friday could not be avoided as he had matters to attend to . Without further details , courtroom observers were left to speculate about the reason for the break and a long bench discussion with attorneys from both sides . Ellis , who reminded jurors in the morning in unusual detail about the need to “ keep an open mind ” about the trial and not to talk to anyone about the case , gave them the same instructions before dismissing them for the weekend . “ Put it completely out of your mind until Monday . I certainly plan to do that , ” Ellis said .

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia (Reuters) - The head of a small Chicago bank was directly involved in approving $16 million in loans to former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort while seeking Manafort’s help securing a post in the new administration, a witness testified on Friday in Manafort’s fraud trial. Dennis Raico, a former Federal Savings Bank executive testifying under immunity, said the bank’s chief executive, Steve Calk, expressed interest in such posts as Treasury secretary or Housing and Urban Development secretary. Calk took a “personal interest” in Manafort’s loan applications and expedited them, Raico said. One loan was approved a day after a July 27, 2016, call in which Calk let it be known to Manafort he wanted a role in the administration. “I knew Steve was interested politics,” Raico said. Manafort later asked the incoming administration to consider tapping Calk for secretary of the Army, according to testimony earlier in the week. Calk, a retired Army officer and helicopter pilot, did not get any post in the administration, although he was named to a Trump campaign advisory panel in August 2016. A spokeswoman for Federal Savings did not respond to requests for comment. Calk declined to comment. Raico was one of just three witnesses called to the stand on Friday as the trial resumed after an unexpected recess that lasted into the midafternoon. The delay derailed the prosecution’s plans to wrap up its case by the end of the week. Greg Andres, a prosecutor on U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, said he would call James Brennan, a vice president at Federal Savings Bank who was also granted immunity, and two other witnesses on Monday before resting their case. It was not clear if Manafort, who has pleaded not guilty to 18 felony counts of bank fraud, tax fraud and failing to disclose about 30 foreign bank accounts, will call any witnesses. So far Manafort’s lawyers have focused their defense on attacking Rick Gates, Manafort’s former right-hand man who cut a plea deal and is cooperating with Mueller’s probe. Raico testified that Gates had nothing to do with the two Federal Savings loans in question - a $9.5 million mortgage on Manafort’s estate in the Hamptons and a $6.5 million loan on a brownstone in Brooklyn. Prosecutors say Manafort lied about his income and provided other false information to get the loans. Raico said Calk asked him to call Manafort shortly after the Nov. 8, 2016, election, to see if he could be a candidate for the Treasury or HUD posts. Raico said the involvement of Calk in the Manafort loans was unusual and made him uncomfortable. He said had never seen loans approved so quickly at the bank. On cross-examination, defense attorney Richard Westling sought to show that the loans to Manafort were justified. Westling pointed out that the Hamptons property had been appraised at $13 million, well above the $9.5 million borrowed, and that Federal’s credit committee had approved the loans. LEGENDS SUITE Raico said that a letter from Gates indicating that he, not Manafort, would be paying for Yankees season tickets in 2016 lowered his debts, helping him qualify for the Federal loans. In the letter Gates said he had borrowed Manafort’s American Express card to pay for the tickets, which cost more than $200,000 a year. Gates testified this week the letter was false and a “favor” to Manafort to help him get the loans. Irfan Kirimca, senior director of ticket operations at the Yankees, testified on Friday that Manafort had purchased four season tickets since at least 2010 and that Gates never had an account with the Yankees. Kirimca said Manafort paid for the Legends Suite package, which includes food service and cushioned seats. Kirimca testified about one email exchange in which Manafort instructed a Yankees employee to send the tickets to his Trump Tower address. Andres also on Friday briefly questioned Andrew Chojnowski, chief operating officer of home lending at Federal, asking him whether Manafort had signed various documents warning that he could be prosecuted for giving false information to the bank. Chojnowski read one disclaimer which noted that mortgage fraud was punishable by up to 30 years in prison. Andres said he plans to call James Brennan, a Federal Savings executive who like Raico was granted immunity, on Monday. He then wants to recall Paula Liss, a special agent for the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, who testified earlier this week. Manafort’s lawyers have opposed Liss taking the stand again, a matter on which T.S. Ellis, the judge overseeing the case, has yet to rule. FILE PHOTO: Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort departs from U.S. District Court in Washington, U.S., February 28, 2018. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas/File Photo Ellis said the recess on Friday could not be avoided as he had matters to attend to. Without further details, courtroom observers were left to speculate about the reason for the break and a long bench discussion with attorneys from both sides. Ellis, who reminded jurors in the morning in unusual detail about the need to “keep an open mind” about the trial and not to talk to anyone about the case, gave them the same instructions before dismissing them for the weekend. “Put it completely out of your mind until Monday. I certainly plan to do that,” Ellis said.

www.reuters.com

center

W0hE6i2UDXDVNaBL

test

LFMVHFfUBcynfHrC

fbi

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45695675

Brett Kavanaugh: FBI contacts Deborah Ramirez for interview

The FBI has approached the second woman to accuse US Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct as it begins a fresh inquiry into him . Deborah Ramirez accuses Judge Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her during a drinking game when they were students at Yale University in the 1980s . He has denied the allegation , describing it as a smear . President Donald Trump ordered a new investigation after the judge 's first accuser testified to a Senate panel . The panel approved Judge Kavanaugh 's nomination but asked for the further inquiry before the full Senate votes on his appointment to America 's top court . Despite ordering the FBI investigation , President Trump has continued to defend his nominee Mr Kavanaugh , who denies all the allegations against him . On Saturday , Mr Trump said the FBI had `` free rein '' to investigate the judge . `` They 're going to do whatever they have to do , whatever it is they do . They 'll be doing things that we have never even thought of . And hopefully at the conclusion everything will be fine , '' the president said . The Supreme Court has the final say on some of the most contentious matters in the US and appointments are for life . Judge Kavanaugh is expected to tilt the court in favour of conservatives . Her lawyer , John Clune , announced that the FBI had `` reached out '' to interview his client and she had agreed to co-operate with their investigation . He made no further comment . Ms Ramirez alleges the incident occurred during the 1983-4 academic year when they were both taking part in a drinking game at a dormitory party . At one point , she told the New Yorker , a plastic penis was pointed in her direction and Brett Kavanaugh then apparently showed his actual penis , which she accidentally touched when she pushed him away . In the interview , she acknowledges gaps in her memory caused by alcohol that night , which is said to have made her hesitant to come forward when contacted . Christine Blasey Ford testified to the Senate committee that he had sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers in the 1980s . Judge Kavanaugh angrily denied that he had ever assaulted her or anyone else . Mark Judge , a high school friend of Judge Kavanaugh who Dr Ford says was in the room at the time of the assault , has promised to co-operate with any law enforcement agency that will `` confidentially investigate '' the allegations . He has said he has no memory of the incident . Two others who were allegedly present in the house during the alleged assault , PJ Smyth and Dr Ford 's friend Leland Ingham Keyser , are willing to co-operate `` fully '' with the FBI 's investigation , their lawyers said . A third woman who has also publicly accused Judge Kavanaugh , Julie Swetnick , alleges he was involved in the drugging and sexual assault of girls at house parties in the 1980s . She says she was the victim of a gang rape in 1982 at a party attended by Brett Kavanaugh . Ms Swetnick 's lawyer said on Saturday that they had yet to hear from the FBI . Announcing the move , President Trump said : `` I 've ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh 's file . `` As the Senate has requested , this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week . '' The inquiry involves the FBI reopening its previously completed background check on Judge Kavanaugh . This may mean going back to old witnesses - or speaking to new ones . Dr Ford 's lawyer said her client welcomed the step but questioned the time limit of a week to hold the investigation .

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Brett Kavanaugh angrily denied allegations he faces at a hearing on Thursday The FBI has approached the second woman to accuse US Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct as it begins a fresh inquiry into him. Deborah Ramirez accuses Judge Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her during a drinking game when they were students at Yale University in the 1980s. He has denied the allegation, describing it as a smear. President Donald Trump ordered a new investigation after the judge's first accuser testified to a Senate panel. The panel approved Judge Kavanaugh's nomination but asked for the further inquiry before the full Senate votes on his appointment to America's top court. Despite ordering the FBI investigation, President Trump has continued to defend his nominee Mr Kavanaugh, who denies all the allegations against him. On Saturday, Mr Trump said the FBI had "free rein" to investigate the judge. "They're going to do whatever they have to do, whatever it is they do. They'll be doing things that we have never even thought of. And hopefully at the conclusion everything will be fine," the president said. The Supreme Court has the final say on some of the most contentious matters in the US and appointments are for life. Judge Kavanaugh is expected to tilt the court in favour of conservatives. What does Ms Ramirez say? Her lawyer, John Clune, announced that the FBI had "reached out" to interview his client and she had agreed to co-operate with their investigation. He made no further comment. Ms Ramirez alleges the incident occurred during the 1983-4 academic year when they were both taking part in a drinking game at a dormitory party. At one point, she told the New Yorker, a plastic penis was pointed in her direction and Brett Kavanaugh then apparently showed his actual penis, which she accidentally touched when she pushed him away. In the interview, she acknowledges gaps in her memory caused by alcohol that night, which is said to have made her hesitant to come forward when contacted. What other allegations does Kavanaugh face? Christine Blasey Ford testified to the Senate committee that he had sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers in the 1980s. Judge Kavanaugh angrily denied that he had ever assaulted her or anyone else. Mark Judge, a high school friend of Judge Kavanaugh who Dr Ford says was in the room at the time of the assault, has promised to co-operate with any law enforcement agency that will "confidentially investigate" the allegations. He has said he has no memory of the incident. Two others who were allegedly present in the house during the alleged assault, PJ Smyth and Dr Ford's friend Leland Ingham Keyser, are willing to co-operate "fully" with the FBI's investigation, their lawyers said. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Republican Senator Jeff Flake is challenged by a sexual assault survivor. A third woman who has also publicly accused Judge Kavanaugh, Julie Swetnick, alleges he was involved in the drugging and sexual assault of girls at house parties in the 1980s. She says she was the victim of a gang rape in 1982 at a party attended by Brett Kavanaugh. Ms Swetnick's lawyer said on Saturday that they had yet to hear from the FBI. What will the FBI investigation do? Announcing the move, President Trump said: "I've ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh's file. "As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week." The inquiry involves the FBI reopening its previously completed background check on Judge Kavanaugh. This may mean going back to old witnesses - or speaking to new ones. Dr Ford's lawyer said her client welcomed the step but questioned the time limit of a week to hold the investigation.

www.bbc.com

center

LFMVHFfUBcynfHrC

test

LF1InwTuc80FIdQT

politics

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washington-goodbye-mccain-lie-state-capitol/story?id=57522796&cid=clicksource_4380645_2_three_posts_card_hed

Washington says goodbye to McCain, who will lie in state at the Capitol

As Sen. John McCain ’ s casket was brought into the U.S. Capitol Rotunda Friday , Republican and Democratic colleagues of past and present stood in silence as he entered the iconic building where he made his legacy one final time . Interested in John McCain ? Add John McCain as an interest to stay up to date on the latest John McCain news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest “ I will miss a dear friend whose smile reminded us that service is a privilege and whose scars reminded us of the great cost that brave souls pay for our freedom , ” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said . McConnell thanked McCain ’ s family , including his 106-year-old mother , Roberta , who was also in attendance . “ On behalf of the Senate and the entire nation -- thank you , ” McConnell said . “ Thank you for lending him to us longer than we had a right . Thank you for supporting him while he supported us . ” While McCain was a steadfast Republican , he didn ’ t always see eye to eye with his GOP colleagues . Last year , he famously helped tank the Republican-led effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act , President Obama 's signature healthcare law . McCain made the iconic thumbs down motion during a Senate floor vote in the middle of the night , while McConnell stood by , arms crossed and head down , looking defeated . “ He treated every issue with the intensity the people ’ s business deserves , ” McConnell remembered . “ He would fight tooth and nail for his vision of the common good . Depending on the issue , you knew John would either be your staunchest ally or your most stubborn opponent . ” House Speaker Paul Ryan remembered McCain as a man who `` relished the fight , '' and spoke of his strength in times of difficult circumstances . He quoted Ernest Hemingway , one of McCain 's favorite authors , saying , “ The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong at the broken places . ” `` No one was stronger at the broken places than John McCain , '' Ryan continued . `` The brokenness was his ballast . He never lost the joy that time can dull or the edge that political life so often sands away . '' Ryan added : `` I myself was , from time to time , on the receiving end of John ’ s distinct brand of candor . '' Vice President Mike Pence was also in attendance , but President Donald Trump was not invited to attend any of the events celebrating McCain 's life throughout the course of the week . `` The president asked me to be here on behalf of a grateful nation to pay a debt of honor and respect to a man who served our country throughout his life , in uniform and in public office , '' Pence said . `` It 's my great honor to be here . '' Several members of the Trump administration were also in attendance , including White House chief of staff John Kelly and Attorney General Jeff Sessions . Following McCain 's service in the Capitol Rotunda , his widow , Cindy , was escorted to the Senate floor by McCain 's best friend , Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Republican . Graham led her to her late husband 's desk in the Senate chamber , which has been draped in black velvet since his death , with a vase of white roses resting on top . As she sat at her husband 's desk , Graham , whose desk is right next to McCain 's , also took a seat . The two chatted briefly , according to an aide to the late senator . Before they left the chamber , Graham pulled two white roses from the vase and handed them to her . Later , Cindy McCain and her children met privately with staffers and aides to the senator , including staffers who work for the Senate Armed Services Committee , which McCain chaired . She and her children thanked her husband 's team for their years of dedicated service . There were multiple rounds of applause , including some raucous laughter . The Capitol Rotunda will remain open throughout the day so that the public can pay their respects . The United States Capitol Police honor guard will protect McCain 's casket throughout the night . On Saturday , former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama will eulogize the late senator at a memorial service at the Washington National Cathedral . On Sunday , the senator will be laid to rest in a private burial service at the U.S . Naval Academy Chapel in Annapolis , Maryland . “ Half a world away , wearing our nation ’ s uniform , John McCain stood up for every value that this Capitol Building represents , '' McConnell said during the service . `` Then , he brought that same patriotism inside its walls -- to advocate for our servicemembers , our veterans , and our moral leadership in the world . '' “ So it is only right that today , near the end of his long journey , John lies here . ''

As Sen. John McCain’s casket was brought into the U.S. Capitol Rotunda Friday, Republican and Democratic colleagues of past and present stood in silence as he entered the iconic building where he made his legacy one final time. Interested in John McCain? Add John McCain as an interest to stay up to date on the latest John McCain news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest “I will miss a dear friend whose smile reminded us that service is a privilege and whose scars reminded us of the great cost that brave souls pay for our freedom,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said. McConnell thanked McCain’s family, including his 106-year-old mother, Roberta, who was also in attendance. AP “On behalf of the Senate and the entire nation -- thank you,” McConnell said. “Thank you for lending him to us longer than we had a right. Thank you for supporting him while he supported us.” While McCain was a steadfast Republican, he didn’t always see eye to eye with his GOP colleagues. Last year, he famously helped tank the Republican-led effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, President Obama's signature healthcare law. McCain made the iconic thumbs down motion during a Senate floor vote in the middle of the night, while McConnell stood by, arms crossed and head down, looking defeated. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images “He treated every issue with the intensity the people’s business deserves,” McConnell remembered. “He would fight tooth and nail for his vision of the common good. Depending on the issue, you knew John would either be your staunchest ally or your most stubborn opponent.” House Speaker Paul Ryan remembered McCain as a man who "relished the fight," and spoke of his strength in times of difficult circumstances. He quoted Ernest Hemingway, one of McCain's favorite authors, saying, “The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong at the broken places.” "No one was stronger at the broken places than John McCain," Ryan continued. "The brokenness was his ballast. He never lost the joy that time can dull or the edge that political life so often sands away." Ryan added: "I myself was, from time to time, on the receiving end of John’s distinct brand of candor." Andrew Harnik/AFP/Getty Images Vice President Mike Pence was also in attendance, but President Donald Trump was not invited to attend any of the events celebrating McCain's life throughout the course of the week. "The president asked me to be here on behalf of a grateful nation to pay a debt of honor and respect to a man who served our country throughout his life, in uniform and in public office," Pence said. "It's my great honor to be here." Several members of the Trump administration were also in attendance, including White House chief of staff John Kelly and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Following McCain's service in the Capitol Rotunda, his widow, Cindy, was escorted to the Senate floor by McCain's best friend, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Republican. Graham led her to her late husband's desk in the Senate chamber, which has been draped in black velvet since his death, with a vase of white roses resting on top. As she sat at her husband's desk, Graham, whose desk is right next to McCain's, also took a seat. The two chatted briefly, according to an aide to the late senator. Before they left the chamber, Graham pulled two white roses from the vase and handed them to her. Later, Cindy McCain and her children met privately with staffers and aides to the senator, including staffers who work for the Senate Armed Services Committee, which McCain chaired. She and her children thanked her husband's team for their years of dedicated service. There were multiple rounds of applause, including some raucous laughter. The Capitol Rotunda will remain open throughout the day so that the public can pay their respects. The United States Capitol Police honor guard will protect McCain's casket throughout the night. On Saturday, former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama will eulogize the late senator at a memorial service at the Washington National Cathedral. On Sunday, the senator will be laid to rest in a private burial service at the U.S. Naval Academy Chapel in Annapolis, Maryland. “Half a world away, wearing our nation’s uniform, John McCain stood up for every value that this Capitol Building represents," McConnell said during the service. "Then, he brought that same patriotism inside its walls -- to advocate for our servicemembers, our veterans, and our moral leadership in the world." “So it is only right that today, near the end of his long journey, John lies here."

www.abcnews.go.com

left

LF1InwTuc80FIdQT

test

i9rL1FLV4xpiZBfr

lgbt_rights

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2019/may/feminist-and-lgbtq-activist-warns-equality-act-eradicates-female-group-grave-consequences-for-women-and-girls

Feminist & LGBTQ Activist Warns Equality Act 'Eradicates' Female Group, 'Grave Consequences for Women and Girls'

2019-05-17

Critics of the so-called Equality Act say it would undermine women 's rights , enshrine abortion funding , and violate parental rights , forcing doctors to ignore parents and give kids transgender operations . WASHINGTON , DC – The House of Representatives passed the Equality Act Friday , a bill opponents say does n't live up to the name , warning there is far more to it than meets the eye . House Minority Whip Steve Scalise ( R-LA ) calls the legislation `` the most invasive threat to a parent 's involvement in children 's medical decisions he 's seen '' during his entire time in Congress . `` The son can actually go to a doctor without the parents ' involvement at all , even if the parents object vocally , '' Scalise told ███ News . `` Under this bill , the doctor has to treat the boy to ultimately transfer over to be a female . '' Scalise adds these are kids of all ages – not just teenagers . `` I 'm not talking about 18 , 19 , 20-year-olds – I 'm talking about 11 and 12-year-olds , '' he continued . Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler ( R-MO ) tells ███ News this is already happening in some states where laws similar to the federal Equality Act already exist . `` In Ohio , there were parents who had their parental rights taken away from them because they refused to go along with giving hormone treatments to their teenage child , '' cautioned Hartzler . The Conscience Rights of Medical Professionals Would Be Lost Too And she says in cases where doctors refused to perform these surgeries , they faced legal repercussions . `` We have other states who have sued hospitals , faith-based hospitals who have not gone along with doing a sex change operation on a child , and they 're being sued for discrimination , '' explained Hartzler . If passed in the full Congress , the bill would amend the Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity . `` We can not allow claims of religious freedom to be used to discriminate against an LGBT individual , '' says Rep. David Cicilline ( D-RI ) , who introduced the bill in the House . But Congressman Scalise argues it 's strayed far from its advertised purpose . `` If that 's what they were concerned about , that 's what the bill would have focused on , but it 's not , '' argues Scalise . `` What Speaker Pelosi and a lot of the Left socialists have done is given it a nice sounding name - `` Equality Act '' - but they embedded in it so many things that are inequality . '' Scalise warns the bill even adds taxpayer funding for abortion . `` They take away the protection that taxpayer money wo n't be used for abortion , '' Scalise told ███ News . Democrat and feminist Kara Dansky joined conservatives at a rally speaking out against the bill . `` I am certain that the people here with me profoundly disagree about many issues , but we are here together to take a strong stand for the rights , privacy , and safety of women and girls , '' Dansky told the crowd . `` If the bill is permitted to go through it would redefine the word sex to mean gender identity and that has grave consequences for women and girls , '' Dansky told ███ News after the rally . `` We 're gravely concerned about spaces – locker rooms , changing rooms , dormitories ; we 're concerned about the material consequences of eradicating the category female from the law . '' Congresswoman Hartzler , a former track coach , argues it would prove detrimental to women 's sports . `` It tramples on the rights of women and others by forcing a top-down government discrimination against those who hold differing views on marriage and human sexuality , '' said Hartzler . She believes if this becomes federal law , it 'll be the end of religious liberty cases winning in court . `` There would be no more Little Sisters of the Poor being able to go to court and argue for their rights , there would be no more Hobby Lobby , there would be no more Jack Phillips being able to say you can not force me to use my gifts and talents to make a cake that goes against my deeply held religious beliefs , '' continued Hartzler . While this bill did pass the Democrat-controlled House , it is unlikely Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will allow a vote this session . And the White House says , `` the Trump Administration absolutely opposes discrimination of any kind and supports the equal treatment of all ; however , this bill in its current form is filled with poison pills that threaten to undermine parental and conscience rights . '' BELOW : Why the Equality Act Would Be ' A Travesty for American Women '

Critics of the so-called Equality Act say it would undermine women's rights, enshrine abortion funding, and violate parental rights, forcing doctors to ignore parents and give kids transgender operations. WASHINGTON, DC – The House of Representatives passed the Equality Act Friday, a bill opponents say doesn't live up to the name, warning there is far more to it than meets the eye. Parental Rights Would Be Lost Under the Equality Act House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) calls the legislation "the most invasive threat to a parent's involvement in children's medical decisions he's seen" during his entire time in Congress. "The son can actually go to a doctor without the parents' involvement at all, even if the parents object vocally," Scalise told CBN News. "Under this bill, the doctor has to treat the boy to ultimately transfer over to be a female." Scalise adds these are kids of all ages – not just teenagers. "I'm not talking about 18, 19, 20-year-olds – I'm talking about 11 and 12-year-olds," he continued. Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) tells CBN News this is already happening in some states where laws similar to the federal Equality Act already exist. "In Ohio, there were parents who had their parental rights taken away from them because they refused to go along with giving hormone treatments to their teenage child," cautioned Hartzler. The Conscience Rights of Medical Professionals Would Be Lost Too And she says in cases where doctors refused to perform these surgeries, they faced legal repercussions. "We have other states who have sued hospitals, faith-based hospitals who have not gone along with doing a sex change operation on a child, and they're being sued for discrimination," explained Hartzler. If passed in the full Congress, the bill would amend the Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. "We cannot allow claims of religious freedom to be used to discriminate against an LGBT individual," says Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), who introduced the bill in the House. But Congressman Scalise argues it's strayed far from its advertised purpose. "If that's what they were concerned about, that's what the bill would have focused on, but it's not," argues Scalise. "What Speaker Pelosi and a lot of the Left socialists have done is given it a nice sounding name - "Equality Act" - but they embedded in it so many things that are inequality." Scalise warns the bill even adds taxpayer funding for abortion. "They take away the protection that taxpayer money won't be used for abortion," Scalise told CBN News. Democrat Feminist Says the Equality Act Hurts Women Democrat and feminist Kara Dansky joined conservatives at a rally speaking out against the bill. "I am certain that the people here with me profoundly disagree about many issues, but we are here together to take a strong stand for the rights, privacy, and safety of women and girls," Dansky told the crowd. "If the bill is permitted to go through it would redefine the word sex to mean gender identity and that has grave consequences for women and girls," Dansky told CBN News after the rally. "We're gravely concerned about spaces – locker rooms, changing rooms, dormitories; we're concerned about the material consequences of eradicating the category female from the law." Congresswoman Hartzler, a former track coach, argues it would prove detrimental to women's sports. "It tramples on the rights of women and others by forcing a top-down government discrimination against those who hold differing views on marriage and human sexuality," said Hartzler. Equality Act Wipes Out Certain Religious Rights She believes if this becomes federal law, it'll be the end of religious liberty cases winning in court. "There would be no more Little Sisters of the Poor being able to go to court and argue for their rights, there would be no more Hobby Lobby, there would be no more Jack Phillips being able to say you cannot force me to use my gifts and talents to make a cake that goes against my deeply held religious beliefs," continued Hartzler. While this bill did pass the Democrat-controlled House, it is unlikely Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will allow a vote this session. And the White House says, "the Trump Administration absolutely opposes discrimination of any kind and supports the equal treatment of all; however, this bill in its current form is filled with poison pills that threaten to undermine parental and conscience rights." BELOW: Why the Equality Act Would Be 'A Travesty for American Women'

www1.cbn.com

right

i9rL1FLV4xpiZBfr

test

CxqstIoic2B4pjr7

politics

Reason

http://reason.com/blog/2018/08/24/warren-sanders-regulation-spending

Elizabeth Warren Wants to Fight About Regulation Instead of Spending. That's Clever—and Dangerous.

2018-08-24

Peter Suderman, Zuri Davis, Christian Britschgi, Josh Blackman, Cosmo Wenman, Joe Setyon

Elizabeth Warren has become a progressive icon over the last decade . She was the intellectual force behind the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , and she was a prominent early voice pushing to move the Democratic Party in a more leftward direction . Although she does not claim the socialist label for herself , she is in many ways the forerunner of the resurgent democratic socialist movement and its champions , from Bernie Sanders to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez . But precisely because she has been so successful at pushing her party and its voter base to the left , she now faces political competition . In response , Warren is carving out a unique niche for herself : While her competitors are increasingly focused on dramatically increasing federal spending with ideas like Medicare for All and free public college tuition , Warren is focused on corporate regulation and oversight . It 's a savvy move from one of the left 's most effective political strategists . It also has the potential to be far more dangerous and disruptive than conventional tax-and-spend progressivism . Over the last two weeks , Warren has rolled out a pair of legislative proposals designed to change the way corporate governance is regulated . This week 's entry was an anti-corruption plan that would impose restrictions on how soon government officials can become lobbyists after leaving office and would require the IRS to release presidential candidates ' tax returns . Some of its provisions are worthwhile ; some are n't . Much of it is targeted at President Trump . The more significant of the two is the Accountable Capitalism Act , which would radically overhaul corporate governance at large companies . Currently , corporate charters are granted at the state level , but Warren 's plan would force corporations with more than $ 1 billion in annual revenue to obtain a federal charter from a new Office of United States Corporations within the Department of Commerce . Those companies would be subject to a variety of rules , including a mandate that at least 40 percent of the board of directors be elected by employees , an instruction to consider all `` stakeholders '' ( not just shareholders ) when making business decisions , and a requirement that 75 percent of both shareholders and board members approve of any political activity . In a Wall Street Journal op-ed announcing the plan , Warren wrote that since 1985 , shareholders `` extracted almost $ 7 trillion '' from U.S. companies . `` That 's trillions of dollars in profits that might otherwise have been reinvested in the workers who helped produce them . '' The clear implication is that corporate profits and shareholder returns represent a pot of money that can be tapped for redistribution without raising taxes or increasing government spending . Media accounts of Warren 's plan have been even more explicit about this . A write-up in Fast Company , for example , said that `` the Accountable Capitalism Act could precipitate the shift of trillions of dollars in wealth from the top 10 % to the struggling middle and lower classes , without requiring any federal spending . '' Although Warren has not explicitly framed her proposal in opposition to spending-heavy agenda of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez , it 's impossible to avoid the contrast . The essential components of the democratic socialist agenda—single-payer health care , free tuition at public colleges , a jobs guarantee—would add tens of trillions of dollars to the federal budget , even according to accounting from neutral and left-leaning sources . Warren 's proposal , from a strictly budgetary perspective , would be free . As a political strategy , it 's a clever attempt to solve a problem that has consistently bedeviled the left . Socialists like Ocasio-Cortez have struggled when asked how they would pay for their plans . Even in blue states nominally receptive to much larger government , the cost of progressive policy ideas has tended to be politically and economically prohibitive . But this allows Warren to sidestep talk of massive tax hikes , and it lets her criticize Republicans for increasing the deficit , as she did in a recent CNBC interview , without sparking charges of hypocrisy . In essence , Warren can claim that she has found a pot of free money . But of course it 's not free—not even close—even if the price tag wo n't show up in a Congressional Budget Office score . Warren 's plan would almost certainly come with a byzantine set of rules and compliance requirements , all of which would impose a significant cost on some of America 's most productive companies . It might not represent a direct transfer of wealth away from owners of capital , but it would certainly transfer a substantial measure of control to non-owners—and to the federal government . Investors would be less likely to invest if they could n't be assured control of the returns . Some defenders of Warren 's plan have pointed to European countries with codetermination—a form of employee participation in corporate governance that resembles Warren 's proposal—to suggest her plan wo n't seriously damage the U.S. economy . Yet as Samuel Hammond argues in National Review , Germany 's mandated codetermination system has failed to create the sort of large , innovative companies that thrive in the United States . Germany , he notes , has `` failed to become a dominant player in tech , producing just five billion-dollar technology companies in the last decade . Instead , Europe 's largest economy is dominated by old behemoths such as Volkswagen and an abundance of specialized , thoroughly unscalable 'small and medium ' firms known as Mittelstand . '' Research suggests that Germany 's system of codetermination has inhibited its securities market , undermining shareholder ownership . It 's an economic system that is unfriendly to innovators and investors . Europe 's experience does n't make the case for Warren 's plan ; it demonstrates the risks . She has not found a treasure trove of free money . She has found a way to hide the vast cost of her plans . Rather than taxing anyone directly , her plan would extract from the economy as a whole , curbing its growth at a cost to everyone who works or saves , which is to say , nearly everyone . So far , Warren has sidestepped discussions about whether she will run for president in 2020 , saying she is focusing on getting reelected to the Senate in 2018 . But her latest round of proposals certainly seem intended to position her for a potential 2020 run . And that means differentiating herself from other left-leaning Democrats . A recent Buzzfeed profile quotes Warren describing what she believes is the difference between herself and Bernie Sanders : `` He 's a socialist , and I believe in markets . '' Politically , it 's a smart contrast to draw in a country where the essential idea of market-driven capitalism remains relatively popular . But it 's disingenuous . For all its flaws , Sanders-style socialism is at least transparent . He believes in accomplishing his political goals directly through the federal government . Warren , on the other hand , would use the government to force corporations to do it for her , making the cost opaque in the process . Yes , she believes in markets—but only when people like her control them .

Elizabeth Warren has become a progressive icon over the last decade. She was the intellectual force behind the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and she was a prominent early voice pushing to move the Democratic Party in a more leftward direction. Although she does not claim the socialist label for herself, she is in many ways the forerunner of the resurgent democratic socialist movement and its champions, from Bernie Sanders to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But precisely because she has been so successful at pushing her party and its voter base to the left, she now faces political competition. In response, Warren is carving out a unique niche for herself: While her competitors are increasingly focused on dramatically increasing federal spending with ideas like Medicare for All and free public college tuition, Warren is focused on corporate regulation and oversight. It's a savvy move from one of the left's most effective political strategists. It also has the potential to be far more dangerous and disruptive than conventional tax-and-spend progressivism. Over the last two weeks, Warren has rolled out a pair of legislative proposals designed to change the way corporate governance is regulated. This week's entry was an anti-corruption plan that would impose restrictions on how soon government officials can become lobbyists after leaving office and would require the IRS to release presidential candidates' tax returns. Some of its provisions are worthwhile; some aren't. Much of it is targeted at President Trump. The more significant of the two is the Accountable Capitalism Act, which would radically overhaul corporate governance at large companies. Currently, corporate charters are granted at the state level, but Warren's plan would force corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue to obtain a federal charter from a new Office of United States Corporations within the Department of Commerce. Those companies would be subject to a variety of rules, including a mandate that at least 40 percent of the board of directors be elected by employees, an instruction to consider all "stakeholders" (not just shareholders) when making business decisions, and a requirement that 75 percent of both shareholders and board members approve of any political activity. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed announcing the plan, Warren wrote that since 1985, shareholders "extracted almost $7 trillion" from U.S. companies. "That's trillions of dollars in profits that might otherwise have been reinvested in the workers who helped produce them." The clear implication is that corporate profits and shareholder returns represent a pot of money that can be tapped for redistribution without raising taxes or increasing government spending. Media accounts of Warren's plan have been even more explicit about this. A write-up in Fast Company, for example, said that "the Accountable Capitalism Act could precipitate the shift of trillions of dollars in wealth from the top 10% to the struggling middle and lower classes, without requiring any federal spending." Although Warren has not explicitly framed her proposal in opposition to spending-heavy agenda of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, it's impossible to avoid the contrast. The essential components of the democratic socialist agenda—single-payer health care, free tuition at public colleges, a jobs guarantee—would add tens of trillions of dollars to the federal budget, even according to accounting from neutral and left-leaning sources. Warren's proposal, from a strictly budgetary perspective, would be free. As a political strategy, it's a clever attempt to solve a problem that has consistently bedeviled the left. Socialists like Ocasio-Cortez have struggled when asked how they would pay for their plans. Even in blue states nominally receptive to much larger government, the cost of progressive policy ideas has tended to be politically and economically prohibitive. But this allows Warren to sidestep talk of massive tax hikes, and it lets her criticize Republicans for increasing the deficit, as she did in a recent CNBC interview, without sparking charges of hypocrisy. In essence, Warren can claim that she has found a pot of free money. But of course it's not free—not even close—even if the price tag won't show up in a Congressional Budget Office score. Warren's plan would almost certainly come with a byzantine set of rules and compliance requirements, all of which would impose a significant cost on some of America's most productive companies. It might not represent a direct transfer of wealth away from owners of capital, but it would certainly transfer a substantial measure of control to non-owners—and to the federal government. Investors would be less likely to invest if they couldn't be assured control of the returns. Some defenders of Warren's plan have pointed to European countries with codetermination—a form of employee participation in corporate governance that resembles Warren's proposal—to suggest her plan won't seriously damage the U.S. economy. Yet as Samuel Hammond argues in National Review, Germany's mandated codetermination system has failed to create the sort of large, innovative companies that thrive in the United States. Germany, he notes, has "failed to become a dominant player in tech, producing just five billion-dollar technology companies in the last decade. Instead, Europe's largest economy is dominated by old behemoths such as Volkswagen and an abundance of specialized, thoroughly unscalable 'small and medium' firms known as Mittelstand." Research suggests that Germany's system of codetermination has inhibited its securities market, undermining shareholder ownership. It's an economic system that is unfriendly to innovators and investors. Europe's experience doesn't make the case for Warren's plan; it demonstrates the risks. She has not found a treasure trove of free money. She has found a way to hide the vast cost of her plans. Rather than taxing anyone directly, her plan would extract from the economy as a whole, curbing its growth at a cost to everyone who works or saves, which is to say, nearly everyone. So far, Warren has sidestepped discussions about whether she will run for president in 2020, saying she is focusing on getting reelected to the Senate in 2018. But her latest round of proposals certainly seem intended to position her for a potential 2020 run. And that means differentiating herself from other left-leaning Democrats. A recent Buzzfeed profile quotes Warren describing what she believes is the difference between herself and Bernie Sanders: "He's a socialist, and I believe in markets." Politically, it's a smart contrast to draw in a country where the essential idea of market-driven capitalism remains relatively popular. But it's disingenuous. For all its flaws, Sanders-style socialism is at least transparent. He believes in accomplishing his political goals directly through the federal government. Warren, on the other hand, would use the government to force corporations to do it for her, making the cost opaque in the process. Yes, she believes in markets—but only when people like her control them.

www.reason.com

right

CxqstIoic2B4pjr7

test

cmL77IHRVmU2Q8UR

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump/back-home-from-hanoi-trump-faces-more-political-headwinds-idUSKCN1QI3MZ

Back home from Hanoi, Trump faces more political headwinds

2019-03-01

Steve Holland

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - President Donald Trump embarked on his trip to Vietnam with a political cloud hanging over his head and keen to show progress on a thorny foreign policy issue that has befuddled many of his predecessors . U.S. President Donald Trump exits Air Force One arriving from his summit meeting with North Korea 's Kim Jong Un in Vietnam after landing for a refueling stop at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage , Alaska , U.S. , February 28 , 2019 . ███/Leah Millis Now , he is just back from a Hanoi summit with North Korea that collapsed and the cloud has grown darker . While Trump ’ s much-hyped meeting with North Korea ’ s Kim Jong Un broke up in disagreement over sanctions linked to Pyongyang ’ s nuclear weapons program , testimony from his former lawyer Michael Cohen , who accused him of breaking the law while in office , represented a potentially damaging development for the president at home . Trump faced challenges on other fronts : sensitive talks with China over a trade deal , a slow-rolling crisis in Venezuela , tensions between India and Pakistan and an attempt in Congress to kill his emergency declaration aimed at securing funding for a wall on the border with Mexico . U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller may also end his probe into Russia ’ s meddling in the 2016 presidential election in a matter of days - ensuring that speculation about the role of Trump and his campaign will keep making headlines . Before Trump left for Vietnam , he privately complained that Democrats would go ahead with the Cohen testimony , violating an unwritten rule against attacking the president while he is overseas . He also wished the Mueller report was finished . Back at the White House on Friday , the Republican president unleashed a series of tweets slamming Cohen and accusing him of lying . “ He was very unhappy that they were holding the hearings while he was overseas , ” said one person who was present and asked to remain unnamed . “ He was also very unhappy that the Mueller investigation had not been concluded before he left . He felt that there was a cloud hanging over him . ” While at the summit , Trump cut the talks about North Korea ’ s denuclearization short and the two sides gave conflicting accounts of what happened , raising doubts about the future of one of Trump ’ s signature initiatives . The White House had included a signing ceremony for a deal on Trump ’ s public schedule in Hanoi - and then abruptly canceled it . Trump ’ s Secretary of State Mike Pompeo complained about reporters being obsessed with what he tried to dismiss as “ process ” and said they were “ radically uninformed . ” “ Y ’ all shouldn ’ t get hung up on things like that , ” Pompeo told reporters traveling with him . As the summit unfolded , Trump kept up to date with Cohen ’ s testimony from his suite at a Hanoi hotel despite the 12-hour time difference . The conclusion among Trump ’ s inner circle was that the president came out of the week okay , feeling there was not much new in Cohen ’ s testimony and that Trump was getting credit for walking away from a potentially bad deal with the North Koreans . “ There were no surprises this week , ” said Christopher Ruddy , a conservative media mogul and a close friend of the president . “ We knew North Korea was a tough nut to crack and that Michael Cohen was going to say a lot of nasty stuff . At the end of the day I don ’ t think it changes the political climate for President Trump , ” Ruddy told ███ . But the Cohen testimony raised questions among Trump allies about the ability of Republicans and the president ’ s re-election campaign to organize a proper response . “ Where ’ s the defense of the president ? ” former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie , a Trump friend , told ABC ’ s “ This Week ” program on Wednesday . In Congress , efforts to block Trump ’ s national emergency declaration intensified with the introduction of legislation in the Republican-led Senate , although it faces an uphill path to passage . Trump will have a friendly audience on Saturday when he addresses the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference in a Maryland suburb of Washington . At CPAC on Thursday , Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel was quick to defend Trump ’ s handling of the Vietnam summit . “ He walked away rightly because he said we ’ re not going to take away the sanctions if you not going to de-nuclearize , ” she said to applause .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump embarked on his trip to Vietnam with a political cloud hanging over his head and keen to show progress on a thorny foreign policy issue that has befuddled many of his predecessors. U.S. President Donald Trump exits Air Force One arriving from his summit meeting with North Korea's Kim Jong Un in Vietnam after landing for a refueling stop at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage, Alaska, U.S., February 28, 2019. REUTERS/Leah Millis Now, he is just back from a Hanoi summit with North Korea that collapsed and the cloud has grown darker. While Trump’s much-hyped meeting with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un broke up in disagreement over sanctions linked to Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program, testimony from his former lawyer Michael Cohen, who accused him of breaking the law while in office, represented a potentially damaging development for the president at home. Trump faced challenges on other fronts: sensitive talks with China over a trade deal, a slow-rolling crisis in Venezuela, tensions between India and Pakistan and an attempt in Congress to kill his emergency declaration aimed at securing funding for a wall on the border with Mexico. U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller may also end his probe into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election in a matter of days - ensuring that speculation about the role of Trump and his campaign will keep making headlines. Before Trump left for Vietnam, he privately complained that Democrats would go ahead with the Cohen testimony, violating an unwritten rule against attacking the president while he is overseas. He also wished the Mueller report was finished. Back at the White House on Friday, the Republican president unleashed a series of tweets slamming Cohen and accusing him of lying. “He was very unhappy that they were holding the hearings while he was overseas,” said one person who was present and asked to remain unnamed. “He was also very unhappy that the Mueller investigation had not been concluded before he left. He felt that there was a cloud hanging over him.” While at the summit, Trump cut the talks about North Korea’s denuclearization short and the two sides gave conflicting accounts of what happened, raising doubts about the future of one of Trump’s signature initiatives. The White House had included a signing ceremony for a deal on Trump’s public schedule in Hanoi - and then abruptly canceled it. Trump’s Secretary of State Mike Pompeo complained about reporters being obsessed with what he tried to dismiss as “process” and said they were “radically uninformed.” “Y’all shouldn’t get hung up on things like that,” Pompeo told reporters traveling with him. As the summit unfolded, Trump kept up to date with Cohen’s testimony from his suite at a Hanoi hotel despite the 12-hour time difference. The conclusion among Trump’s inner circle was that the president came out of the week okay, feeling there was not much new in Cohen’s testimony and that Trump was getting credit for walking away from a potentially bad deal with the North Koreans. “There were no surprises this week,” said Christopher Ruddy, a conservative media mogul and a close friend of the president. “We knew North Korea was a tough nut to crack and that Michael Cohen was going to say a lot of nasty stuff. At the end of the day I don’t think it changes the political climate for President Trump,” Ruddy told Reuters. But the Cohen testimony raised questions among Trump allies about the ability of Republicans and the president’s re-election campaign to organize a proper response. “Where’s the defense of the president?” former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a Trump friend, told ABC’s “This Week” program on Wednesday. In Congress, efforts to block Trump’s national emergency declaration intensified with the introduction of legislation in the Republican-led Senate, although it faces an uphill path to passage. Trump will have a friendly audience on Saturday when he addresses the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference in a Maryland suburb of Washington. At CPAC on Thursday, Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel was quick to defend Trump’s handling of the Vietnam summit. “He walked away rightly because he said we’re not going to take away the sanctions if you not going to de-nuclearize,” she said to applause.

www.reuters.com

center

cmL77IHRVmU2Q8UR

test

xAce92v0EgHJnzPz

media_bias

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2017/01/11/worst-of-times

Worst of Times

2017-01-11

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

Now that I no longer do a weekly TV show , I have more time to read my local paper . Sadly , that 's The New York Times . The Times actually does some good reporting , but their political and economic coverage is filled with deceit . Can I find deceit every day ? You bet . Take a look at a few days just last week . The front page : `` NAFTA 's promise is falling short , Mexicans agree . '' Wow , the Times now embraces Donald Trump 's position on trade ? Economists estimate that 14 million jobs depend upon NAFTA , but people everywhere often oppose trade because the smaller number of jobs lost is more visible than gradual gains . What evidence of NAFTA 's failings does the Times offer ? Oddly , the article says `` the workforce has grown . '' Not much by American standards , but good for Latin America , and the reporter mentions that Rico got `` a handful of raises . '' Have you gotten `` a handful of raises '' ? Despite NAFTA , the `` gap between the nation 's rich and poor persists . '' Duh . Trade does n't eliminate wealth gaps—it may increase the gap because the cleverest traders get rich . But since the poor gain jobs and wealth , too , so what ? Finally , the clueless Times reporter quotes a Mexican politician and crony capitalist complaining : `` Government has not established policies to protect Mexican businesses . '' But `` protection '' for some businesses is corporate welfare—welfare for the rich . It hurts poor people by raising prices . The Times wants that ? Maybe they 're sucking up to Donald Trump and his friend Carlos Slim , Mexico 's richest crony capitalist , and the Times ' biggest shareholder . A front-page story smears David and Charles Koch ( the former of whom is a trustee of ███ Foundation , the nonprofit that publishes this website ) First , the reporter labels them `` the ultraconservative billionaire brothers . '' Ultra ? Why ultra ? Why conservative even ? The Kochs favor liberal immigration rules , gay marriage , legal drugs , ending racial discrimination in criminal sentencing , fighting in fewer foreign wars and getting rid of government bailouts and favors for businesses , including their own . David Koch supports higher taxes to reduce the deficit . Which of those things is conservative ? ! Maybe the Times calls the Kochs `` ultraconservative '' because a political group they support points out , `` Policies that subsidize electric vehicles and solar panels for the wealthy raise energy prices '' and gas and oil are cheaper for everyone . The reporter adds that the group even showed a `` video of people driving , turning on lights and plugging in appliances . '' Oh , no ! How terrible ! The reporter claims the `` Kochs have long worked to quash… renewable energy sources like wind and solar . '' But they have n't ! They try to quash subsidies for renewables . Big difference . Does n't the Times know the difference ? The Times appeals to its Trump-hating readers with a headline that begins `` Sensing Gains Ahead Under Trump , the Kochs … '' But the Kochs did n't give Trump a penny . It 's time for the Times to stop calling all their opponents `` conservatives . '' Some of us are libertarians . America has other choices besides the anti-capitalism of the Times and anti-capitalism of Trump . The Times quotes left-wing New York Governor Andrew Cuomo ( D ) saying it `` defies common sense '' to have a nuclear power plant near New York City . Green activists oppose the plant and Cuomo now says it will close . But where will New Yorkers get power ? The `` options include hydropower from Quebec and power from wind farms . '' Great . But what will we do when the wind does n't blow ? At least the reporter admits that `` New York City could be burdened with higher energy prices . '' Could be ? Will be ! That 's the headline on a Nicholas Kristof column about drought in southern Africa . Apparently , there were no dry spells before `` man-made global warming . '' In truth , starvation has decreased dramatically thanks to fossil fuels . Starvation now is caused by corrupt governments , not climate change . If there 's a way to blame capitalism even as it improves the world , the Times will find it .

Now that I no longer do a weekly TV show, I have more time to read my local paper. Sadly, that's The New York Times. The Times actually does some good reporting, but their political and economic coverage is filled with deceit. Can I find deceit every day? You bet. Take a look at a few days just last week. –Thursday: The front page: "NAFTA's promise is falling short, Mexicans agree." Wow, the Times now embraces Donald Trump's position on trade? Economists estimate that 14 million jobs depend upon NAFTA, but people everywhere often oppose trade because the smaller number of jobs lost is more visible than gradual gains. What evidence of NAFTA's failings does the Times offer? Oddly, the article says "the workforce has grown." Ah, hello? Job growth is good. Jose Luis Rico "earns well under $10,000 a year." Not much by American standards, but good for Latin America, and the reporter mentions that Rico got "a handful of raises." Have you gotten "a handful of raises"? Despite NAFTA, the "gap between the nation's rich and poor persists." Duh. Trade doesn't eliminate wealth gaps—it may increase the gap because the cleverest traders get rich. But since the poor gain jobs and wealth, too, so what? Finally, the clueless Times reporter quotes a Mexican politician and crony capitalist complaining: "Government has not established policies to protect Mexican businesses." But "protection" for some businesses is corporate welfare—welfare for the rich. It hurts poor people by raising prices. The Times wants that? Maybe they're sucking up to Donald Trump and his friend Carlos Slim, Mexico's richest crony capitalist, and the Times' biggest shareholder. –Friday: A front-page story smears David and Charles Koch (the former of whom is a trustee of Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this website) First, the reporter labels them "the ultraconservative billionaire brothers." Ultra? Why ultra? Why conservative even? The Kochs favor liberal immigration rules, gay marriage, legal drugs, ending racial discrimination in criminal sentencing, fighting in fewer foreign wars and getting rid of government bailouts and favors for businesses, including their own. David Koch supports higher taxes to reduce the deficit. Which of those things is conservative?! Maybe the Times calls the Kochs "ultraconservative" because a political group they support points out, "Policies that subsidize electric vehicles and solar panels for the wealthy raise energy prices" and gas and oil are cheaper for everyone. The reporter adds that the group even showed a "video of people driving, turning on lights and plugging in appliances." Oh, no! How terrible! The reporter claims the "Kochs have long worked to quash… renewable energy sources like wind and solar." But they haven't! They try to quash subsidies for renewables. Big difference. Doesn't the Times know the difference? The Times appeals to its Trump-hating readers with a headline that begins "Sensing Gains Ahead Under Trump, the Kochs …" But the Kochs didn't give Trump a penny. It's time for the Times to stop calling all their opponents "conservatives." Some of us are libertarians. America has other choices besides the anti-capitalism of the Times and anti-capitalism of Trump. –Saturday: The Times quotes left-wing New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) saying it "defies common sense" to have a nuclear power plant near New York City. Green activists oppose the plant and Cuomo now says it will close. But where will New Yorkers get power? The "options include hydropower from Quebec and power from wind farms." Great. But what will we do when the wind doesn't blow? At least the reporter admits that "New York City could be burdened with higher energy prices." Could be? Will be! –Sunday: "Trump Denies Climate Change, These Kids Die." That's the headline on a Nicholas Kristof column about drought in southern Africa. Apparently, there were no dry spells before "man-made global warming." In truth, starvation has decreased dramatically thanks to fossil fuels. Starvation now is caused by corrupt governments, not climate change. If there's a way to blame capitalism even as it improves the world, the Times will find it. COPYRIGHT 2017 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

www.reason.com

right

xAce92v0EgHJnzPz

test

OxNF6FoHcp50lVsA

race_and_racism

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jun/10/amazon-rekognition-software-police-black-lives-matter

Amazon to ban police use of facial recognition software for a year

2020-06-10

Kari Paul

Amazon is implementing a one-year moratorium on police use of its artificial intelligence software Rekognition amid a growing backlash over the tech company ’ s ties to law enforcement . The company has recently stated its support for the Black Lives Matter movement , which advocates for police reform – using Twitter to call for an end to “ the inequitable and brutal treatment of black people ” in the US and has putting a “ Black lives matter ” banner at the top of its home page . But the company has been criticized as hypocritical because it sells its facial recognition software to police forces . Amazon has not said how many police forces use the technology , or how it is used , but marketing materials have promoted Rekognition being used in conjunction with police body cameras in real time . When it was first released , Amazon ’ s Rekognition software was criticized by human rights groups as “ a powerful surveillance system ” that is available to “ violate rights and target communities of color ” . Advocacy groups also said the technology could have a disproportionately negative effect on non-white people . Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez echoed this complaint in a tweet on Wednesday , saying the technology “ shouldn ’ t be anywhere near law enforcement ” . “ Facial recognition is a horrifying , inaccurate tool that fuels racial profiling and mass surveillance , ” she said . “ It regularly falsely [ identifies ] Black and Brown people as criminal ” . An experiment run by the ACLU in 2018 showed Rekognition incorrectly matched 28 members of Congress to photos of people arrested for a crime . It overwhelmingly misidentified Congress members who are not white . Facial recognition software , like many forms of artificial intelligence , has a long history of racial bias . The field of artificial intelligence , which is overwhelmingly white and male , is frequently criticized for its lack of diversity . In a statement on its blog Wednesday , Amazon said it will pull the use of its technology from police forces until there is stronger regulation around it . The move follows IBM putting a permanent end to its development of facial recognition technology . “ We ’ ve advocated that governments should put in place stronger regulations to govern the ethical use of facial recognition technology , and in recent days , Congress appears ready to take on this challenge , ” Amazon said . “ We hope this one-year moratorium might give Congress enough time to implement appropriate rules , and we stand ready to help if requested . ” While some privacy advocates say the move represents a step in the right direction , Evan Greer , of digital rights group Fight for the Future , said this is “ nothing more than a public relations stunt from Amazon ” . She said Amazon could spend the year moratorium improving the technology and lobbying Congress to make industry-friendly regulation so the technology can be implemented in the future . Amazon spent $ 16.8m on lobbying in 2019 . “ The reality is that facial recognition technology is too dangerous to be used at all , ” Greer said . “ Like nuclear or biological weapons , it poses such a profound threat to the future of humanity that it should be banned outright . ” Nicole Ozer , the technology and civil liberties director with the American Civil Liberties Union of northern California , also called on Amazon to make more meaningful commitments . “ This surveillance technology ’ s threat to our civil rights and civil liberties will not disappear in a year , ” Ozer said . “ Amazon must fully commit to a blanket moratorium on law enforcement use of face recognition until the dangers can be fully addressed , and it must press Congress and legislatures across the country to do the same . They should also commit to stop selling surveillance systems like Ring that fuel the over-policing of communities of color . The Washington county sheriff ’ s office in Oregon , the first law enforcement agency in the country to contract with Amazon to use the technology , confirmed on Wednesday it would suspend its use of the product in light of the announcement . Suspension of this particular program does not mean all partnerships with law enforcement will be halted . Amazon noted in its announcement that the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children , as well as technology companies Thorn and Marinus Analytics , will still have access to Rekognition for human trafficking cases . Amazon also has not made changes to Ring , its camera-connected smart doorbell company , which has also been criticized for increasing the policing of non-white Americans . A report from Motherboard in 2019 revealed black and brown people are more likely to be surveilled by the Neighbors app , where Ring users can post videos and photos of “ suspicious ” people caught on camera . The doorbell app now partners with more than 1,300 police forces across the US – a 300 % increase from just 400 police forces in August 2019 . The ACLU has called on Amazon to “ stop selling surveillance systems like Ring that fuel the over-policing of communities of color ” . It also called on other companies that power facial recognition , including Microsoft , to halt the technology . “ Face recognition technology gives governments the unprecedented power to spy on us wherever we go , ” said Ozer . “ It fuels police abuse . This surveillance technology must be stopped . ”

Amazon is implementing a one-year moratorium on police use of its artificial intelligence software Rekognition amid a growing backlash over the tech company’s ties to law enforcement. The company has recently stated its support for the Black Lives Matter movement, which advocates for police reform – using Twitter to call for an end to “the inequitable and brutal treatment of black people” in the US and has putting a “Black lives matter” banner at the top of its home page. But the company has been criticized as hypocritical because it sells its facial recognition software to police forces. Amazon has not said how many police forces use the technology, or how it is used, but marketing materials have promoted Rekognition being used in conjunction with police body cameras in real time. When it was first released, Amazon’s Rekognition software was criticized by human rights groups as “a powerful surveillance system” that is available to “violate rights and target communities of color”. Advocacy groups also said the technology could have a disproportionately negative effect on non-white people. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez echoed this complaint in a tweet on Wednesday, saying the technology “shouldn’t be anywhere near law enforcement”. “Facial recognition is a horrifying, inaccurate tool that fuels racial profiling and mass surveillance,” she said. “It regularly falsely [identifies] Black and Brown people as criminal”. An experiment run by the ACLU in 2018 showed Rekognition incorrectly matched 28 members of Congress to photos of people arrested for a crime. It overwhelmingly misidentified Congress members who are not white. Facial recognition software, like many forms of artificial intelligence, has a long history of racial bias. The field of artificial intelligence, which is overwhelmingly white and male, is frequently criticized for its lack of diversity. In a statement on its blog Wednesday, Amazon said it will pull the use of its technology from police forces until there is stronger regulation around it. The move follows IBM putting a permanent end to its development of facial recognition technology. “We’ve advocated that governments should put in place stronger regulations to govern the ethical use of facial recognition technology, and in recent days, Congress appears ready to take on this challenge,” Amazon said. “We hope this one-year moratorium might give Congress enough time to implement appropriate rules, and we stand ready to help if requested.” While some privacy advocates say the move represents a step in the right direction, Evan Greer, of digital rights group Fight for the Future, said this is “nothing more than a public relations stunt from Amazon”. She said Amazon could spend the year moratorium improving the technology and lobbying Congress to make industry-friendly regulation so the technology can be implemented in the future. Amazon spent $16.8m on lobbying in 2019. “The reality is that facial recognition technology is too dangerous to be used at all,” Greer said. “Like nuclear or biological weapons, it poses such a profound threat to the future of humanity that it should be banned outright.” Nicole Ozer, the technology and civil liberties director with the American Civil Liberties Union of northern California, also called on Amazon to make more meaningful commitments. “This surveillance technology’s threat to our civil rights and civil liberties will not disappear in a year,” Ozer said. “Amazon must fully commit to a blanket moratorium on law enforcement use of face recognition until the dangers can be fully addressed, and it must press Congress and legislatures across the country to do the same. They should also commit to stop selling surveillance systems like Ring that fuel the over-policing of communities of color. The Washington county sheriff’s office in Oregon, the first law enforcement agency in the country to contract with Amazon to use the technology, confirmed on Wednesday it would suspend its use of the product in light of the announcement. Suspension of this particular program does not mean all partnerships with law enforcement will be halted. Amazon noted in its announcement that the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children, as well as technology companies Thorn and Marinus Analytics, will still have access to Rekognition for human trafficking cases. Amazon also has not made changes to Ring, its camera-connected smart doorbell company, which has also been criticized for increasing the policing of non-white Americans. A report from Motherboard in 2019 revealed black and brown people are more likely to be surveilled by the Neighbors app, where Ring users can post videos and photos of “suspicious” people caught on camera. The doorbell app now partners with more than 1,300 police forces across the US – a 300% increase from just 400 police forces in August 2019. The ACLU has called on Amazon to “stop selling surveillance systems like Ring that fuel the over-policing of communities of color”. It also called on other companies that power facial recognition, including Microsoft, to halt the technology. “Face recognition technology gives governments the unprecedented power to spy on us wherever we go,” said Ozer. “It fuels police abuse. This surveillance technology must be stopped.”

www.theguardian.com

left

OxNF6FoHcp50lVsA

test

SteLtvPygoZFjSzJ

education

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/04/13/coronavirus-parenting-school-covid-19-learning/

Kids Missing School Because of Coronavirus? Don't Worry Too Much

2020-04-13

Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Vittorio Nastasi, Josh Blackman, Ira Stoll, Charles Oliver, Jacob Sullum, Billy Binion, Ronald Bailey

Many people are finding it hard to parent in the age of COVID-19 . They 're trying to supervise their children and work from home at the same time , a combination made yet more difficult when they 're being asked to ensure that the kids spend sufficient time and effort on their online classes . Some frustrated parents are admitting defeat . One mom , archeologist Sarah Parcak , tweeted that she had informed her son 's first-grade teacher they no longer had the time or patience to participate in a virtual classroom . `` His happiness trumps crappy math worksheet management , '' she wrote . Meanwhile , education officials are worried that the children of inattentive parents could be falling behind . Some school districts are discussing mandatory remedial summer school for all kids once the pandemic has passed . The Chicago Sun-Times editorial board endorsed such a measure , claiming that `` there 's no good argument against mandatory summer school . CPS and parents—and the Chicago Teachers Union—must do whatever it takes to get school kids back on track . '' The New York Times reports that education officials around the country have been considering `` summer sessions , an early start in the fall , or perhaps having some or even all students repeat a grade once Americans are able to return to classrooms . '' These are stressful times , but parents and teachers should n't be overly worried about students falling behind . Mental health and happiness should come first . Indeed , there 's a strong argument to be made for letting many kids simply enjoy this extended summer break . `` There will probably be some falling behind , but people are likely to catch up , '' says Bryan Caplan , an economist at George Mason University . `` People do get lost over the summer and then make it up . '' Studies show that kids typically lose some of their academic skills over long breaks : summer learning loss is a real thing . But studies also show that most students forget much of what they learn in school , period . `` Many young people who learn the material forget it soon anyway , '' says Caplan . `` The idea there 's going to be some noticeable permanent deficit is weak . '' Neal McCluskey , director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute , tells ███ that the extended break might leave some kids unprepared to pass their standardized tests in the short term but probably would n't do lasting damage to their brains . `` I do n't think the time away from school will impact kids ' intelligence , '' he says . `` There are real questions about how truly important a lot of material is—will it have a major impact on someone 's life if they miss modern British poets ? —but they will miss out . '' According to McCluskey , younger kids are more at risk of falling behind than older kids , since the most valuable skills—reading and basic numeracy—are taught at an earlier age . `` A considerable part of the problem is that our system has to largely batch-process kids based on their ages , which makes falling behind a major problem , '' says McCluskey . And of course , students of all ages who rely on school for non-academic purposes , like supplemental nutrition or a respite from an abusive home life , will be poorly served by this unusually long period away from school . But it would be shortsighted to pretend that every moment away from formal schoolwork is some missed opportunity for child enrichment . ███ 's Lenore Skenazy notes in The Washington Post that unstructured free time can make room for mental and emotional growth : Though not every youngster will become an Einstein while quarantining , many seem to be turning into the kids they would have been if they 'd grown up a generation or two earlier , with more time to discover their real interests and hobbies ( remember those days ? ) , before childhood got so structured and busy . What I mean is : It 's all okay . Our kids are not going to seed even if they are sleeping , gaming and bingeing on YouTube . In fact , they 're growing , simply because kids are always growing and learning from everything—houses of cards , Nerf guns , Barbies , baths , videos , but most of all from that vital resource more rare and precious than toilet paper : free time . My advice for would-be coronavirus helicopters ? Think of the quarantine as an AP class in chilling . You can help your kids ace it by stepping back . Many stressed-out parents would undoubtedly improve their own mental health if they took Skenazy 's advice . Similarly , education officials should explore non-coercive options , such as supplemental tutoring for those who think they need it . Forcing every kid to repeat the grade or attend summer school would be a punishment that most students did nothing to deserve .

Many people are finding it hard to parent in the age of COVID-19. They're trying to supervise their children and work from home at the same time, a combination made yet more difficult when they're being asked to ensure that the kids spend sufficient time and effort on their online classes. Some frustrated parents are admitting defeat. One mom, archeologist Sarah Parcak, tweeted that she had informed her son's first-grade teacher they no longer had the time or patience to participate in a virtual classroom. "His happiness trumps crappy math worksheet management," she wrote. Meanwhile, education officials are worried that the children of inattentive parents could be falling behind. Some school districts are discussing mandatory remedial summer school for all kids once the pandemic has passed. The Chicago Sun-Times editorial board endorsed such a measure, claiming that "there's no good argument against mandatory summer school. CPS and parents—and the Chicago Teachers Union—must do whatever it takes to get school kids back on track." The New York Times reports that education officials around the country have been considering "summer sessions, an early start in the fall, or perhaps having some or even all students repeat a grade once Americans are able to return to classrooms." These are stressful times, but parents and teachers shouldn't be overly worried about students falling behind. Mental health and happiness should come first. Indeed, there's a strong argument to be made for letting many kids simply enjoy this extended summer break. "There will probably be some falling behind, but people are likely to catch up," says Bryan Caplan, an economist at George Mason University. "People do get lost over the summer and then make it up." Studies show that kids typically lose some of their academic skills over long breaks: summer learning loss is a real thing. But studies also show that most students forget much of what they learn in school, period. "Many young people who learn the material forget it soon anyway," says Caplan. "The idea there's going to be some noticeable permanent deficit is weak." Neal McCluskey, director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute, tells Reason that the extended break might leave some kids unprepared to pass their standardized tests in the short term but probably wouldn't do lasting damage to their brains. "I don't think the time away from school will impact kids' intelligence," he says. "There are real questions about how truly important a lot of material is—will it have a major impact on someone's life if they miss modern British poets?—but they will miss out." According to McCluskey, younger kids are more at risk of falling behind than older kids, since the most valuable skills—reading and basic numeracy—are taught at an earlier age. "A considerable part of the problem is that our system has to largely batch-process kids based on their ages, which makes falling behind a major problem," says McCluskey. And of course, students of all ages who rely on school for non-academic purposes, like supplemental nutrition or a respite from an abusive home life, will be poorly served by this unusually long period away from school. But it would be shortsighted to pretend that every moment away from formal schoolwork is some missed opportunity for child enrichment. Reason's Lenore Skenazy notes in The Washington Post that unstructured free time can make room for mental and emotional growth: Though not every youngster will become an Einstein while quarantining, many seem to be turning into the kids they would have been if they'd grown up a generation or two earlier, with more time to discover their real interests and hobbies (remember those days?), before childhood got so structured and busy. What I mean is: It's all okay. Our kids are not going to seed even if they are sleeping, gaming and bingeing on YouTube. In fact, they're growing, simply because kids are always growing and learning from everything—houses of cards, Nerf guns, Barbies, baths, videos, but most of all from that vital resource more rare and precious than toilet paper: free time. My advice for would-be coronavirus helicopters? Think of the quarantine as an AP class in chilling. You can help your kids ace it by stepping back. Many stressed-out parents would undoubtedly improve their own mental health if they took Skenazy's advice. Similarly, education officials should explore non-coercive options, such as supplemental tutoring for those who think they need it. Forcing every kid to repeat the grade or attend summer school would be a punishment that most students did nothing to deserve.

www.reason.com

right

SteLtvPygoZFjSzJ

test

Bpucd3uEx2bV6Gy0

politics

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-arrives-saudi-arabia-kicking-off-foreign/story?id=47526581&cid=clicksource_4380645_1_hero_headlines_bsq_hed

President Trump receives honor at Saudi royal palace on his 1st foreign trip

David Caplan, Jordyn Phelps

President Trump on his first foreign trip has arrived at the Royal Court Palace in Saudi Arabia where he will begin a full day of meetings with the country 's royalty . Interested in Donald Trump ? Add Donald Trump as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Donald Trump news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest The president was greeted by King Salman and honored with an elaborate red carpet ceremony . A Saudi military band then played the Star-Spangled Banner . The White House staff with the president -- Ivanka Trump , Jared Kushner , Steve Bannon , Reince Priebus , Joe Hagin , Hope Hicks , Dan Scavino , Sean Spicer and Dina Powell -- all shook hands with Trump and King Salman as they arrived . Trump was also presented with the Collar of Abdulaziz Al Saud , the Saudi nation 's highest honor . After the award was bestowed , the president and king spoke briefly . Their conversation at one point touched on Syria , with King Salman heard noting that the now war-torn country used to be an advanced nation and pondering how quickly a country can be destroyed . `` Syria too used to be one of the most advanced countries , '' the king said . `` We used to get our professors from Syria . They served our kingdom . Unfortunately , they too brought destruction to their own country . You could destroy a country in mere seconds , but it takes a lot of effort . '' President Donald Trump arrived in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh Saturday morning , marking the kick-off of his first foreign trip as president . The ceremony at the palace came after the president and first lady Melania Trump landed at King Khalid International Airport around 9:45 a.m. local time after an overnight flight from Washington on Air Force One . Air Force One touches down in Riyadh . # POTUSAbroad pic.twitter.com/SBdZHlxBYW — Sarah H. Sanders ( @ SHSanders45 ) May 20 , 2017 The Trumps descended down a set of stairs from the plane onto a red carpet , where they were greeted by King Salman . Ivanka Trump and husband Jared Trump exited the jet from the back steps , prior to the president . Ivanka wore an ankle-length dress . At the airport , King Salman joined the president for a walk down a red carpet , with the Saudi Royal Guard lined up at attention along either side with trumpets playing . Jets also flew overhead , leaving behind a stream of smoke in red , white and blue . The first lady followed behind , dressed in a flowing black jumpsuit and a gold belt . The president and first lady then walked into the terminal where a coffee reception with King Salman was held . The pair spoke through an interpreter inside the terminal , according to The Associated Press . The high-profile welcome stands in stark contrast to the low-key reception Obama received in the kingdom last year , when the governor of Riyadh was the highest-ranking official to greet the president . The Saudis offered Trump an elaborate welcome . Billboards featuring his image lined the highways of Riyadh and lights bathed Trump 's luxury hotel in red , white and blue lights . Amazing welcome for @ POTUS & @ FLOTUS in Saudi Arabia . Check out the 15+ miles of ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? and billboards en route to the hotel . # POTUSAbroad pic.twitter.com/9N02uI65I1 — Dan Scavino Jr. ( @ Scavino45 ) May 20 , 2017 About two hours after arriving in Saudi Arabia , Trump tweeted photos of himself there , writing , `` Great to be in Riyadh , Saudi Arabia . Looking forward to the afternoon and evening ahead . # POTUSAbroad . '' Great to be in Riyadh , Saudi Arabia . Looking forward to the afternoon and evening ahead . # POTUSAbroad pic.twitter.com/JJOra0KfyR — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) May 20 , 2017 During the hours leading up to Trump 's arrival in Riyadh , White House principal deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted photos of the city 's preparations . Tight security in Riyadh this am awaiting @ POTUS arrival . Lot of personnel/Tanks positioned at sites . # POTUSAbroad pic.twitter.com/KVwoTFjuMt — Sarah H. Sanders ( @ SHSanders45 ) May 20 , 2017 Incredible welcome for @ POTUS in Riyadh when he arrives - billboards/red white blue lights everywhere . # potusabroad pic.twitter.com/0kmdlhNzOp — Sarah H. Sanders ( @ SHSanders45 ) May 19 , 2017 The trip marks the first time a U.S. president has made Saudi Arabia , a Muslim-majority country , his first stop . Typically , Canada has been the first foreign country a president visits . After Saudi Arabia , the commander in chief will travel to Israel , Italy , Vatican City and Belgium . During the trip , Trump will meet with King Salman of Saudi Arabia , Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu , Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas , Pope Francis , Italian President Sergio Mattarella , King Philippe of Belgium and the leaders of the G7 countries , among others . The president will take part in bilateral meetings with the Saudi royal leadership while in the kingdom . The Trumps will join the Saudi royal family for an official dinner Saturday night . On Sunday , Trump will deliver a speech at the Arab-Islamic-American Summit on U.S. relations with the Muslim world and the global effort to confront religious extremism and promote moderation . He will help inaugurate a `` Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology . '' The president will also attend meetings with the Gulf Cooperation Council members .

President Trump on his first foreign trip has arrived at the Royal Court Palace in Saudi Arabia where he will begin a full day of meetings with the country's royalty. Interested in Donald Trump? Add Donald Trump as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Donald Trump news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest The president was greeted by King Salman and honored with an elaborate red carpet ceremony. A Saudi military band then played the Star-Spangled Banner. The White House staff with the president -- Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, Joe Hagin, Hope Hicks, Dan Scavino, Sean Spicer and Dina Powell -- all shook hands with Trump and King Salman as they arrived. Trump was also presented with the Collar of Abdulaziz Al Saud, the Saudi nation's highest honor. After the award was bestowed, the president and king spoke briefly. Their conversation at one point touched on Syria, with King Salman heard noting that the now war-torn country used to be an advanced nation and pondering how quickly a country can be destroyed. "Syria too used to be one of the most advanced countries," the king said. "We used to get our professors from Syria. They served our kingdom. Unfortunately, they too brought destruction to their own country. You could destroy a country in mere seconds, but it takes a lot of effort." President Donald Trump arrived in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh Saturday morning, marking the kick-off of his first foreign trip as president. Jonathan Ernst/Reuters AP Photo/Evan Vucci The ceremony at the palace came after the president and first lady Melania Trump landed at King Khalid International Airport around 9:45 a.m. local time after an overnight flight from Washington on Air Force One. Air Force One touches down in Riyadh. #POTUSAbroad pic.twitter.com/SBdZHlxBYW — Sarah H. Sanders (@SHSanders45) May 20, 2017 The Trumps descended down a set of stairs from the plane onto a red carpet, where they were greeted by King Salman. Ivanka Trump and husband Jared Trump exited the jet from the back steps, prior to the president. Ivanka wore an ankle-length dress. AP Photo/Evan Vucci At the airport, King Salman joined the president for a walk down a red carpet, with the Saudi Royal Guard lined up at attention along either side with trumpets playing. Jets also flew overhead, leaving behind a stream of smoke in red, white and blue. The first lady followed behind, dressed in a flowing black jumpsuit and a gold belt. The president and first lady then walked into the terminal where a coffee reception with King Salman was held. The pair spoke through an interpreter inside the terminal, according to The Associated Press. The high-profile welcome stands in stark contrast to the low-key reception Obama received in the kingdom last year, when the governor of Riyadh was the highest-ranking official to greet the president. The Saudis offered Trump an elaborate welcome. Billboards featuring his image lined the highways of Riyadh and lights bathed Trump's luxury hotel in red, white and blue lights. Amazing welcome for @POTUS & @FLOTUS in Saudi Arabia. Check out the 15+ miles of????????????????and billboards en route to the hotel. #POTUSAbroad pic.twitter.com/9N02uI65I1 — Dan Scavino Jr. (@Scavino45) May 20, 2017 About two hours after arriving in Saudi Arabia, Trump tweeted photos of himself there, writing, "Great to be in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Looking forward to the afternoon and evening ahead. #POTUSAbroad." Great to be in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Looking forward to the afternoon and evening ahead. #POTUSAbroad pic.twitter.com/JJOra0KfyR — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 20, 2017 During the hours leading up to Trump's arrival in Riyadh, White House principal deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted photos of the city's preparations. Tight security in Riyadh this am awaiting @POTUS arrival. Lot of personnel/Tanks positioned at sites. #POTUSAbroad pic.twitter.com/KVwoTFjuMt — Sarah H. Sanders (@SHSanders45) May 20, 2017 Incredible welcome for @POTUS in Riyadh when he arrives - billboards/red white blue lights everywhere. #potusabroad pic.twitter.com/0kmdlhNzOp — Sarah H. Sanders (@SHSanders45) May 19, 2017 The trip marks the first time a U.S. president has made Saudi Arabia, a Muslim-majority country, his first stop. Typically, Canada has been the first foreign country a president visits. After Saudi Arabia, the commander in chief will travel to Israel, Italy, Vatican City and Belgium. During the trip, Trump will meet with King Salman of Saudi Arabia, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Pope Francis, Italian President Sergio Mattarella, King Philippe of Belgium and the leaders of the G7 countries, among others. The president will take part in bilateral meetings with the Saudi royal leadership while in the kingdom. The Trumps will join the Saudi royal family for an official dinner Saturday night. On Sunday, Trump will deliver a speech at the Arab-Islamic-American Summit on U.S. relations with the Muslim world and the global effort to confront religious extremism and promote moderation. He will help inaugurate a "Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology." The president will also attend meetings with the Gulf Cooperation Council members. ABC News' Alexander Mallin and Adam Kelsey contributed to this report.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

Bpucd3uEx2bV6Gy0

test